that there are true points of faith besids those which are principal or capital For this is the ground of al our discourse following 2. First whatsoeuer is clearely deliuered in Scripture and sufficiently proposed to vs is a matter of faith Manie matters of faith in Scripture besid fundamentals and ought to be beleued But there be manie things besids the principal and capital articles that are clearely deliuered in Scripture and sufficiently proposed to vs as that Saint Paul had a cloak Saint Timothe was sicklie and the like Therfore they also are matters of faith and ought to be beleued 3. Secondly matters of faith are not Matters of faith are to be measured by the formal obiect of faith to be measured only by the greatnes of the material obiect which is beleued but especially by the formal obiect of faith for which it beleues which is diuine reuelation sufficiently proposed to vs. For euerie habit reacheth to whatsoeuer hath is formal obiect But manie smal matters haue the like diuine reuelation sufficiently proposed as that of S. Pauls clooke and Timothes sicknes Therfore they are alike matters of faith 3. Thirdly the holie Scripture In faith are both great and lesser matters Mat. 5. and 22. saieth plainly that there are greatest and least commandements and that there are Iots or Tittles of the Law And why not likwise great and les matters of beleif If anie obiect that though there be great and litle things commanded to be done yet litle matters are not commanded to be done vnder paine of losse of Gods fauour or of saluation so though litle matters of saith be reuealed and ought to be beleued when they are sufficiently proposed as testifyed by God yet are we not bound to beleiue them vnder paine Difference betwene matters to be done and to be beleued of damnation I answer that litle matters are not commanded to be done vnder paine of los of Gods freindship or of saluation becaus smal matters of their nature do not break freindship For he were an vnreasonable freind who for trifles would break freindship and the end of the law is charitie but al litle matters testified by God and sufficiently proposed to vs oblidge vs to beleue them becaus in not beleuing them differeÌ„ce betwixt Faith and charitie touching smal matters we account God not worthie to be beleued in such matters which is to denie his veracitie and consequently his deitie For who in things equally testifyed by God and equally proposed See Chillin infra c. 4. n. 3. Potter sec 5. p. 3. The principal ground on which faith relies is diuine reuelation So also p. 10. to vs as from God beleueth somethings and not others beleueth nothing for Gods authoritie but becaus himself iudgeth somethings more liklie to be true then others For if he beleued anie for Gods authoritie he would beleue al which Gods authoritie equally proposed doth equally testifie Wherfore we maie keep charitie with God though we obserue not litle matters commanded by him becaus breach of litle maters is not opposit to charitie but only to perfection of charitie But we cannot keep faith with God if we beleue not smal matters testified by him and sufficiently proposed to vs becaê° not beleif of theÌ„ is opposit to Gods veracitie which is the formal obiect of diuine faith and implicitly saieth God is not worthie of beleef in such matters For where is the lest vntruth there is not diuine or prime veracitie so his veracitie is denied by the lest vntruth but not his charitie by the lest sin Hereupon God in the last of the Apocalips threatned to put him out of the book of life who putteth out one word of that prophesie but no where threatneth the like to whosoeuer shal not keep the lest thing he commandeth 5. Holie Fathers also testifie that al things reuealed by God and sufficiently proposed to vs are matters of faith in that as we shal see hereafter c. 2. they account obstinat error in al such matters to be formal heresie and al such obstinat errants formal heretiks And as Saint Basil saied we should rather loose our liues Theodoret l. 4. c. 17. then fuffer one syllable of Gods Word to perish 6. Protestants likewise sometimes confes and must needs confes that al that is clearely testified by God and sufficiently proposed or that those points which they cal vnfundamental if they be sufficiently proposed are matters of faith and of Religion Whitaker controuer 2. q. 5. c. 17. Shal it not be a true Church if it think not sincerely of al heads of Religion if it corrupt anie point of Religion God forbid Not fundamentals are heads parts and points of faith and Religion yea it maie be a Church though it think not sincerely of some parts of faith and Religion so they be not fundamental Loe not fundamentals are heads points and parts of faith and Religion And controu 4. q. 1. c. 2. p. 527. It is not necessarie that faithful men agree in al things which are of faith so they agree in the highest the cheifest and the necessarie Behold againe vnfundamental points matters of faith Matters of faith Doctor Potter sec 2. p. 38. calleth them diuine truthes and p. 39. intending to declare his distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points saieth Points of Religion are wel distinguished Points of Religion by Thomas and Stapleton Some saie they are primitiue articles others are Secundarie So that Secondarie or Not fundamentals are points of Religion as wel as primitiue or fundamentals And sec 7. p. 71. Being to proue his distinction into fundamental and not fundamental saieth There be diuers degrees of truths and errors in Religion and commendeth Aquinas for Of the obiect of faith So also Chilling c. 4. p. 193. deuiding the obiect of faith into that which is so by itself and that which is by accident and secondarily The first be to that wherby a man is made blessed the latter that which is reuealed whatsoeuer it be as that Abraham had two sonns Loe whatsoeuer is reuealed is a truth of Religion and of the obiect of faith P. 73. There is a certaine measure Are reuealed and to be beleued The like he hath sec 6. p. 58. See white in his Def. c. 17. and quantitie of faith without which none can be saued and these are his fundamentals but euerie thing reuealed belongs not to this measure It is enough to beleue some things by a virtual faith Behold vnfundamental points belong to faith though not to the highest measure therof and are to be beleued with a virtual faith And p. 73. 74. By fundamental doctrins we meane such Catholik verities as principally and essentially perteine to faith such as properly constitute a Church and are necessarie in ordinarie course to be distinctly beleued by euerie Christian that wil be saued Other points of truth are Belong to the vnitie of faith
them heare what Paul saieth that they had ouerthrown the Ghospel who had brought in neuer so litle noueltie Which words are more cleare then to be eluded by Chillingworths Answer c. 6. p. 381. that Saint Chrysostom by Faith meaneth only Fundamental points of faith For Saint Chrysost expresly speaketh of litle things and lest particles of faith and neuer so litle nouelties Besids his exposition is voluntarie not proued out of one word of Saint Chrysostom And his reason becaus by Faith is oftentimes meant onely Fundamental points is Sophistical For it is a particularibus and dissimilibus For Faith is neuer taken for anie part of it but when that is some way declared by the speaker or writer Becaus al words are to be meant according to their proprietie and latitude vnles the contrarie be declared els we could not be certaine how words were to be taken Which were to destroie the end of speech and writing Far more testimonies of Fathers might be brought to this purpos but whom these suffice not none wil suffice 3. Reason also conuinceth that al herefie is damnable For it is a sin in a weightie matter to wit against faith Moreouer heresie is a sinful Not beleif or Disbeleif of some diuine truth sufficiently proposed to come from God which is in effect not to beleue God in that truth or to denie Gods veracitie and to giue God See here n. 5. 6. the Lie as Chillingworth speaketh or as Doctor Potter saieth An act of Infidelitie And an act of infidelitie or to giue God the Lie and to denie Gods veracitie is doubtles most damnable And as the same Potter saieth sec 7. p. 109. In this case the difference is not great betweene him that is wilfully Note this Sinful ignorance excuseth not frō heresie or sin See also Chilling c. 7. p. 404. blinde and him that knowingly gainesaieth the truth but knowingly to gaine saie diuine truth is most damnable and a sin against the Holie Ghost Nether is there anie ground in holie Scripture Fathers or Reason to denie al heresie to be damnable But some Protestants denie it merely becaus they cannot denie but that some of their Churches and Brethren culpably hold some heresies whom they are ashamed to confes to be in state of damnation 4. Protestants likewise sometimes confes that al heresie is damnable Luther in Explicat Symboli Tom. 7. fol. 124. No heretik is saued vnles No heretik saued he returne to the Church and in al things think doe and teach the same And l. de Caluin Act. 24. Detestabiles iubet haberi haereticos Spiritus Dei Bezadepun haer p. 21. non potest non esse grauissimū haereseos crimē see p. 119. See Iuel p. 43. 314. votis Tom. 2. fol. 272. If anie denie Marie to be a Virgin or doe not beleue anie other singular article of faith he is damned King Iames Resp and Peron p. 384. Damneth al who saieth he haue departed from the faith of the Catholik Church and are become heretiks Apologie of the Church of England Heresie is a forsaking of saluation and departure from the bodie and Spirit of Christ Idem we pronounce al them damned who haue a wiked opinion of anie point of Christian Religion French Protestants in their cene I excommunicate al Heretiks Feild Append. p. 23. we doe not admit anie sectaries into the communion of the true Catholik Church White in Preface to his way In questions of faith whosoeuer erreth looseth no les then his soule therby Hooker of iustific § 11. Heresie is heretically mainteined by such as obstinatly hold it after holesome admonition Of thes I make no doubt but their condemnation without an actual repentance is ineuitable Whitaker Praefat in controu One heresie is One heresie damneth sufficient to damnation And controu 2. q. 4. c. 2. No heretiks can be saued And ibid. q. 5. c. 2. we confes that heretiks are to be fled Hooker l. 3. p. 129. Heresies which are not actually repented of exclude quite and cleane from saluatiō More of the like Confessions of Protestants maie be seene lib. 1. of the Author of Protestancie c. 1. to which I wil ad the Confessions of late English Writers 5. Doctor Potter sect 2. p. 55. Whosoeuer ether wilfully opposes anie Catholik veritie mainteined by this Church of Saints or the Catholik visible Church as do heretiks their condition Condition of heretiks damnable is damnable Sec. 7. p. 74. It is true that whatsoeuer is reuealed in Scripture or propounded by the Church out of whatsoeuer is reuealed is fundamental Scripture is in some sorte fundamental in regard of the diuine authoritie of God and his word by which it is recōmended that is such as maie not be denied or contradicted Infidelitie to denie anie point sufficiently proposed without infidelitie And p. 110. Where there is no such impediment of incapacitie and the reuealed wil or word of God is sufficiently propounded there he that opposeth is conuinced of error and he who is thus conuinced is an heretik and See Andrews cont Apol. Bellar. c. 6. p. 132. heresie is a work of the flesh which excludeth from heauen Galat. 5. v. 20. p. 105. It seemes fundamental to the faith Fundamental to faith and saluation and to saluation of euerie Christian member that he acknowledg and beleue al such points of faith wherof he maie be sufficiently conuinced that they belong to the doctrin of Iesus Christ For he that being sufficiently conuinced doth oppose is obstinat an heretik and finally such a Fundamētal to saluation to beleue al sufficiently proposed one as excludes himself out of heauen And p. III. It is fundamental to a Christians faith and necessarie for his saluation that he beleue al reuealed truths of God wherof he maie be conuinced that they are from God Sec. 4. p. 99. Heresie is a greiuous crime where it is true And as Chillingworth saieth in Answer to the Preface p. 8. He giues them only hope of pardon of errors who are desirous and according to the proportion of their opportunities and abilities industrious to finde the truth or at least truly repentant that they haue not beene so 6. Chillingworth in Answer to To disbeleue what is sufficiētly proposed is to giue God the Lie the Preface p. 10. and 11. To denie or disbeleue anie point of faith sufficiently proposed to his vnderstanding as a truth reuealed by God is to giue God the Lie P. 18. If this proposal be so sufficient as the partie to whom it is made should and but for his own fault would haue been A damnable fault conuinced of the diuine veritie of the doctrin proposed a fault I confes it is and without repentance damnable if al circumstances considered the proposal be sufficient To maie and wil not see truth is damnable See Morton Impo p. 372. P. 19. When God hath interposed his testimonie on one side or other
