CHAPTER III.

That the distinction of points fundamental and not fundamental is neither pertinent nor true in our present controversy; and that the catholic visible church cannot err in either kind of the said points.

"THIS distinction is abused bv protestants to many purposes of heirs ; and therefore if it be either untrue or impertinent (as they understand and apply it), the whole edifice built thereon must be ruinous and false. For if you object their bitter and continued discords in matters of faith, without any means of agreement; they instantly tell you (as Charity Mistaken plainly shows), that they differ only in points not fundamental. If you convince them, even by their own confessions, that the ancient fathers taught divers points held by the Roman church against protestants; they reply, that those fathers may nevertheless be saved, because those errors were not fundamental. If you will them to remember that Christ must alway have a visible church on earth, with administration of sacraments and succession of pastors, and that when Luther appeared there was no church distinct from the Roman, whose communion and doctrine Luther then forsook, and for that cause must be guilty of schism and heresy; they have an answer (such as it is), that the catholic church cannot perish, yet may err in points not fundamental, and therefore Luther and other protestants were obliged to forsake her for such errors under pain of damnation: as if, forsooth, it were damnable to hold an error not fundamental nor damnable. If you wonder how they can teach that both catholics and protestants may be saved in their several professions; they salve this contradiction by saying, that we both agree in all fundamental points of faith, which is enough for salvation. And yet, which is prodigiously strange, they could never be induced to give a catalogue what points in particular be fundamental, but only by some general description, or by referring us to the Apostles' Creed, without determining what points therein be fundamental or not fundamental for the matter; and in what sense they be or be not such and yet concerning the meaning of divers points contained in or reduced to the Creed, they differ both from us and among themselves. And indeed it being impossible for them to exhibit any such catalogue, the said distinction of points, although it were pertinent and true, cannot serve them to any purpose, but still they must remain uncertain whether or no they disagree from one another, from the ancient fathers, and from the catholic church, in points fundamental; which is to say, they have no certainty whether they enjoy the substance of Christian faith, without which they cannot hope to be saved. But of this more hereafter.

2. "And to the end that what shall be said concerning this dis

tinction may be better understood, we are to observe, that there be two precepts which concern the virtue of faith, or our obligation to believe divine truths. The one is by divines called affirmative, whereby we are obliged to have a positive explicit belief of some chief articles of Christian faith; the other is termed negative, which strictly binds us not to disbelieve, that is, not to believe the contrary of any one point sufficiently represented to our understandings, as revealed or spoken by Almighty God. The said affirmative precept (according to the nature of such commands) enjoins some act to be performed, but not at all times, nor doth it equally bind all sorts of persons in respect of all objects to be believed. For objects; we grant that some are more necessary to be explicitly and severally believed than other; either because they are in themselves more great and weighty, or else in regard they instruct us in some necessary Christian duty towards God, ourselves, or our neighbour. For persons; no doubt but some are obliged to know distinctly more than others, by reason of their office, vocation, capacity, or the like. For times; we are not obliged to be still in act of exercising acts of faith, but according as several occasions permit or require. The second kind of precept, called negative, doth (according to the nature of all such commands) oblige universally all persons, in respect of all objects, and at all times, semper et pro semper, as divines speak. This general doctrine will be more clear by examples: I am not obliged to be always helping my neighbour, because the affirmative precept of charity bindeth only in some particular cases; but I am always bound, by a negative precept, never to do him any hurt or wrong. I am not always bound to utter what I know to be true; yet I am obliged never to speak any one least untruth against my knowledge. And (to come to our present purpose) there is no affirmative precept, commanding us to be at all times actually believing any one or all articles of faith; but we are obliged never to exercise any act against any one truth known to be revealed. All sorts of persons are not bound explicitly and distinctly to know all things testified by God either in Scripture or otherwise; but every one is obliged not to believe the contrary of any one point known to be testified by God. For that were in fact to affirm, that God could be deceived, or would deceive; which were to overthrow the whole certainty of our faith wherein the thing most principal is not the point which we believe, which divines call the material object, but the chiefest is the motive for which we believe, to wit, Almighty God's infallible revelation or authority, which they term the formal object of our faith. In two senses, therefore, and with a double relation, points of faith may be called fundamental, and necessary to salvation; the one is taken with reference to the affirmative precept, when the points are of such quality that there is obligation to know and believe them explicity and severally. In this sense we grant that there is difference betwixt points of faith, which Dr. Potter* to no purpose laboureth to prove against his adversary, who in express words doth grant and explicate it. But the doctor thought good to dissemble the matter, and not to say one pertinent word in defence of his distinction, as it was impugned by Charity Mistaken, • Page 209. Charity Mistaken, c. 8. p. 75