doctrin who subuerteth it in the lest article Most truly saied Ambrose Epist ad Demetriadem He is out of the number of the faithful VVho dissenteth in anie point and lot of Saints who dissenteth in anie point from the Catholik truth Field l. 3. c. 3. There are some things explicitè credenda some things implicitè which whosoeuer wil be saued must beleue them atleast implicitè and in general 7. Martyr Epist ad peregrinos in Anglia tomo 2. loc colum 136. we answer that al Gods words as they proceed Al Gods words of equal authoritie from him are of equal weight and authorities and therfore none maie of his iudgmēt receaue this and reiect an other as fals Iames saieth boldly who effendeth in one is made guiltie of al. If that haue place in obedience to the commandements it wil be true also for points of beleif Caluin in Ephes 4. v. 5. vpon that One God one Faith writeth thus As often as thou readest the word one vnderstand it put emphatically as if he saied Christ cannot be deuided faith cannot be parted Perkin in Explicat Symbolicolum 512. Thus indeed fareth the matter that a man failing in one article faileth and erreth in al. Wherupon faith is termed in entire copulatiue Spalatensis cōtra Suarem Faith is an entire copulatiue c. 1. nu 7. Diuine faith perisheth wholy by the lest detraction and consequenity it is no true Church no not visible No Church without entire faith in which entire faith is not kept in publik profession L. Canterb. p. 325. There is but one sauing faith Item 338. And 342. who hopes for saluation must beleue the Catholik saith whole and entire in euerie point P. 105. Faith beleueth not onely the articles but al the things rightly deduced from them Doctor Potter sec 2. p. 41. commendeth Saint Basil for saying Not asyllable of diuine doctrin must be betraied And S. Gegorie Nazian for saying One word like a drop of poison maie taint and corrupt faith And sec 7. p. 74. insinuateth clearely that not fundamental points perteine to the vnitie of faith though not primarily and pag. 73. that they are to be beleued by a virtual or general faith and as it were a negatiue faith wherby they are not to be denied or contradicted Whosoeuer therfore denie thē being sufficiently proposed haue no true sauing faith The like he hath also p. 75. Al points sufficiently proposed are fundamētal to faith and as I cited in the 3. Chapter n. 5. doth oftentimes say that it is fundamental to faith to beleue al that is sufficiently proposed and that it is infidelitie to denie anie such point whos words alloweth Chillingworth and Sup c 3. n. 6. addeth that not to beleue such points is to giue God the Lie And that not fundamental points maie be so proposed as the denial of them wil draw after it the denial of this fundamental truth That al which God saies is true And if Not-fundamental points be fundamental to faith when they are sufficiently proposed how can sauing faith be and not beleue them Seing nothing can be without al that is fundamental to it as is euident by itselfe and confessed by Protestants before Sup. l. 1. c. 7. n. 6. 7. l. 1. c. 7. num 5. Besids they profès by Fundamental to vnderstand essential and nothing can be without that which is essential to it And if it be infidelitie and to giue God the Lie to denie such points how can there be true sauing faith where such points are denied seing sauing faith cannot stand where infidelitie is or the Lie giuen to God And out of al that hath beene said of faith it is euident that there can be no sauing faith but that which actually beleueth not onely al fundamental points but euen al points whatsoeuer of Gods reuealed word sufficiently proposed and virtually also al points or partes of his word whatsoeuer and that al other kinds of beleif is true heresie and a spice of infidelitie The errors of Protestants touching the essence and vnitie of true faith and true Church confuted out of that vvhich hath beene saied FIFT CHAPTER 1. OVt of that which hath been saied of the essence and the vnitie of true diuine faith together with that which shal be saied hereafter of the essence and vnitie of the true Church of God the errors of Protestants touching the essence and vnitie of true faith and Church maie be easily and clearely confuted 2. Their first and principal error out of which proceed the others is Protestants put the essence and vnitie of faith and Church in some points only that there be certaine principal articles which alone belong as D. Potter speaketh sec 5. p. 16. to the substance of faith Sec. 3. p. 60. Cōprehend the life and substance of Religion Sec. 7. p. 74. which essentially perteine to the faith and properly constitute a Church P. 78. which make vp the Catholik faith And p. 102 wherin consists the vnitie of faith and of the Catholik Church Whervpon he saieth sec 2. p. 39. Among wise men each discord in Religion dissolues not the vnitie of faith And Lord Conterburie sec 38. p. 355. saieth That to err in Not fundamentals is no breach vpon the one sauing saith And p. 360. In things not necessarie though they be diuine truths also Christian men maie differ and yet preserue the one necessarie faith And Chilling worth c. 3. pag. 159. saieth there be certaine propositions or doctrins which integrate and make vp the bodie of Christian Religion 3. But this error that the essence of sauing faith and of the true Church of God consisteth only in-certaine principal points and the substantial The total obiect of faith is al Gods reuealed word vnitie of them is clearely confuted out of what hath been saied For the total obiect of true sauing faith is no parte only of Gods reuealed word or anie part only of Christs doctrin but Gods whole reuealed word Christs whole doctrin as is euident by itselfe and is proued before and also confessed C. 4. n. 9. by Doctor Potter sect 7. p. 71. and sec 2. p. 39. where he alloweth the diuisio of the obiect of faith made by Saint Thomas into primarie and into Secundarie as that Abraham had 2. Sonns And both he and Chillingworth cited in the third chaptern 5. 6. confes that it is fundamental to faith to beleue Not fundamental points sufficiently proposed and so far fundamental that to denie them is infidelitie and to giue God the Lie But what is fundamental to faith is essential to faith as is euident by itself and Protestants confessed aboue l. 1. c. 7. num 5. And besids they confessed Protestants by fundamental meane essentials l. 1. c. 7. num 6. and 7. That by fundamental they meane Essential And if Not fundamental sufficiently proposed be essential to faith fals it is that the essence of sauing faith
the principal points of faith and in the right sense and brotherlie charitie was to pious antiquitie abundantly sufficient D. Potter sec 3. p. 69. Abundantly sufficient to saluation The main positiue truths wherin al Protestants and Catholiks agree are abundantly sufficient to saluation Chillingw c. 7. p. 408. They that beleue Sufficient to vnitie al things plainly deliuered in Scripture beleue al things fundamental and are at sufficiēt vnitie in matters of faith Lord Canterburie in his Relation sec 38. p. 372. The Church can teach the See Vsherin serm before K. Iames p. 16. 28. foundation and men were happie if they would learn it and the Church more happie would she teach nothing but that as Only fundamentals necessarie to saluation necessarie to saluation For certainely nothing but that is necessarie And for not fundamentals the same D. Potter sec Frith in Fox pag. 944. There are manie things in Scriptures which we are not bound to beleue as an article of faith 4. p. 96. saith Al necessarie or fundamental truth is conteined in Scripture making Necessarie and Fundamental al one And sec 3. p 71. speaking of not fundamentals saith By their own Confession the doctrins debated are unnecessarie Chillingworth in Answer to the Preface n. 32. Those are not fundamental points which are not necessarie c. 4. p 219. By fundamental articles we mean al those that are necessarie Ibid. p. 220. By fundamental we mean al and only that which is necessarie L. Canterb. sec 21. p. 141. speaking of not fundamentals saith The Church maie err in Superstructures and deductions and othey By and vnnecessarie truths Behold how absolutly and with out al exception of sufficient or insufficient proposal of not fundamental points they teach that Fundamental points are sufficient and abundantly sufficient to saving faith to a true Church and to salvation that nothing but the Foundation is necessarie that by Fundamental they mean al and only that which is necessarie and that not fundamental points are not necessarie are By and vnnecessarie truths And why should they say thus absolutly and without anie exception that fundamentals are sufficient and not fundamentals not necessarie to faith Church and saluatiō and not be absolutly vnderstood so vnles they would not be vnderstood as they speak but vse mental reservation even in matters of faith which al men condemn and iustly for it giueth occasion of error in faith 3. But that they mean that Fundamental points are sufficient to saving faith true Church and saluation absolutly and in al cases and Not fundamentals vnnecessarie to those ends even in case of sufficient Proposal is evident by divers other doctrins of theirs For as wee shal see her after they teach that some obstinat heretiks obstinat Papists and obstinat Lutherans have saving faith are in the true Church and in waie of saluation and obstinacie is not but where there is sufficient Proposal of truth or it is the fault of the obstinat that there is not such Proposal Besids they teach that fundamental points make vp the Catholik faith integrate and make vp the Bodie of Christian religion that in them consists the unitie of sauing faith that they properly constitute a Church essentially constitute a true Church that a true Church is al one with a Church not erring in fundamentals Breach in not fundamentals is no breach in necessarie faith D. Potter sec 7. p. 76. The Dogmatical foundation of the Church Fund make vp our faith are thos grand and Capital Doctrins which make vp our faith in Christ. P. 78. By Fundamental points of faith we mean those prime and capital doctrins of our religion which make vp the Holie Make vp the Cath faith Catholik and Apostolik faith that faith which essentially constitutes a true Church and a true Christian Ib. p. 102. In thos Essentially constitute a true Church fundamental truths consists the vnitie offaith and of the Catholik Church Item p. 73. 74. By fundamental dostrins we mean such Catholik verities as principally and essentially perteine to the faith such as properly constitute a Church And sec 3. p. 60. In which Protestants In them cōsists the life and substāce of Religion iudge the life and substance of religion to be comprised And finally sec 5. p 18. A true Church is alone with a Church not erring in the fundation Chillingworth c. 3. p. 159. calleth fundamentals The Doctrins which integrate and Integrate the bodie of Religion make vp the Bodie of Christian Religion And ib. p 140. saith Not fundamental id est no essential parts of Christianitie Lord Canter burie in his Relat. sec 38. p. 355. Errors in things not absolutly necessarie thos are his not fundamentals Soe also Vsher in his Serm. befor k. Iames. is no breach vpon the one sauing faith which is necessarie And p. 360. In things not necessarie though they be diuine Truths also Christian men maie differ and yet preserue the one necessarie faith But surely if fundamental points make up our faith in Christ comprehend the life and substance of Religion make up the Catholik faith integrate and make vp the bodie of Christian Religion if in them consisteth the vnitie of sauing faith if they properly and essentially constitute a true Church and a true Christian if a true Church be al one with one not erring in the foundation and if not fundamental points be no essential parts of Christianitie nor breach in them be anie breach in necessarie sauing faith our faith in Christ the Catholik faith the entire bodie of Christian Religion vnitie of sauing faith and the essence of a true Church and of a true Christian shal As long as the essential parts are the thing is remaine as long as fundamentals are beleued though Not fundamentals euen sufficiently proposed be not beleued nor breach in these can make anie breach in the essence or vnitie of a true Church or of sauing faith The same also followeth out of 3. their doctrin That we maie not forsake the communion in Sacraments of a Church that erreth in not fundamentals vnles she impose the profession of them Chillingworth c. 5 p. 307. That it is not lawful to separate See him p. 281. from anie Churches communion for errors not apperteining to the substance of No separation for not fundamentals faith is not vniuersally true but with this exception vnles that Church requires the beleif and profession of them So that if she sinfully err in not fundamentals sufficiently proposed but require not the beleif of them we maie not separate from her Communion Lord Canterburie sec 26. p. 196. speaking of not fundamentals saith absolutely In necessariis in or about things necessarie there ought not to be contention to a separation And sec 28. p. 139. The whole Church cannot vniuersally err in absolute fundamental doctrins and therfore there can be no iust cause to make a scisme from the
visible Church of Christ Whitaker controuer 2. q. 5. c. 18. If an Heretik must be excluded from saluation that is becaus he ouerthroweth some foundation For vnles he shake or ouerthrow some Heretiks in not fundamētals may be saued foundation he maie be saued And controuer 4. q. 5. c. 3. Al Heretiks are within the Church Alsted de natura Eccles c. 9. I saie absolutly heretiks are of the Church except those who ouerthrow the foundamental articles Morton in his Imposture c. 15. p. 413. Nether do Protestants yeeld more saftie to anie of the Members of the Church of Rome in such a case then they doe to whatsoeuer heretiks whose beleif doth not vndermine the fundamental doctrin of faith Doct. Pottersec 4. p. 111. Euen in an heretical Church saluation maie be had Lord Canterburie sec 21. p. 141. saith An heretical Church maie be a Church of Christ stil And surely one maie be saued in a Church of Christ More Assertions of Protestāts that heretiks are in the Church and maie be saued are to be seen l. 1. of the Author of Protestant Religion c. 3. And generally Protestants compare heresie to a sicknes which destroieth not a man as maie be seen in Plessie de Eccles c. 1. Moulins in his Buckler sec 92. Lord Canterburie epist to the King Chilling worth c. 5. p. 265. 269. c. 6. p. 335. and others And seing the sin of heresie cannot be without obstinacie as L. Canterb. p. 315. D. Potter sec 4. p. 120. Chillingw p. 271. is euident and Protestants confes nor obstinacie but where there is sufficient proposal of the truth or sinful want of such proposal manifest it is that Protestants do think that sinful and obstinat error in some points of faith can stand with sauing faith Church and saluation 6. The same is also cleare by what Protestants saie the Ro. Church is a true Church they profes of Papists or of the Roman Church For Protestants commonly profes that the Romā Church is a true Church hath sauing faith and is in state of saluation as maie be seen l. 1. of the Author of Protestant Religion c. 2. Here I wil add the like profession of some later English Protestants Lord Canterb. sec 20. p. 128. 129. The Roman Church is a true Church in substance and essence Sec. 26. p. 192. Protestants haue not leaft the Church of Rome in her essence nor in things which constitute a Church Sec. 35. p. 311. She is a Member of the Catholik Church Ib. p. 285. Manie Protestants indeed confes there is saluation possible to be attained in the Roman Church p. 282. The possibilitie of saluatiō in the Roman Church I think cannot be denied Sec. 38. p. 338. Saluation in Rom. faith That the Ladie might be saued in the Roman faith or Church I confes Doctor Potter sec 1. p. 11. we yeeld her Roman Church a member of the Catholik Church sec 3. p. 74 75. we acknowledg her a member of the bodie of Christ Ib. p. 78. we beleue their Roman religion Rom. Religion safe safe that is by Gods great mercie not damnable to some such as beleue what they profes And p. 62. Protestants yeeld them the substance of a Christian Church The like he hath p. 66. 