and as it is wont to be applied by protestants. The other sense, according to which points of faith may be called fundamental, and necessary to salvation, with reference to the negative precept of faith, is such, that we cannot, without grievous sin and forfeiture of salvation, disbelieve any one point, sufficiently propounded, as revealed by Almighty God. And in this sense we avouch that there is no distinction in points of faith, as if to reject some must be damnable, and to reject others, equally proposed as God's word, might stand with salvation. Yea, the obligation of the negative precept is for more strict than is that of the affirmative, which God freely imposed and may freely release. But it is impossible that he can dispense, or give leave to disbelieve or deny what he affirmeth; and in this sense sin and damnation are more inseparable from error in points not fundamental, than from ignorance in articles fundamental. All this I show by an example, which I wish to be particularly noted for the present, and for divers other occasions hereafter. The Creed of the Apostles contains divers fundamental points of faith, as the Deity, trinity of persons, the incarnation, passion, and resurrection of our Saviour Christ, &c. It contains also some points, for their matter and nature, in them.selves not fundamental: as under what judge our Saviour suffered; that be was buried; the circumstance of the time of his resurrection the third day, &c. But yet nevertheless whosoever once knows that these points are contained in the Apostles' Creed, the denial of them is damnable, and is in that sense a fundamental error: and this is the precise point of the present question.

3. "And all that hitherto hath been said is so manifestly true, that no protestant or Christian, if he do but understand the terms and state of the question, can possibly deny it; insomuch, as I am amazed that men, who otherwise are endued with excellent wits, should so enslave themselves to their predecessors in protestantism, as still to harp on this distinction, and never regard how impertinently and untruly it was employed by them at first, to make all protestants seem to be of one faith, because, forsooth, they agree in fundamental points. For the difference amongst protestants consists not in that some believe some points, of which others are ignorant, or not bound expressly to know (as the distinction ought to be applied); but that some of them disbelieve, and directly, wittingly, and willingly oppose what others do believe to be testified by the wor of God, wherein there is no difference between points fundamental and not fundamental; because, till points fundamental be sufficiently proposed as revealed by God, it is not against faith to reject them, or rather, without sufficient proposition it is not possible prudently to believe them; and the like is of points not fundamental, which as soon as they come to be sufficiently propounded as Divine truths, they can no more be denied than points fundamental propounded after the same manner; neither will it avail them to their other end, that for preservation of the church in being, it is sufficient that she do not err in points fundamental. For if in the mean time she maintain any one error against God's revelation, be the thing in itself never so small, her error is damnable, and destructive of salvation.