81. Chillingworth in answer to the preface p. 15. and 16. saith of the Roman Church She was before Luther a parte of the whole Catholik Church c. 1. p. 42. Though D. Potter doth not take it il that you beleue yourselues maie be saued in your Religion yet c. c. 2. p. 85. The Roman Church is a parte of the Catholik Church c. 3. p. 163. Our hope is that the truths she retaines and the practise of them maie proue an antidote to her against the errors she mainteines in such persons as in simplicitie of heart follow this Absolon Thes points of Christianitie Antidote against al errors which haue in them the nature of an antidote against the poison of al sins and errors the Church of Rome though otherwise much corrupted stil retaines therfore we hope she errs not fundamentally but stil remaines a parte of the Church And these errors though to them that beleue them we hope wil not be pernitious yet c. c. 5. p. 282. we hope your errors are not absolutely vnpardonable p. 285. our and your saluation not desperatly inconsistent c. 7. p. 401. D. Potter saieth indeed that our not cutting of your Church from the bodie of Christ and the hope of saluation frrees vs from the imputation of Scisme Behold the Roman Church is a true Church in substance and essence hath the things which constitute a Church is a member of the Catholik Church a member of the bodie of Christ is not cut from the bodie of Christ nor hope of saluation retaines thos points of Christianitie which haue in them the nature of an antidote against al sinns and errors possibilitie of saluation in her cannot be denied men maie be saued in the Roman faith and Church her Religion is safe to such as beleue what they profes her errors wil not be pernitious to them that beleue them 7. And neuertheles thes same men And yet saie she erreth sinfully and obstinatly saie that the same Roman Church is obstinat and conuicted of her errors and obstinacie cannot be but where the truth is sufficiently proposed or would be if it were not the vnbeleuers See Caluin 4. Instit c. 2. §. 6. fault Doctor Potter sec 5. p. 26. The Protestants expresly accuse this Roman Church and haue conuicted her to as Ro. Church conuicted they think of manie gros and dangerous errors p. 14. She is senseles of her errors Senseles of her errors and careles to seek anie remedie And sec 3. p. 65. The first Reformers saw Rome in loue with her errors so as she would not be cured Chillingworth c. 6. p. 373. saieth The Roman Church is accused and conuicted of manie damnable errors Incorrigibla And c. 3. p. 163. is most incorrigible c. 5. p. 280. Mainteines errors with obstinacie Obstinat And ib. p. 295. would not be reformed is obstinat in her corruptions And p. 303. Papists are obstinat in their common superstition Lord Canterburie sec 20. p. 133. You thrust vs from you becaus we called for truth sec 21. p. 144. They are resolued to alter nothing King VVil alter nothing Iames in answer to C. Peron Their purpose is constantly to mainteine al they hold Morton in his imposture p. 404. To heresie and Idolatrie your Church ioineth obstinacie So that a Church conuicted of errors in faith which is obstinat and senseles of them which is incorrigible resolued to alter nothing but to hold constantly al she holds is notwithstanding al this a true Church in substance a member of the Catholik Church and bodie of Christ reteines al things that constitute a Church hath possibilitie of saluation her religion is safe
to such as beleue as they profes her errors not pernitious to them who beleue them And is not this plainly to teach that a Church sinfully erring in some points of faith hath sauing faith is a true Church and in waie of saluation 8. Nether wil it help them to saie as sometimes they doe that when L. Canterb. p. 35. 285. D. Potter sec 3. p. 46. Chillingw p. 282. 398. 400. 32. they confes the Roman Church to be a true Church to haue sauing faith and to be in the waie of saluation by Roman Church they mean only those who vpon inuincible ignorance follow her Religion First becaus this is said voluntarily without anie ground giuen in the places where they confes this of the Roman Church By Roman Church can not be meāt only inuincibly ignorants Where if they meant only of the ignorants in the Roman Church why did they not name them rather then the Roman Church 9. Secondly becaus they saie thus 2. only when we out of their grant that the Roman Church is a true Church hath sauing faith and true waie of saluation doe clearly infer that the Protestants Church is no true Church hath no sauing faith nor waie of saluation And haue no other cause to expound themselues thus but Becaus otherwise they should condemn their Church and religion Thirdly 3. becaus this is to profes that they equiuocate in a matter of religion becaus nether we nor themselues commonly doe by Roman Church vnderstand only those who in her are invincibly ignorant And if Chillingworth saie c. 7. p. 399. By Roman Church to vnderstand the ignorant members of it is a verie unusual Senecdoche much more vnusual is it by Roman Church to vnderstand them alone And yet as the same man saieth c. 2. p. 57. Men should speak properly when they write of Controuersies in Religion And as Caluin addeth Plaine dealing is to be vsed in al things but cheifly in matters of faith And if Protestants when they saie The Roman Church is a true Church had only meant the inuincibly ignorants in her it had been easie for them to haue said so and therby giuen no occasion to mistake their meaning Fourthly it is against 4. their own descriptions of the Roman VVhat Protestāts mean by Roman Church Church Morton in his imposture c. 14. sec 12. The Church of Rome consisteth of a Pope and his subordinats as of a head and a bodie And c. 4. No people can be called the Church of Rome except they be Professors of the faith of Rome The like he hath c. 2. p. 13. Feild in Apendice parte 3. The Roman Church that now is is the multitude of such only as magnifie admire and adore the plenitude of Papal power or at least are content to be vnder the yoak of it stil White in defence of his Waie c. 33. The Church of Rome is the Papacie Sutclif l. 1. de Ecclesia c. 6. We must first tel what we and our Aduersaries meane by the Church of Rome I saie that the Church of Rome is a multitude vnder one Head the Bishop of Rome and agreeing in the publik doctrin of the Bishop of Rome and the external worship and Rites of that Church Rainolds l. 2. de Idolalatria c. 1. By the name of the Roman Church I meane al thos who defile themselues with the superstition of Rome and communion of the Pope Whitaker controu 2 q. 5. c. 5. p. 506. I esteeme the Papistical Church not by number of men but of Professors And they cannot be truly called Professors but who vnderstand and beleue what they profes Al which definitions or descriptions of the Roman Church or Church of Rome ether only or cheifly agree to them who wittingly embrace her doctrin and communion 10. Fiftly this exposition of the 5. Roman Church is against the profession of the English Protestant Church For as Rouse writeth in his Catholik charitie c. 2. The Roman Church according to the Church of England is to be vnderstood of the Pope and his adherents And in the margin citeth the Homelie on Whitsontide And c. 3. The Church of Rome beeing vnderstood as before according to the words of the Church of England to be the Pope and his adherents c. And doubtles the adherents to the Pope are not only inuincible ignorants but ether only 6. or chiefly the intelligents Sixtly becaus thēselues sometimes declare that when they saie the Roman Church is a true Church they meane euen thos who wittingly follow her doctrin For Doctor Potter sec 1. p. The curst Dame of Rome is a member of the Cath. Church 10. hauing called her the curst Dame of Rome who takes vpon her to reuel in the house of God who hath manie waies plaid the Harlot and in that regard deserued See Vsher Serm. before x Iames p. 26. a bil of diuorce from Christ and detestation from Christians saith in the next page Yet for those Catholik verities which she retaines we yeeld her a member of the Catholik Is not this plainly to confes that the most obstinat parte of the Roman Church is not yet diuorced from Christ and is stil a member of the Catholik Church Moreouer sec 3. p. 74. 75. we acknowledg saith he the Church of Rome a member of the bodie of Christ and this cleares vs from imputation of Scisme whose propertie it is to cut of from the bodie of Christ and hope of saluation the Church from which it separates And the same defendeth Chillingworth c. 5. p. 266. But they separated themselues from the Pope and his adherents Therfore those they must account mēbers of the bodie of Christ and in hope of saluation or they cleare not themselues from scisme Montague also l. orig Eccles parte poster p. 408. saith The Bishop of Rome is a parte and a Cheif of the vniuersal representatiue Church And if the Pope be a parte surely al Papists are 7. Seuenthly if they did allow no Papists to be of the Church or in waie of saluation but only the inuincibly ignorants they could pretend no more charitie to Papists then we haue to Protestants For as Chillingworth Ib. p. 400. Material heretiks you do not exclude from possibilitie of saluation writeth c. 7. p. 398. Ignorant Protestants maie be saued by the cōfession of Papists The same he hath c. 5. p. 308. And c. 1. p. 34. According to the grownds of your own Religion Protestants maie die in their supposed error ether with excusable ignorance or with contrition and if they doe so maie be saued which is true if he mean of inuincible ignorance but such are no true or formal Protestants such are rather Protestantibus credentes then Protestantes becaus wittingly they hold no point of true Protestancie but the Capital points of Christianitie which are the Capital points of Papacie But howsoeuer they can equiuocate in the name of Roman Church becaus they
can take that for different kinds of men ignorants and intelligents and saie that when they affirme the Roman Church to be a true Church and a member of the Catholik Church and bodie of Christ they mean only the inuincibly ignorants and not those who wittingly follow her doctrin how can they equiuocate in the name of Roman faith or Roman Religion which is not of two kinds as its Professors are but one only and includeth the pretended errors of Rome as is euident by that Epitheton Roman when they saie men maie be saued in the Roman faith or Roman Religion is safe to such as beleue what they profes that her religion hath antidotes against al errors or sinns that her errors wil not be pernitious to them that beleue Perkins initio problematis them and withal profes as Chillingworth doth c. 6. p. 375. By your Religion I vnderstand that wherin you al what is the Rom. Religion agree or profes to agree the doctrin of the Councel of Trent Is not this to confes that euen those who wittingly follow the Roman faith or Religion which is the doctrin of the Councel of Trent maie be saued if they beleue as they profes 9. An other thing which conuinceth 8. the Caluinists that they hold that a true Church sauing faith and state of saluation maie stand with sinful errors in some points of faith sufficiently proposed or with faultie want of such proposal is their mainteining that the Lutherans are a true Church haue sauing faith and maie be saued who yet sinfully err in some points of faith sufficiently proposed to them or at the least which would be so proposed to them if it were not their fault which is al one touching sin For as Doctor Potter saith sec 7. p. 109. In this case the difference is not great between him that is wilfully blinde and him that knowingly gainsaith the truth See also Chillingworth c. 7. p. 404. That Caluinists grant the Lutherans to be their Brothers in Christ is euident by the Apologie of the Church of England and generally by their deeds and writings Here I wil only set down the Profession of Chillingworth in his Preface n. 39. See D Potter sec 3. p. 89. I hold the doctrin of al Protestants free from al impietie and from al error destructiue of saluatiō or in itself damnable and the Decree of the French Protestants in their Synod at Charenton an 1631. in thes words The Synod declareth that seing the Churches of the Confession of Ausbourg Lutherans do Caluinists cōmunicate in Sacraments with erring Lutherans agree vith the other Reformed Churches in the Principles and fundamental points of their Religion the faithful of that Confession who with the spirit of charitie and truly peaceable doe come to the publik Assemblies of the Churches of this Kingdom and desire their Communication maie without making abiuration be receaued to the supper of the Lord. Behold Lutherans admitted of Caluinists to their Communion without making abiuration which is to confes that they hold errors worthie to be abiured And the reason why they are admitted with their errors is not becaus they sin not in them or they are not sufficiently proposed to them but becaus they are not fundamental errors Nether is it likelie that Lutherans that liue in France among Caluinists should not haue their errors sufficiently proposed vnto them For this were to condemn the Caluinists of want both of zele to their Religion and also of charitie to their erring Brethren or at the least they might haue their errors sufficiently proposed to them if it were not their fault Besids Caluin contra Hessusium p. 843. Withaker controu 2. q. 5. c. 8. and other Caluinists generally affirme that Lutherans are obstinat in their errors But that which conuinceth that Caluinists account as Brothers euen such Lutherans as are obstinat in their errors sufficiently shewed to them is that Note this Zuinglius and his fellowes in their Conference at Marpurg with Luther and his Mates desired to be held for Brethren of the same Church by Luther and his And the same requested Beza and his companions of Smidelin and his fellowes in their Conference at Montbelgard though to their faces they mainteined their errors See Hospinian parte 2. historiae Sacrament An 1529. 1386. Had not Luther his errors sufficiently shewed to him by Zuinglius and Smidelin by Beza or at the least might they not haue had if it had not been their fault And yet Zuinglius and Beza accounted them for Brethren of the same Church and desired to be accounted such of them but could not obteine it 10. Moreouer Protestants generally Al Protestants err in some points of faith confes that euerie one of their Churches erreth in some points of faith And that they err sinfully is euident For ether they haue thos points in which they err sufficiently proposed to them by their Ministers or might haue if it be not ether their fault or their Ministers fault Caluin 4 Instit c. 1. § 12. Ether we must leaue no Church at al or we must pardon errors in those things which maie be vnknown without breach of the summ of religion Whitaker controu 2. q. 5. c. 8. It is not needful that al should think the same if such vnitie be required there would be no Church at al. Bucer in his dispute at Cambridg p. 481. There is no Church on earth which erreth not in faith as wel as in manners Morton Apologie l. 1. c. 68. Only Papists chaleng priuiledg of not erring Doctor Potter sec 2. p. 38. It is a great vanitie to hope or expect that al learned men in this life should absolutly consent in al peeces and particles of diuine truth p. 39. vnitie in points not fundamental is verie contingent in the Church neuer absolute in al particles of truth Item Among wise men each discord in Religion dissolues not the vnitie of faith or charitie Sec. 5. p. 22. The Church maie not hope to triumph ouer al error til it be in heauen Lord Canterburie sec 33. p. 360. This that al agree in al points of faith cannot be hoped for til the Church be Triumphant Chilling worth c. 5. p. 279. The visible Church is free indeed from al error abso-Lutly destructiue and vnpardonable but See whites way p. 110. Montacute part poster orig p. 408. not free from al error which in itselfe is damnable Thus plainly they confes that al Protestants Churches err in some points of faith that they must pardon errors which are not against fundamētal points or haue no Church at al that each discord in Religion dissolues not vnitie in faith And if Ministers haue sufficiently proposed thes errors to their Churches or would so do if it were not their Churches fault ether they haue no true Church or it maie be a true Church which sinfully erreth in some points of faith and communion with such an
simply Fundamental sect 10. p. 31. Nothing is simply Fundamental becaus the Church declares it sect 25. p. 162. Prouided it be not in anie point simply Fundamental Potter in Chillingworth p. 7. Simply and indispensably necessarie Precisely necessarie An other is Prime foundations 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 al men Chillingworth c. 3. p. 184. That maie be fundamental to one which to an other is not so Potter sec 7 p. 103. Some truth is fundamental in some persons in certaine respects which is Not to some others An other distinction is That some are fundamental Remedielesly Remedielesly others not Chillingworth c. 5. p. 290. Fundamental errors maie signifie ether such as are repugnant to Gods commaund but pardonable by ignorance or which are Remedielesly pernitious and destructiue of saluation An other Some are ether in themselues or by accident fundamental Chillingworth c. 1. p. 41. An other is some are Reductiue Fundamental others not so Reductiuely White in L. Canterb. sect 37. p. 317. Popish errors are Fundamental Reductiue p. 321. Some errors of that Church were fundamental Reductiue But what signifieth this multiplicitie of ambiguous distinctions but their ignorance or vncertainetie what is truly Fundamental and their minde to delude their Aduersarie and to confound their Reader Wheras one distinction Truly Not truly would haue sufficed For Fundamental is of one only Nature and what hath that nature is truly Fundamētal what hath it not is not truly Fundamental and this multiplicitie of Fundamentals discouereth clearely ignorance and vncertainetie what is the true Nature or Essence of Fundamental And thus we haue seene how vncertaine Protestants are What Not-fundamentals points be to wit Whether points of faith or but opinions Whether errors in them be damnable or no Whether separation ought to be made for them or no Whether they make difference in Religion or no And whether the Nature of fundamental be one or manifold Now let vs see how vncertaine also they be which are Fundamental points Which Not-fundamental THAT PROTESTANTS are vncertaine vvhich are Fundamental and vvhich Not-fundamental SIXT CHAPTER 1. IN the former Chapter I shewed how vncertaine Protestants are what a Not-fundamental point is but now saie one thing now the contrarie as it serueth for their present purpose ether to iustifie a Church that sinfully erreth in Not fundamentals For then they are no points of faith but disputable opinions light matters for which no separation ought to be made or to iustifie their separation from a Church which they confes erreth but in Not-fundamentals For then they are matters of faith and errors in them horrible and of themselues damnable and iust cause of separation or schisme Now I wil shew their like vncertaintie which are the points that are Fundamental and which Not-fundamental and that as it serueth to their present purpose ether to iustifie a Church or to condem a Church they make the self same points to be Fundamental or Not fundamental 2. And as for their vncertaintie Impossible for Protestants to giue an exact catalogue of Fundamentals or ignorance which are al the Fundamental points themselues profes it For thus Chillingworth c. 3. p. 166. we know not precisely iust how much is fundamental p. 134. It is impossible to set down an exact Catalogue of Fundamentals Which he repeateth p. 135. and c. 4. p. 201. c. 6. p 367. and in Answer to the Preface p. 26. And c. 7. p. 408. Protestants do not agree touching what points are fundamental Lord Canterb. sec 38. p. 325. To set bounds to this and strictly to define it for particular men Iust thus far you must beleue in euerie particular or incurdamnation is no work for my pen. And ibid. 372. The Church cannot teach iust how far euerie man must beleue as it relates to the possibilitie or impossibilitie of his saluation in euerie particular And if it be impossible for them to set down an exact Catalogue of fundamentals it is impossible for them to tel exactly which are Fundamentals and which Not-fundamentals 3. But at other times they vndertake to giue vs an exact Catalogue of fundamētals For thus Chillingworth c. 4. p. 193. Concerning the Creeds conteining the Fundamētals of Christianitie The Creed as it is explained is a sufficiēt Catalogue of Fundamentals This is Doctor Potters assertiō The Creed of Apostles as it is explained in latter Creeds of the Catholik Church is esteemed a sufficient Summarie or Catalogue of Fundamentals by the best learned Romanists and by Antiquitie The like he hath p. 413 Behold a sufficient Catalogue of Fundamentals And ibid p. 206. The Apostles Creed is a perfect The Creed is a sufficient Summarie of Fundamentals Summarie of the Fundamentals of the Christian faith c. 1. p. 41. The Creed is a sufficient or more then a sufficient Summarie of thos points of faith which were of necessitie to be beleued actually and explicitly And thes are his Fundamentals And c. 3. p. 133. This is the minimum quod sic wherin in men capable of faith God wil be pleased and he that knoweth minimum quod sic and the lowest degree of faith doth he not know Maximum quod sic and the highest degree And ibid. p. 150. They Out of Scripture we maie learne which are Fundamentals which not maie learn from the Scripture that such points are fundamental others are not so And if they can learn from the Scripture that such points are fundamental others are not why can they not gather out of Scripture a Catalogue of Fundamentals C. 7. p. 408. You ouerreach in saying Protestants cannot agree touching what points are fundamental Doctor Potter sect 7 p. 78. Those prime and Capital doctrines of our Religion which make vp the Catholik and Apostolik faith that faith which essentialy constitutes a true Church and a true Christian Thes fundamentals are al conteined in the rule of faith which The Apostles creed is a catalogue of Fundamentals rule hath been summed vp and contracted into the Apostles Creed and hath been receaued by Orthodox Christians of al Ages and places as an absolute Summarie of the Christian faith And after he had proued this saith p. 94. Now our Mistaker Feild l. 3. c. 4. nameth which they account fundamentals hath his Catalogue of fundamentals Behold againe a Catalogue of fundamentals Sect. 3. p. 60. The things wherin Protestants doe iudge the life and substance of Religion to be comprised are summarily deliuered in the Symbols or Creeds And what are those in which the life and substance of Religion is comprised but Fundamentals And ibid. p. 61. To those twelue Articles which the Apostles in their Creed esteemed The Creed is
a sufficient Summarie of fundamentals a sufficient Summarie of holsome doctrin they Papists haue added manie more And what difference is there betwixt a Summarie and a Catalogue 4. Lord Canterburie sec 38. p. 371. The foundation is sufficiently known by Scripture and the Creeds And if it be sufficiently known why cannot Protestants giue vs an exact Catalogue of Fundamentals Sect. 37. p. 319. If he meane different in the foundation itself the Creed then c. Lo here the Creed is the foundation Sec. 38. cit p. 334. The Protestants haue as infallible assurance as you can haue of al points which they account fundamental yea and of al which were so accounted by the Primitiue Church and these are but the The Creed and some deductions from it Creed and some few and those immediate deductions from it Lo Potestants know al points which they account fundamental and why then can they not giue an exact Catalogue of them Sec. 10. p. 28. The Creed is a common is a Deductions cannot be fundamentals constant foundation Deductions from it cannot be fundamental The English Deputies in the Synod of Dort sess 15. The fundamental heads of Religion are conteined in the Creed the Lords praier Decalogue and the Sacraments Behold Christian Reader how these men sometimes cannot giue an exact Catalogue of fundamentals sometime they can Sometimes al the fundamentals are conteined in the Apostles Creed sometimes in the Apostles Creed and in some few and immediat deductions from it At other times deductions from the Creed cannot be fundamental Sometimes al fundamentals are comprised in the Symbols and Creeds and at other times al the fundamentals are conteined in the Creed the Lords praier Decalogue and Sacraments Who wil see more of the Protestants vncertaintie which articles are to be accounted fundamental maie read lib. 1. of the Author of Protestancie c. 3. num 1. and 2. 5. In like manner they are vncertaine whether the pretended truthes against which they saie the Roman Church erreth be fundamental or no. For as we saw in the former Chapter nu 7. sometimes they saie she holdeth the foundation the fundamental The errors which Rome holds are not fundamental truths erreth not in fundamentals and holdeth al that is absolutly necessarie to saluation And the same followeth euidently out of that they grant the Roman Church to be a true Church in essence and saie that she and the Protestant Church and their Religions be al one in substance For nether could she be a true See their words infra c. 7. n 3. 4. and c. 2. n. 3. Church in essence if she erred in anie fundamental point nether can thes Churches or Religions be alone in substance which differ in fundamental points But at other times they auow that the errors of the Roman Church are fundamental and in themselues damnable and consequently opposit to some fundamental points of faith For thus Whitaker controu 2. q. 6. c. 3. The Roman Church Errors of Rome fundamental and damnable hath taken away manie fundamental Articles of faith and corrupted faith in the principal points Chillingworth c. 5. p. 263. where doth he D. Potter saie that you had for the substance the true preaching of the word or due administration of the Sacraments or where does he saie you wanted nothing fundamental or necessarie to saluation Ibid p. 280. As for your pretence that yours errors are confessed not to be fundamental it is an affected mistake as I haue often told you p. 289. Your Church did fal into substantial corruptions And p. 305. A fals hood it is that the. Doctor iudges the Roman Rom. errors in thēselues fundamental errors not to be in themselues fundamental or damnable p. 308. As for your obtruding vpon vs that we beleue the points of difference not fundamental or necessarie you haue beene often told that it is a calumnie And c. 7. p. 387. False pretence that we confes the Roman Are damnable heresies Church free from damnable heresie and yeelding you saluation no Protestant is guiltie of it And p. 34. 282. 278. 293. Poperie in it self destroies saluation and 400. saieth The errors of the Rom. Church are in themselues damnable And c. 5. p. 256. 283. She is guiltie of impietie and idolatrie which he saieth is without question to err in necessarie matters In like sort Lord Canterburie sec 33. p. 275. al. 257. Transubstantiation taken properly cannot stand with the grounds of Christian Religion Sec. 37. p. 320. The Church of Rome hath in the expositions both of Creeds and Councels quite changed and lost the sense and meaning of some of them And yet ibid. p. 319. saieth The Creed is the foundation Item p. 321. It is almost apparent by D. Whites answer set down before at large That he neuer saied that the Church of Rome erred only in points Not-fundamental Sec. 38. p. 325. You haue manie dangerous errors about the verie foundation in that which you cal the Roman faith And p. 327. The Roman Church at this day doth not beleue the Scripture and Creeds in the sense in which the ancient Primitiue Church receaued them And addeth as before the Creed is the foundation Thus vncertaine thes men be whether the pretended errors of the Roman Church be fundamental or no. But sometimes they are sometimes they are not as it serueth for their present purpose 9. Perhaps some to saue thes contradictions See Chillingw c. 5. p. 209. 291. 336. Potter sec 7. p. 71 of Protestants that the Roman Church holds al the fundamentals and holds them not al hath fundamental errors and hath not wil saie that fundamental points are of two kinds Some are fundamental not only by reason of their reuelation from God and their sufficient proposal to vs but also of their owne nature fundamental or necessarie to sauing faith Church and saluation as the passion of Christ and such like capital articles others not of their owne nature but merely because they are reuealed from God and sufficiently proposed to vs are fundamental to faith Church and saluation as that Saint Paul had a cloack c. And that when Protestants confes that the Roman Church holdeth al the fundamentals or erreth not in fundamentals they meane of fundamentals of the first kinde when they saie she erreth in fundamentals they meane of the latter kinde and so do not contradict themselues becaus they do not affirme and denie the same kinde of fundamentals True it is that there is this difference betweene points of faith that some are fundamental to sauing faith to a true Church and to saluation both of their nature and by reuelation sufficiently proposed to vs as the mysteries of the Trinitie the passion of Christ and such like others are fundamental or necessarie to sauing faith Church and saluation only by reason of Gods reuelation sufficiently proposed as that Abraham had two Sonns and such like But this wil not suffice
to saue the aforesaied Protestants from plaine cōtradiction becaus if not in wonds in effect and sense they both affirme and denie that the Roman Church holdeth and holdeth not al points of faith that are fundamental of their nature For whiles they saie that she is a true Church in essence a member of the Catholik Church and of Christ that she holds the fundamental points which constitute a Church which are the life and substance of Religion the simply necessarie truths by which some are saued and that her substance and Religion is the same with the Protestants they must needs meane that she holdeth al the points which of their nature are fundamental to sauing faith Church and saluation and contrariwise whiles they saie that the Roman Church holdeth errors of themselues fundamental hath corrupted faith in the principal points hath not the substance of preaching the word is fallen into substantial corruptions holdeth that which cannot stand with the grounds of Christianitie hath quite lost the sense and meaning of some articles of the Creed is guiltie of impietie and idolatrie and scisme they must needs meane that she holdeth not al points which of their nature are fundamental to sauing faith Christian Church and saluation Nether finally doth this differēce between points of faith iustifie these Churches which they cannot denie but sinfully err in such points as they terme Not-fundamental points For whencesoeuer a point be fundamental to faith Church and saluation whether of its nature and reuelation too or of reuelation only they cannot stand without that which is fundamental to them as is euident by itselef and Protestants confes it as we shal see beneath c. 7. n. 5. Besids themselues profes c. 7. n. 6. that by Fundamental they meane Essential and vndoubted it is that nothing can be without that which is essential to it 7. And as vncertaine Sacramentaries are whether the errors of Lutherans be fundamental or no. For sometimes they are not fundamental nay light matters and not to be regarded as we shewed before c. 5. n. 5. And Chillingworth in his Preface nu 39. saieth I hold the doctrin of al Protestants free from al impietie and from al error destructiue of saluation or in it self No error of Protestants is itself damnable damnable c. 5. p. 306. we iudge they Protestants haue no errors damnable 8. But at other times the Luherans Lutherans errors are fundamental error of Consubstantiation or real presence of Christs Bodie in the Eucharist is fundamental For Caluin Admonit vltima ad Wesphal p. 831. saieth It necessarily draweth with it impious Idololatrie In consensu c. p. 754. It is no les absurd then Transubstantion And Epistle 292. with pernicious iuglings it ouerthroweth the foundations of faith And Epistle 81. It recalleth the dotages of Martion and Eutiches Sadeel de coniunctone c. It destroieth the nature of Christ Pareus in Galat. 3. sec 37. Nothing can be more opposit to the articles of Christian faith And the like saie commonly al Sacramentaires or Caluinists of the Lutherans vbiquitie as is to be seene l. 1. of the Author of Protestancie c. 3. nu 5. 9. Thus wee see how vncertaine Protestans are which are their fundamental D. Potter sec 3. p 60. sec 7. p. 74. 78. Chilling c. 3 p 159. L. Cant. sec 26. p. 192. points of faith which as they speak comprehend the substance of Religion integrate and make vp the bodie of Christian Religion essentially constitute a true Church and in ordinarie course are necessarie to be distinctly and expresly beleued of euerie one that wil be in the Church and be saued And which are their Not fundamentals which are not of the substance of Christian Religion Church or saluation And which are fundamental errors which destroie the substance of sauing faith of a true Church and of the waie of saluation and which are not fundamental errors which only destroie some perfection of sauing faith of a Church or of the waie of saluation And consequently they must be vncertaine which is substantially a saving faith or a true Church which is not which is a substantial waie of saluation which is not and whether they haue a substantial sauing faith be in a substantial true Church and substantial waie of saluation or no And also vncertaine with what Church they maie lawfully communicate Then the which nothing can be more miserable For as Doctor Potter saieth sec 5. p. 18. A true Church is alone with a Church not erring in the foundation And sec 7. p. 74. By fundamental doctrins we meane such Catholik verities as essentially perteine to the faith such as properly constitute a Church And as Whitaker controuer 2. q. 5. c. 17. Morton A pologiae l. 2. c. 41. and Protestants commonly teach Puritie in fundamental points is the only certaine Note of a true Church And how can they be certaine which is a true Church which is not if they be not certaine which is fundamental which is not c. how can they be certaine which is puritie in fundamētals which is not if they be not certaine which are fundamentals which not Besids al fundamental points as Doctor Potter affirmeth sec 7. p. 74. 75. are necessarie in ordinarie course to be distinctly Al fundamētal points must be distinctly and expresly beloued beleued by euerie Christian that wil be saued And Fundamental properly is that which Christians are obliged to beleue by an expres and actualfaict And the same hath Chillingworth p. See Field l. 4. c. 22. 41. 193. 227. 209. and Lord Canterb. p. 28. And how then can they be certaine that they are in the way of saluation and expresly beleue al they are abliged to beleue if they doe not distinctly and expresly beleue al fundamentals or how can they be sure they doe this if they doe not distinctly and expresly know al fundamentals 10. If anie Protestant answer that though they be not certaine precisely which be fundamental articles which not yet they are certaine that the Creed conteineth al fundamental articles which constitute a Church and which in ordinarie course are necessarie to be actually beleued and this is sufficient to be certaine of I replie First that at least they cannot be infallibly certaine that the Creed conteineth al such fundamentals becaus the Scripture which they wil haue to teach al things whereof we can be infallibly certaine speaketh not at al of the Creed and consequently they cannot be infallibly certaine what Church or persons beleue al that is fundamental and necessarie to be actualy beleued of euerie one or who is in the waie of saluation or with whom they maie lawfully communicate I ad also that themselues profes So Chilling c. 4. p. 194. that it is but only probable that the Creed conteineth al fundamental Probable onely that the Creed conteineth al fundamentals articles For thus Doctor Potter sec 7. p. 102. It remaines verie probable
is vniuersally perfect and halteth in nothing And Epistle 48. Perhaps she is called Catholik becaus she truly holdeth the whole of which truth some peeces are found in diuers heresies The like hath Saint Cyril Catechesi 18. S. Optatus l. 1. Patianus Epist 1. Vincet c. 3. But who denie anie point of faith sufficiently proposed are not vniuersally perfect nor truly hold the whole but halt in something Therfore they are not Catholiks and consequently not of the true Church Hooker l. 5. p. 324. Cyprian with the greatest part of African Bishops were of nothing more certainly persuaded then that heretiks are as rotten branches cut of from the life and bodie of the true Church 4. And in the same manner doe 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 vnited together in profession of true faith and communion of Sacraments This definition saieth he is receaued by Hiremias P. C. Resp 1 ad VVirtenb Qui se non totos veritati dediderunt nè in Christi quidem Ecclesia sunt our Aduersaries Whence it followeth that the true Church is discerned by profession of true faith And that he meaneth by true faith entire true faith I proue First becaus parte of true faith is not absolutly true faith but a parte there of Secondly becaus he saieth Catholiks admit this definition which they neuer admit vnles by true faith be meant entire true faith Thirdly Entire true doctrin is the Note of the Church becaus c. 28. he saieth The whole entire doctrin of saluation is the Note of the Church Therfore when he defined the Church by profession of true faith he meant entire true faith And in the saied c. 26. he saieth The true Church Field l. 2. c. 2. Entire profession of the truth reuealed by Christ distinguisheth right beleuers from heretiks is opposed to heretiks and Schismatiks And c. 25. The question which is the true Church is of the Orthodox Church ioined in Communion by what Notes she maie be discerned from heretiks schismatiks and idolaters Whatsoeuer Church therfore is heretical or not orthodox is no true Church 5. And generally al Protestants put in their definitions of the true The Church professeth the pure entire an vncorrupt word of God Church Pure sincere entire and incorrupt word of God The confession of England ar 19. The visible Church of Christ is a Congregation in which the pure word of God is preached The Swisers Confession c. 17. In which is sincere preaching of Gods word The French Confession Caluin 4. instit c. 2 §. 3. vbi ad definitionem Ecclesiae vētum est haerent in suo luto art 27. In which is consent in embracing pure Religion Beza Epist 24. and Sadeel contra Turian loco 1. In which the doctrin of the Ghospel is purely deliuered And loco 30. When I defined the visible Church consisting of al her parts I saied that puritie of doctrin and true vse of Puritie of doctrin essētial to the Church Sacraments was essential to the Church Vrsinus in Catechis q. 2. In which the entire and vncorrupt doctrin of the Law Entire and Gospel is embraced Field l. 2. of the Church c. 2. Entire profession of thos supernatural verities which God hath reuealed in Christ is essential and giueth being to the Church Fulk Ioan. 14. not 5. The true Church of Christ can neuer fal vnto heresie It is an impudent slander to affirme that we say so The Magdeburgians Centur. 1. cap. 4. In which the sincere doctrin of the Ghospel is embraced Iames Andrews li. contra Hosium p. 210. In which the incorrupt word of God vncorrupt soundeth Whitaker contro 2. q. 5. c. 17. Sincere preaching of the word and lawful vse of the Sacraments make the Church so as where they are not the Church is not And c. 18. The Church is no other multitude then which holdeth the pure preaching of the word Ibid. It can not hold anie heretical doctrin and yet be a Church Spalatensis l 7. de Repub. c. 10. nu 26. The forme of the Catholik Church is the Forme of the Church is entire profession of Christs faith entire profession of Christs faith And c. 12. num 132. To the true Church two things only are required to wit entire faith in Christ and peace and cōmunion with al that profès this faith Caluin in Ioan. 10. v. 1. We must not communicate with anie other Societie then that which conspires in the pure faiih of the Ghospel Besids Protestants profès puritie in doctrin to be the essential Note of the Church as Beza lib. de Notis Eccles Whitaker controu 2. q. 5. c. 17. Morton l. 2. Apolog. c. 41. Danaeus contr 4. p. 741. Riuet tract 1. sec 45. Luther in caput 2. Isaiae In which confessions of Protestants we are to Note how when they intend to define the true Church they put pure sincere entire and vncorrupt doctrin in its definition and saie that such doctrin is the essential Note of a true Church and the forme therof Also how they denie anie companie to be a true Church which hath not the pure word But such as sinfully denie the not fundamental points of Gods word sufficiently proposed profès not his pure sincere entire and vncorrupt word Therfore they are not of the true Church 6. To this no other answer can be Protest can not answer without cōfession that they equiuacate giuen but that when Protestants define the true Church by the pure sincere entire word of God or saie that such is the essential Note or forme of the Church they meane only pure sincere entire or vncorrupt in fundamental points of Gods word not in al Gods word sufficiently proposed But this euasion in clearely refuted First becaus this condemneth their definition of obscuritie or defect Next becaus if they had only defined the Church to be a cōpanie in which the word of God or the faith of Christ is professed they could not haue expounded it of anie parte of Gods word or of Christs faith becaus the word of God The faith of Christ signifie his whole word his whole faith as the Church signifieth the 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 parte of anie parte of Gods word or of Christs faith seing they haue added to the word of God or to the faith of Christ those most significant adiectiues pure sincere entire vncorrupt For VVhat is pure hath no mixture and what entire is no part what is the pure sincere vncorrupt word of God cannot be mixt with anie falsitie or word of man And what is the entire word of God cannot be a parte only but must needs be his whole word Whosoeuer therfore sinfully profés anie
fundamētal or principal points For thus Doctor Potter sec 4. p. 127. The error of Nouatian was not it itself heretical especially in the proper and most heauie sense of that word Saint Augustin also lib. 18. de ciuit Dei c. 51. The Diuel raised heretiks who vnder Christian name should resist Christian doctrin as if they might be permitted in the The Church can not haue men of contrarie beleifs cittie of God without correption as the cittie of confusion had indifferently philosophers thinking both different and contrarie things who therfore in Christs Church haue anie vnsound and naughtie opinion if being corrected for to beleue Note aright do obstinatly resist and wil not amend their pestiferous opinions but persist to defend them become heretiks and going out are held for exercising enimies Lib. de haeres after he had reckoned manie heresies saieth whosoeuer shal hold anie one of them shal be no Catholik Christian And yet diuers of them are not against anie fundamental or principal point of faith And l. 2. ad Gaudent c. II. If ours be Religion yours is superstition And epistle ad Donatistas post Collat. and epistle 152. If our Church be true yours is false Al which sayings and inferences of the Fathers were false if the Church could be sinfully deuided in points of faith For being so deuided she were not absolutly one nor one only nor Not manie but truly not one and truly manie nether would it follow that if the Church were with thos who denie the Not fundamentals that it were not with them who beleue them nor that whosoeuer hold anie of the heresies related by S. Augustin were no Cath. Christians as is euident 6. Reason also conuinceth the same For the true Church of Christ is a societie in profession of the faith or doctrin of Christ But the faith or doctrin of Christ signifieth his whole faith and doctrin Therfore the Church is a Societie in profession of Christs whole doctrin But None dare define the Church by profession of part of Christs doctrin where there is profession of Christs whole doctrin there can be no diuision in his doctrin Nether durst euer anie Protestant yet define the Church to be a societie in profession of anie parte of his doctrin For the name of a parte of Christs doctrin sheweth that it is not absolutely Christs Church but in parte only Besids the Church C. 6. n. 5. l 2. before defined of Protestants is a Societie in profession of Christs pure sincere vncorrupt and entire doctrin But where there is vnion in profession of Christs pure and entire doctrin there can be no diuision at al in doctrin For his pure doctrin excludeth al mixture of doctrin and his entire doctrin includeth al his whole doctrin And if Protestants wil constantly stand to their foresaied definitions it is impossible for them to imagin anie sinful diuision in the true Church in points of Christs doctrin 7 If anie obiect that hence it would follow that a particular Church or person erring inuincibly in some point of faith is no true Church or true member of the Church becaus they agree not with the Church in profession of the whole doctrin of Christ I answer what Church or person inuincibly erreth in some secundarie point of faith doth virtually or implicitly beleue that verie who inuincibly err in not fundamētals virtually and implicitly beleue them truth against which he erreth becaus he explicitly beleueth the Catholik Church which teacheth that truth And implicit beleif of secundarie points not sufficiently proposed sufficeth to a true particular Church and to a true member of the Church Hervpon Doctor Potter sec 7. p. 75. saieth By virtual faith an erring person maie beleue the truth contrarie to his owne error in as much as he yeelds his assent implicitly to that Scriptare which conteines the truth and ouerthrowes his error though yet he vnderstand it not And Chillingworth in Answer to the Preface p. 18. They beleue implicitly thos But who vincibly err doe not virtually beleue verie truths against which they err But this is not true of such Churohes or persons who sinfully err against anie points sufficiently proposed and therfore they are not at al ether explicitly or implicitly vnited or sociated in the profession of Christs entire doctrin And consequently are not of his true Church which is a societie in profession ether explicitly or implicitly of his whole doctrin C. 5. n. 7. l. 2. 8. And this argument is confirmed by what before we shewed that the faith or doctrin of Christ is an indiuisible Copulatiue And therfore al the points of it must be professed or it is not professed For an indiuisible must be al had or none And who professeth only some parte of Christs doctrin doth not profès the doctrin of Christ but some parte and no parte is the whole And as they profès but some parte of his doctrin and not the whole so they are but in parte Christians and indeed not Christians For a whole or entire Christian professeth Christs doctrin wholy and entirely and who professeth it but in parte and in parte reiecteth it as do they who reiect anie point of his Heretiks but in part Christians doctrin fufficiently proposed is but in parte a Christian and indeed no Christian And hence it is that holie Fathers saie that heretiks are no Christians as indeed they are not if by Christians we meane not men Christened but followers of Christs doctrin For they follow not Christs doctrin what Churches differ in profession of faith differ essentially but only some parte of it and reiect the rest Moreouer Churches voluntarily differing in profession of Christs faith or doctrin differ in the essence of the Church and consequently essentially For profession of Christs faith or doctrin is of the essence of his Church and as such is put of al men in the definition therof But Churches wherof one professeth al points of Christs doctrin fundamental and Not fundamental and the other professeth only fundamentals and sinfully reiecteth Not fundamentals though they be sufficiently proposed differ in profession of Christs doctrin For his doctrin includeth as wel Not fundamentals as fundamentals they being equally reuealed by him and equally proposed to vs as I suppose Therfore the one of thes is no true Church For Christ hath not two Churches essentially differing 9. Lastly I proue that vnitie in onely fundamental points of faith is not sufficient to the vnitie of the Church For then the certaine vnitie of the Church could not be known as Protestants profès they know not the certaine number of fundamental points nor giue anie certaine mark to know which are they And so we could not be certaine who were of the Church who not with whom we maie communicate with whom not as we cannot know certainely which are the fundamental points which are not Seing we can nether haue a Catalogue of them
nor anie certaine mark to know them But Catholiks who Catholiks know who are of their Church and Protestants not measure not the vnitie of the Church by fundamental points only but by beleif of al points of faith sufficiently proposed to them clearely see who are of the true Church who are not and with whom they maie communicate with whom not 10. Protestants also sometimes Protestants sometimes confes the vnitie of the Church in matters of faith to be entire The Church is one confès that the true Church is wholy one and vndeuided in profession of faith For first they saie simply and absolutly that the Church is one So the confession of Auspurg art 7. The Apologie of the Church of England and Protestants generally Also that it is one only So confessio Heluetica One onely c. 17. Belgica art 27. Perkins vpon the Creed art de Eccles Iames Respons ad Peron p. 384. Beza de pun haeret p. 25. Sadeel praefat ad artic Abiurat likewise that the Church is not manie Luther l. contra Papatum Not manie tom 7. p. 461. Christ knoweth not two kinds of vnlike Churches but one only Church Melancton in Hospin parte 2. hist fol. 81. we spake sharply to them in this point that we maruailed with what conscience they Sacramentaries could hold vs for Brethren whom they thought to err in doctrin And fol. 82. Luther spake grauely to them saying he much maruailed how they could haue him for a brother if they thought their doctrin true Caluin 4. instit c. 1. paragr 4. we cannot haue two or three Churches but Christ must be deuided See him Ioan. 10. v. 17. Musculus loco de Eccles sec 2. The true Church of Christ is not manifold but one only And Whitaker controuer 2. q. 1. c. 10. taketh it so il that we should saie They put two Churches as he saieth It is a mere slaunder And ibid. q. 3. c. 3. auoucheth That it is impossible the Church should consist of them who profès cōtrarie faiths Serauia de gradibus Ministrorum c. 2. The Church is one which cannot be cut The Church can not be deuided or deuided Lord Canterburie sec 35. p. 284. T is true There is but one true faith and but one true Church Ib p. 310. It is as necessarie to beleue one God our father as one Church our Mother P. 366. There is but one Baptisme as welas but one Church Sec. 23. p. 147. Christgaue his natural bodie to be rent and torne Elien in Tortura p. 398. Ecclesia vnum corpus vpon the Cros that his mystical bodie might be one Chillingworth in Answer to the preface p. 7. D. Potter tels him His labour is lost in prouing the vnitie of the Catholik Church wherof there is no doubt or controuersie D. Potter sec 2. p. 22. No Protestant denies the Catholik Church to be one Confessio Heluet. c. 17. The Church is not deuided or seuered in itself But how can thos Churches be simply and absolutly saied to be one only one not manie not two or three not deuided which are not one Vnitie in some points is but vnitie secundū quid and is true multiplicitie are manie are deuided in profession of points of faith sufficiently proposed Doth not want of vnitie or diuision in profession of such points make want of vnitie or substantial diuision in Churches Why should Luther or Melancthon maruaile that Sacramentaries would account them brethren and yet condemn their doctrin if men holding obstinatly false doctrin maie be brethren of the same Church 11. Moreouer sometimes they Diuision in Religion is a Note of a false Church confès that diuision in faith or Religiō is a certaine note of a false Church Spalatensis lib. 7. de Repub. c. 10. nu 63. Negatiuely this Note of vnitie hath ful force For if this vnitie in faith be anie waie wanting the true forme of a true Church wil be wanting Alsted l. de Notis Eccles c. 10. Dissention in Religion is a certaine Note of a false and Anti-Christian Church Wesphalus in Caluin in consens de re Sacramentaria p. 756. It is proper to heretiks to disagree to which Caluin Be it so what is that to vs But where is want of vnitie in not fundamental points of faith there is want of vnitie in faith and where there is dissention in Not fundamental points there is dissention in Religion For Not fundamental points are points of faith and Religion as is before proued Therfore L. 2. c. 1. want of vnitie or dissention in them is a certaine signe of a false Church 12. Furthermore sometimes they teach absolutly without making distinction of heresie in fundamental or Not fundamental points that heresie is a departure from the Church and Al heretiks are out of the Church that heretiks are out of the Church Apologie of the Church of England parte 1. Heresie is a departure from the Bodie and Spirit of Christ Whitaker controu 2. qu. 1. cap. 12. No heretiks though secret belong to the Church of God Item An heretik cannot be a member of the Church Ibid. c. 4. That Bellarmin proueth heretiks Apostataes and Schismatiks not to be members of the true Church maketh not against vs. For none of vs euer saied so And q. 5. c. 18. It cannot hold an heretical opinion and yet be a Church And c. 6. It is false that heretical and schismatical Churches are true Churches Morton lib. 1. Apolog. c. 3. Heretiks are not truly but in name only of the Church not indeed but equiuocally Moulins lib. 1. contra Peron c. 26. The true Church is opposit to heretiks and Schismatiks Sutcliff l. 1. de Eccles c. 16. No societie of heretiks doth deserue the name of a Church And yet as we proued before al are heretiks who obstinatly C. 2. l. 2. denie anie point of Christs faith sufficiently proposed Therfore voluntarie breach in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed destroieth the vnitie of the true Church 13. King Iames also Respons ad The Church wil suffer no light corruption in faith Peron p. 388. Durstone but lightly corrupt the faith approued through the world It was easie for a Child to discouer the new Master by his Noueltie And the Theef of truth being found al the pastors of the whole world if need were were moued and being moued did not rest til they had remoued the il and prouided for the securitie of the sheep of Christ Lo how the Church would not suffer Puritie of doctrin supreme law in the Church anie who euen but lightly corrupted Christs faith And ibid. p. 385. He knowes that the supreame law in the howse of God is puritie of heauenly doctrin And if this be the supreme law in Gods howse none that teacheth impure doctrin is to be suffered in Gods howse 14. And out of that which we haue proued here and before appeareth See c. 2. l. 1. how
true Church as perseuerance in the doctrin of the Apostles is And Caluin vpon this place expoundeth it of communication of the Supper and publik praiers And saieth we must be such if we wil be truly accounted the Church before God And 1. Cor. 1. when there was a Schisme among the Corinthiās and one saied he was of Paul an other of Apollo an other of Cephas The Apostle reprouing them faied v. 13. Is Christ deuided As if it should follow that Christ were deuided if his mystical Bodie the Church were deuided Besids al the places of Scripture C. 7 nu 2. l 2. which before we brought to proue that the Church of Christ is absolutly one proue that she cannot be deuided in communion of Sacraments For such a deuided Church is not absolutly one but in parte or in some sort only The same also is euident out of our Creed where we profés to beleue the Catholik Church the cōmuniō of Saints Where communion of Saints is ether an explication of Cath. Church as * Caluin 4. c. 1. parag 3. Confessio Scotica art 16. Catech. Gal. Domi. 15 Plessie de Eccles c. 1. Kemnit loc de Eccles c. 1. See Potter sec 7. p. 88. Protestants commonly teach or a thing necessarily required to it For it makes no distinct article 3. The Fathers also as Moulins confessed * c. 6. n. 3. l. 2 before by the Church vnderstand the whole societie of Christian Fathers put such cōmunion as is opposit to Scismatiks Churches orthodox and sound in faith vnited together in communion and oppose it to heretiks and Schismatiks So that they make vnion in communion which excludeth Schismatiks who are deuided in cōmunion as essential a part of the Church of which they meane as orthodoxie or soundnes in faith which excludeth heretiks And S. Aug. Ep. 50 Donatistae de sola cōmunione litigant See him 4. cōt Crescon c. 66. it is manifest by al Fathers that they exclude as wel Schismatiks out of the Church who yet want nothing but communion in Sacraments as heretiks who want soundnes in faith And their testimonies maie be seene l. 2. of the Author of Protestancie c. 15. And namely Saint Augustin l. 19. contra Faustum c. 11. saieth Men cannot s. August puts cōmunion in Sacraments of the essence of Religion be ioined into anie name of Religion true or false vnles they be linked with some signe or fellowship of visible Sacraments So that there can be nether true nor false Religion without communion in Sacraments And epist 118. saieth God hath ioined the societie of his new people by Sacraments 4. Reason also conuinceth that Reason also cōmunion in Sacraments and publik worship of God is essential to the true Church of Christ For his Church is Confessio Anglicaart 19. Scotica c. 18. Saxonica c. 12. VVittenbergica c. de Eccles a Societie in profession of his faith and vse of his Sacraments as al men conceaue and define And it implieth contradiction that there should be a Societie without cōmunion in matters essentially belonging to the societie as Sacramēts belong to Christs Church For if there be no communion in vse of Sacraments there is no societie in vse of Sacraments And if no Societie in vse of Sacraments no Church For a Church is essentially a societie in profession of faith and vse of Sacraments And Protestants who profés to giue none but essential Notes of the Church giue right vse of See c. 6. n. 5. l. 2. the Sacraments for a note of her Wherfore what Churches are deuided in vse of Sacraments are deuided in an essential parte and consequently essentially Moreouer without communion 2. in Sacraments and publik VVithout communion the Church differs not from schismatiks worship of God the Church should not differ essentially from a Schismatical Church And it implieth contradiction that the true Church should not differ essentially from a false Church For els a false Church should substantially be a true Church Furthermore 3. vse of Sacraments and publik worship of God was the external end for which the Church was instituted and vse of the Baptisme and of the Eucharist are commanded by Christ Ioan. 3. Luc 22. How then can the true Church be deuided in her principal external end Besids the 4. true Church is the mystical Bodie of Christ and therfore as al the members of a natural bodie communicate one with an other so must the members of the true Church Nether did 5. Christ institute a Church deuided in communion Therfore a Church so deuided is no Church of Christs institution Finally al the arguments 6. wherwith before we proued the true C. 7. l. 2. Church to be simply and absolutly one proue that she cannot be deuided in communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God For a Church so deuided in not simply one 5. The same also is manifest by Confessions of Protestants For Confessio Protestants confés that the Church is a societie in Sacraments Argentinensis c. 12. saieth God would haue his to haue external societie together for which cause he gaue them Sacraments Confessio Heluetica c. 21. we are admonished by the Celebration of the Lords Supper that we remember of what bodie we be members and therfore agree with al brethren Mulhusina art 5. The Lords Supper is vsed in the Church to testifie faith and fraternal charitie Consensus Poloniae The Lord would haue his Supper to be the Sinew of publik Congregation Saxonica c. 15. God would haue this receauing of the Eucharist to be the band of publik congregation and the band of mutual charitie among the members So Potter sec 7. p. 98. of the Church Caluin 4. instit c. 1. Caluin in Ioan. 9. Pessimū in Ecclesia maxime noxium malū est schisma § 7. The Church by participation of the Supper doth testifie vnitie in true doctrin and charitie See him also ibid. § 8. Whitaker also controuer 2. q. 5. c. 20. Approueth the definition of the Church giuen by Bellarm. thus far Protestants put communion in Sacraments in definition of the Church The Church is a companie of men ioint together in profession of the same faith and communion of Sacramēts vnder lawful Pastors Where cōiunction in Communion of Sacraments is put as an essential parte of the Church And VVhere is not lawful vse of Sacraments the Church is not ibid. c. 17. Sincere preaching of the word and lawful vse of the Sacraments make the Church So as where they are not the Church is not Moulins lib. 1. contra Perō c. 26. That is the true Church which is ioined together by profession of true faith and communion of Sacraments And cap. 25. The question which is the true Church is touching the entire bodie The questiō about the Church is about the entire bodie Orthodox and ioint in communion of the Orthodox Church ioint in
Communion we ask by what external Notes we maie discerne this Church Spalatensis lib. 7. de Repub. cap. 12. num 132. To the true Church twoe things only are required to wit entire faith in Christ and communion with al faithful that profes this faith Confession of Auspurg art 7. To the true vnitie of the Church it is enough to consent in the doctrin of the Ghospel and ministration of Sacraments Sadeel cont Tur. loc 30. True vse of Vse of Sacraments is essential Sacraments is essential to the Church Caluin 4. iustit c. 1. § 2. Vnles vnder Christ our Head we be vnited to al the other members we can haue no hope of heauen There cannot be twoe or three Churches but Christ must be deuided And § 10. Ib. departure from the Church is denial of God and Christ God so much esteemeth the communion of his Church as he accounteth him a Renegate and Forsaker of his Religion who obstinatly separateth himself from anie Christian societie which hath the true ministerie of the word and Sacraments See him also in Ioa 9. Plessie de Eccl. c. 1. We cōfés in the Creed that the Church is the Cōmunion The Church of the Creed is a communion of Saints So also Confessio Heluetica c. 17. Mulhusina art 5. Argetinensis c. 15. How then can the Church which we profés in our Creed be without Communion King Iames Resp ad Peron p. 384. Damneth and detesteth thos who haue left the Communion of the See Iunius in sub Ecclesiastico c. 4. Church and become Schismatiks Casaubon exercitat 15. It is an vndoubted truth that whiles pious people adhere to a lawful and true Bishop that is a true Church of God So that if anie separate himself from that companie it cannot be doubted but he is out of the Church D. Potter sec 3. p. 74. Whosoeuer professeth himself to forsake the communion of anie one member of the bodie of Christ must confés himself consequently to forsake the whole Musculus loco de Eccles sec 3. The Church is a Cōmunion of beleuers The true Church is a Communion and societie of true beleuers Perkins in explicat Symboli col 794. As long as anie Church goeth not from Christ we maie not separate from it The same he hath in his Reformed Catholik tract 21. And Protestants commonly who exclude Protestants exclude schismatiks who want but communion Schismatiks out of the Church as is to be seene l. 1. of the Author of Protestancie c. 1. and yet confés they want nothing but communion as is to be seene ibidem lib. 2. cap. 15. I wil here ad the Confession of D. Potter sec 2. p. 42. Schisme is no les damnable Schisme as damnable as heresie then heresie P. 47. Voluntarie and vngrounded separation from the Catholik Communion is without doubt à damnable schisme And p. 56. Whosoeuer peruersly deuides himself from the Catholik Communion as doe Schismatiks his condition is damnable Finally Whitaker controuer 2. qu. 5. c. 17. p 541. saieth Almost al our men put thes twoe Notes of the Church to wit pure preaching of the word and lawful administration of Sacramēts And thes twoe we affirme to be true Lawful vse of sacraments is essential and certaine Notes of the Church and essential and perpetual Symboles of the Church And if lawful ministration of Sacraments be a true and essential Symbol of the Church how can Churches be deuided in ministration of Sacraments and not be deuided in an essential parte 6. Hence it is euident that the Protestant Church which is deuided in communion of Sacraments and publik worship of God not only in itself but also from al other Churches which they account true Churches is no such Church as Scripture Fathers Reason and themselues sometimes propose vnto vs. Nether wil it help which Doctor Potter saieth sec 3. p. 67. and sec 1. p. 19. and Chillingworth c. 5. p. 274. That they are vnited to al members of the vniuersal Church in faith and charitie For to omit that Protestants cannot pretend vnion in faith with al members of the vniuersal Church but only vnion in parte of faith becaus they pretend vnion only in fundamental Vnion in charitie is not the essential vnion of the Church points which are but a parte of faith Vnion in charitie cannot be that vnion which the Scripture and Fathers put in the descriptions of the Church For the * Cōmuniō in Scripture is in Sacraments and praier also by Fathers Scripture speaketh of vnion in Sacraments and praier The * sup n. 2. sup n. 3. Fathers speak of such a vnion as is opposit to schisme which is breach in communion of Sacraments and publik worship And Saint Augustin expresly speaketh of vnion in Sacraments which he saieth is necessarie to anie kinde of Religion true or false and also of vnion in praier For thus * Cōcion de Gestis cum Emerito he speaketh to a Schismatik Doe not saie I haue charitie proue it we haue one Father let vs praie together Besids Protestants themselues put the communion of the Church in external And by Protestants things Confessio Heluetica cap. 17. The true concord of the Church consisteth in doctrins and rites expresly giuen by God Whereby Rites they vnderstand Cōmuniō of the Church is in sacraments and Luturgie Sacraments King Iames Respon ad Peron pag. 403. Communion among the faithful cheifly consisteth in publik exercises of pietie And Chillingworth c. 5. p. 265. To leaue the external communion of a Church is by refusing to communicate with anie Church in her Liturgie and publik worship of God Field lib. 1. c. 15. The communion of the Church consisteth in praiers and dispensation of Sacraments And l. 2. c. 2. saieth communion in sacraments is essential to the Church So also ibid. c. 4. and Hooker lib. 3. p. 130. The communion therfore which is essential to the visible Church is in rites or Sacraments publik exercises of pietie Liturgie and publik worship of God Nether euer yet did anie Protestant define the visible Church to be a societie in profession of faith and communion of charitie which they both would and must haue done if they had thought cōmunion in charitie to be an essential parte of the visible Church Cōmunion in charitie cannot be essential for a Church 7. But indeed it cannot be essential to a visible Church First becaus it is no waie proued but merely affirmed by reason that Protestants can pretend 1. no other communion with the vniuersal Church For it is euident See c. 13. n 5. l. 2. they haue no communion with her in Sacraments and publik worship of God Secondly becaus the 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 parte of it should be visible And communion in charitie is nether visible
whole Church So that if she sinfully erred in not fundamentals sufficiently proposed there were no iust cause of separation D. Potter sec 2. p. 39. Amongst wise men each discord in Religion dissolues not the vuitie of faith or charitie Ib. vnitie in thes matters is verie contingent in the Church now greater now lesser neuer absolute in al particles of faith what more cleare then that according to thes men we must not separate from anie Church for error in not fundamètal points though thes be sufficiently proposed but only for errors in fundamental points or for imposing not fundamental errors and consequently a Church sinfully erring in not fundamental points sufficiently proposed but not imposing them upon others is a true Church and we maie not separate from her but must communicate with such an erring Church which we maie not doe if she be not a true Church 4. This same followeth evidently 4. out of divers common tenets or principles of Protestants as first That al are of the Church who hold the fundamental points as is to be seen l. 1. of the Author of Protestancie c. 3. and 7. secondly that puritie in fundamental points is a certaine note of a true Church ib. c. 7. Thirdly that to prove one to hold al the fundamental points without proving that he erreth not sinfully in other points is à sufficient proof that he is of the true Church Fourthly that we maie lawfully communicate with al that hold not al things but al things necessarie as speaketh Chillingworth c. 5. Morton Appeale l. 4. c. 2. Protestāts cōmunicate with al who fundamentally profes the faith of Christ p. 283. who p. 220. professeth that by Necessarie he vnderstandeth fundamental Fiftly that only fundamental points are of the substance of sauing faith Church and saluation Sixtly that they haue more charitie to erring Christians then Catholiks haue For if al be of the Church who hold the Foundation If puritie in fundamentals be a sure Note of a true Church If Holding the foundation be a sure proof that one is of the true Church If only fundamental points be of the substance of sauing faith Church and saluation and that we maie lawfully communicate with al that hold the foundation euidently it followeth that such as hold the foundation but sinfully err in not fundamental points sufficiently proposed are of the true Church Besids if Protestants allow not sauing faith Church and saluation to such as sinfully err in not fundamentals sufficiently proposed they shew no more charitie to erring Christians then Catholiks doe For we allow al to Protestants haue no more charitie then Catholiks haue sauing faith to be in the Church in waie of saluation for so much as belongeth to faith who hold the fundamental points and inuincibly err in not fundamentals becaus nether are these sufficiently proposed to them nor they in fault that they are not so proposed as is euident and Cath. allow saluation to inuincibly errants in not fundamentals confessed by Chillingworth c. 7. p. 139. and 400. If therfore they wil seem more charitable then we are they must allow saluation to such as sinfully err in not fundamentals ether sufficiently proposed to them or for their fault not so proposed For to such we nether allow sauing faith But not to vincibly errants in them true Church nor saluation And as long as Protestants hold their common doctrins hitherto related in vaine they denie that they afford sauing faith true Church and saluation to such as sinfully err in not fundamental points sufficiently proposed But now let vs see both their doctrin and deeds towards heretiks Papists and Lutherans and other erring Churches which wil euidently conuince that they afford sauing faith true Church and saluation to such as they account to err sinfully in not fundamental points of faith 5. And to omit that sometimes 5. they teach that not fundamental points are no points of faith as we shal see c. 5. Whence it wil euidently follow that beleif of them is not necessarie to sauing faith or true Church though they be sufficiently proposed they teach partly that obstinat error in not fundamental points is no true heresie nor such obstinat errants true heretiks partly that al heresie is not damnable For thus Perkins in Galat 5. v. 20. Heresie is an error in the Heresie onely in fund points foundation of Religion which saith he I add to distinguish it from errors about lesser parts of Religion Spalatensis l. 7. c. 5. n. 40. True and properly called heresie is in defect where a true and fundamental article is denied or not beleued See Field l. 3. c. 3. Eliensis Tortura Torti p. 80. and wittenbergenses praefat ad Acta cum Patriar Constant Moulins contra Peron l. 1. c. 7. I would not haue an error called heresie if it be in some smal matter and not in the foundation of faith The Casimirian Caluinists in their Admonition c. 4. p. 131. An heretik is he who dissenteth from the Creed and foundation of holie Scripture c. 7. p. 244. Not al that err in the doctrin of Christ but such as are in Beza ad defens Castal p. 495. Haereticos esse definio non omnes qui sunt Apostatae a veritate aberrantes error which openly repugneth to the foundation of Religion or from which followeth the euersion of some parts of the foundation be heretiks Doctor Potter sec 7. p. 82. The Creed is a distinctiue Note or character seuering orthodox beleuers from Infidels and heretiks So that who beleue the Creed are orthodox beleuers and no heretiks what other points soeuer they denie And sec 4. p. 127. These errors of the Donatists about Rebaptization were not in them selues heretical Yet were they in a point of faith sufficiently proposed to them L. Canterb. sec 21. p. 141. If the Church err in the foundation she Becomes Heretical Chillingworth c. 4. p. 209. There are no damnable heresies but such as are plainly repugnant to thes prime verities And p. 215. There can be no damnable heresie vnles it contradict some necessarie truth And c. 5. p. 271. Heresie we conceaue an obstinat defence of anie error against anie necessarie article of the Christian faith And by necessarie truth or necessarie article he professeth to vnderstand fundamental Here n. 2. as is before shewed So that no error against anie point of faith is heresie or at least not damnable heresie except it be against some fundamental point And if it be not damnable it maie stand with sauing faith and saluation Naie they expresly teach that heretiks against not fundamental points maie be saued and that heretical Churches are true Churches and yet heretiks cannot be without obstinacie nor obstinacie without sufficient Proposal of the contrarie truth D. Andrews Respon ad Apol. Bellarm. c. 5. Catholik and Heretik are not contrarie Hookerl 3. p. 128. Heretiks are not vtterly cut of from the
dissent in some opinions from the present Roman Church we could not agree with the Church truly Catholik Sec. 7. p. 74. saieth of Not fundamental points They are disputable in themselues and happily by plaine Scripture indeterminable And sec 6. p. 54. affirmeth that controuersies among VVhitak cont 2. q. 5. c. 8. our contentions are for faith for Religiō Protestants are only in disputable opinions not clearly defined in Scripture And yet their Controuersies arc at least in not fundamental points Chillingworth in his preface num 30. The disputes of Protestants about not fundamentals are touching such things Not fundamentals are obscure matters as maie with probabilitie be disputed on both sides and calleth Protestants men of different opinions touching obscure controuersed questions of Religion Nu. 32. Those truths wil be fundamental which are euidently deliuered in Scripture and commanded to be preached to al men Those not fundamental which are obscure-Nothing that is obscure can be necessarie to be vnderstood or not mistaken c. 1. p. 41. Thos are not fundamental Not euidētly deducibleout of Scripture which are therehence out of Scripture deducible but probably not euidently And c. 3. p. 129. calleth the points in which Protestants dissent matters not plainely and vndoubtedly deliuered in Scripture c. 5. p. 306. As for our continuing in their Churches erring not fundamentaly Communion the iustification hereof is not so much that their errors are not damnable as that they require not the beleife and profession of these errors among the conditions of their communion And 307. It is not No separation for not fundamental errors lawful to separate from anie Churches Communion for errors not perteining to the substance of faith vnles that Church require the beleif and profession of them Lord Canterburie sec 21. p. 147. termeth not fundamental points Disputable doctrin and points of curious speculation and errors in the same light Sec. 25. p. 165. Curious truths Sec. 38. p. 361. opinions which flutter about faith Curious truths And sec 38. p. 357. he affirmeth that in not fundamentals Nether general Councels nor the whole Church hath infallible certaintie And ibid. p. 358. No infallibilitie in not fundamētal points That in them it is no matter if Councels err And ibid. It it not requisite that for them we should haue an infallible assurance And sec 32. p. 226. when they know it the error if the error of a general Councel be not manifestly against fundamental veritie I would haue al wise men consider whither external obedience be not euen then to be yeelded So that obedience may be External obedience to known error in not fūdamētals yeelded against not fundamental veritie And sec 26. p. 205. Bihops subiect to Kings in spiritual causes too so the foundations of faith and manners be not shaken 4. Thirdly they teach that not fundamentals points are no points of faith This followeth euidently out of what we euen now related For if they be but opinions obscure and doubtful matters wherof we can haue no infallible certaintie or assurance not clearely defined in scripture nor euidently deducible out of Scripture they cannot saie they are points of faith vnles they wil turne faith into opinion and make that a point of faith which nether is clearely defined in Scripture nor euidently deducible out of Scripture But besids this some times they expresly teach that not fundamentals are no points of faith Not fundamentals no points of faith or of Religion Doctor Potter sec 2. p. 40. calleth not fundamental points Things beside or without the faith Sec. 5. p. 89. How Christ is in the Symbols and how in heauen and earth is no parte of faith Sec. 6. p. 54. Our Protestant Controuersies are none of them in the substance of faith but only in disputable opinions Lord Canterburie sec 39. p. 387. Superstructures are doctrins about the faith not the faith itselfe vnles they be immediat consequences And p. 388. Suppose vncertaintie in some of thes superstructures it can neuer be thence concluded that there is no infallible certaintie of the faith itself p. 341. This Athanasius Creed and the Apostles and no more is the Catholik faith Sec. 38. p. 361. he calleth Not fundamentals opinions which flutter about faith And p. 376. saieth Nor do the Church of Rome and the Protestants set vp a different Religion For the Christian Religion is the same to both And yet these Churches Not fundamētals make not differēce in Religion differ at least in not fundamental points and so Not-fundamental points are no points of Religion Chillingworth c. 3. p. 129. But you Papists are al agreed that only those things wherin you doe agree are matters Not matters of faith in which Protestants differ of faith And Protestants if they were wise would doe so too Sure I am they haue reason enough to doe so seing al of them agree with explicit faith in al thos things which are plainly and vndoubtedly deliuered in Scripture Thus Consubstantiation vbiquitie and such are not matters of faith And in answer to the preface when his aduersarie had saied That men of different Religions as Papists and Protestants maie be saued is a ground of atheisme he wil not admit Papists and Protestants to be men of different Religions but saieth p. 14. By men of different Religions he must meane Christians of diuers opinions and communions or els he Differēce in not fundamentals should not hinder communion speaketh not to the point And c. 4. p. 209. The diuersitie of opinions which is among the seueral sects of Christians ought to be no hinderance to their vnitie in communion So that the seueral sects of Christians differ but in opinions and yet doubtles they differ in not Optatus l. 2. vbi vultis ibi est Ecclesia non est vbi non vultis fundamentals Lord Canterburie also sec 39. p. 376. Potter sec 3. p. 58. White in Defens of his way c. 38. and others say that the Protestant and the Roman Religion are the same and yet grant that they differ in not fundamental points Whence it must needs follow that not fundamental points are no points of Religion For if they be points of Religion who differ in them differ in Religion 5. Fourthly they teach that no opposition to not fundamētal points Error in not Fundamentals is not heresie is true heresie as we shewed before c. 2. and it followeth out of what euen now we rehearsed For if not fundamental points be no points of faith opposition to them cannot be heresie For heresie is an error against faith And as Lord Canterburie saieth sec 26. p. 198. Heresie properly cannot be but in doctrin of faith 6. Lastly Protestants not content to teach that not fundamental 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
consisteth only in certaine principal articles And if the essence of faith consist not in them only nether doth the vnitie of it consist in them only but whosoeuer are deuided in anie points of faith sufficiently proposed are deuided in the verie substance and substantial vnitie of faith And sith the substance of faith is but one the one of the parties deuided hath no true sauing faith 4. Their second error is That as Lord Canterburie saieth sec 39. p. 376. The Protestant and the Roman Religion are the same Potter sec 3. p. 58. Reformation did not change the substance of Religion So also white Defens c. 38. The substāce of Rom. Religion different from the substāce of Protestants For the substance of the Roman Religiō as of al true Christian Religion is profession of al Christs doctrin sufficiently proposed to vs and essentially includeth Romish doctrin as is euident by that Epitheton Roman See sup n. 2. Perkins Gal s. v. 9. Politicus qui nullius est Religionis dicit nos Pontificias non differre in substātia And the substance of the Protestant Religion are only certaine principal articles of his doctrin Therfore the substance of both of them is not the same Besids who differ in not fundamentals sufficiētly proposed differ in some essential point of faith becaus as is now rehearsed out of Protestāts such points are fundamental to faith and haue the formal obiect of faith which is diuine reuelation But the Roman and Protestant Religion differ at least in Not fundamental points sufficiently proposed Therfore they differ in some essential points and in some formal obiect of faith and consequently are not the same And this Lord Canterburie seemeth to confes when p. 125. he saieth The time was that you and we were al of one beleef As if now we were not And p. 285. There are no meane differences that are beetweene vs. 5. The third error is that they haue not left the Church of Rome in her essence as speaketh Lord Canterburie The essence of the Rom and Protest Church is different sec 25. p. 192. Doctor Potter sec 3. p. 62. 66. and others commonly For sith they haue left the Church of Rome in profession of some not fundamentals sufficiently proposed they haue left her in her essence becaus her essence includeth al points of faith sufficiently proposed And therefore who leaueth the Church of Rome in profession of some points of faith sufficiently proposed leaueth her in her essence Besids Protestants saie as is related l. 1. c. 6. num 5. That the Church of Rome erreth in fundamental points holdeth errors of themselues damnable hath corrupted faith in the principal points is fallen into substantial corruptions How then can they saie They haue not left her in her essence Since they saie That she herself hath not the essence of the Church Moreouer seeing the Protestant Church differeth Protest and Ro. Church differ in al the formal partes of a Church from the Roman in al the formal essential parts of a Church to wit in profession of faith and that in great matters as in sacrifice Sacraments parte of Gods written word and such like and in communion of Sacraments and finally in officers of the Church or ministers of the word and Sacraments how can they think that their Church differeth not in essence from ours or that they haue not left our Church in her essence hauing left her in al her formal parts Finally they haue left her in her communion of Sacraments which is an essential part of her 6. Their fourth error is that Chillingw p. 273. 132. L. Cant. p. 192. they haue not left the Church of Rome but only her corruptiōs For thos points are essential points of the Church of Rome and held of her as such becaus they are part of Gods reuealed word sufficiently proposed to her 7. Their fift error is that they haue Potter sec 1. p. 7. not left the Church of Rome anie farther then she hath left herself to wit in some Change in faith is not reformation but a new formation of the Church points of faith For if she had sinfully left herself in anie point of faith sufficiently proposed she had left her owne essence and so had destroied herself And so Protestants must haue left her altogether as she had left herself altogether in destroing herself by going from some points of faith sufficiently proposed to her 8. Their sixt error is that there are some things which separate from the Church in parte only and not simply as saieth Lord Canterburie sec 10. p. VVhat separates frō the Church in part separates simply 26. For if he meane as he doth of points of faith sufficiently proposed nothing can separate from the Church in part but it separateth simply Becaus as is often saied euerie such point is of the essence of the Church separates simply from her For as Aristotle wel saieth the essences of things consist in indiuisibili and are like numbers which are changed by anie addition or substraction whatsoeuer And it is the whole word of God whose profession is of the essence of the true Church and therfore who separates from a true Church in profession of anie part of Gods word separates from her simply VVho separates from a part of gods word separates wholy from his Church And one thing it is to separate simply or in part from the word of God an other to separate simply or in part from the true Church of God Heretiks separate not simply from the word of God becaus they beleiue some part of it But they separate themselues simply from the true Church of God of whos essence it is to profès the whole reuealed word of God And Heretiks separating from profession of the whole word of God separate from this essence of the Church of God and consequently separate simply from her For to separate from her essence is to separate from her simply 9. But al thes points wil be yet more cleare by what we shal saie of the essence and vnitie of the true Church of God And both by what we haue saied of the essence and vnitie of true sauing faith and shal saie of the essence and vnitie of the true Church of God it wil easily appeare to be true what Aristotle saieth that A true definition solues al difficulties out of a true definition al difficulties maie be solued which arise about the thing defined For if Protestāts would constantly agree with us as sometimes See sup c. 3. n. 5. 6. being conuicted by euidencie of truth they doe that true sauing faith is essentially beleif of al Gods what is true diuine faith reuealed word sufficiently proposed they would neuer denie but al and euerie part of Gods reuealed word sufficiently proposed is essential to sauing faith and denial of anie part of such word of God is denial of sauing faith