4. "But D. Potter forgetting to what purpose protestants make use of their distinction, doth finally overthrow it, and yields to az much as we can desire. For, speaking of that measure and quantity of faith without which none can be saved, he saith, 'it is enough to believe some things by a virtual faith, or by a general, and as it were a negative faith, whereby they are not denied or contradicted.' Now our question is, in case that Divine truths, although not fundamental, be denied and contradicted; and therefore, even according to him, all such denial excludes salvation. After, he speaks more plainly. 'It is true,' saith he, 'whatsoevert is revealed in Scripture, or propounded by the church out of Scripture, is in some sense fundamental, in regard of the Divine authority of God and his word, by which it is recommended; that is, such as may not be denied or contradicted without infidelity; such as every Christian is bound, with humility and reverence, to believe, whensoever the knowledge thereof is offered to him.' And further, where‡ the revealed will or word of God is sufficiently propounded, there he that opposeth is convinced of error, and he who is thus convinced is a heretic, and heresy is a work of the flesh which excludeth from heaven [Gal. v. 20, 21]: and hence it followeth, that it is fundamental to a Christian's faith, and necessary for his salvation, that he believe all revealed truths of God, whereof he may be convinced that they are from God.' Can anything be spoken more clearly or directly for us, that it is a fundamental error to deny any one point, though never so small, if once it be sufficiently propounded as a Divine truth, and that there is in this sense no distinction betwixt points fundamenta and not fundamental ? And if any should chance to imagine that it is against the foundation of faith not to believe points fundamental, although they be not sufficiently propounded, D. Potter doth not admit of this differences betwixt points fundamental and not fundamental : for he teacheth, that sufficient proposition of revealed truth is required before a man can be convinced;' and for want of sufficient conviction, he excuseth the disciples from heresy, although they believed not our Saviour's resurrection, which is a very fundamental point of faith. Thus then I argue out of D. Potter's own confession: No error is damnable, unless the contrary truth be sufficiently propounded as revealed by God; every error is damnable, if the contrary truth be sufficiently propounded as revealed by God; therefore all errors are alike for the general effect of damnation, if the difference arise not from the manner of being propounded. And what now has become of their distinction ?

5. "I will therefore conclude with this argument: according to all philosophy and divinity, the unity and distinction of every thing followeth the nature and essence thereof; and therefore if the nature and being of faith be not taken from the matter which a man believes, but from the motive for which he believes (which is God's word or revelation), we must likewise affirm, that the unity and diversity of faith must be measured by God s revelation (which is alike for all objects), and not by the smallness or greatness of the matter which we believe. Now, that the nature of faith is not taken from the greatness or smallness of the things believed, is Page 211. + Page 212. 1 Page 250.

Page 40

| Ibid.

manifest; because otherwise one who believes only fundamental points, and another, who together with them doth also believe points not fundamental, should have faith of different natures; yea, there should be as many differences of faith, as there are different points which men believe, according to different capacities or instructions, &c.; all which consequences are absurd; and therefore we must say, that unity in faith doth not depend upon points fundamental or not fundamental, but upon God's revelation equally or unequally proposed; and protestants pretending an unity only by reason of their agreement in fundamental points, do indeed induce as great a multiplicity of faith as there is multitude of different objects which are believed by them; and since they disagree in things equally revealed by Almighty God, it is evident that they forsake the very formal motive of faith, which is God's revelation, and consequently lose all faith and unity therein.

6. "The first part of the title of this chapter (that the dis tinction of points fundamental and not fundamental, in the sense of protestants, is both impertinent and untrue,') being demonstrated, let us now come to the second; that the church is infallible in all her definitions, whether they concern points fundamental or not fundamental.' And this I prove by these reasons:

7. "It hath been showed in the precedent chapter, that the church is judge of controversies in religion; which she could not be, if she could err in any one point; as Dr. Potter would not deny, if he were once persuaded that she is judge: because, if she could err in some points, we could not rely upon her authority and judgment in any one thing.

8. "This same is proved by the reason we alleged before; that seeing the church was infallible in all her definitions ere Scripture was written (unless we will take away all certainty of faith for that time), we cannot with any show of reason affirm, that she hath been deprived thereof by the adjoined comfort and help of sacred writ.

9. "Moreover, to say that the catholic church may propose any false doctrine, maketh her liable to damnable sin and error; and yet Dr. Potter teacheth, that the church cannot err damnably. For if in that kind of oath which divines call assertorium, wherein God is called to witness, every falsehood is a deadly sin in any private person whatsoever, although the thing be of itself neither material nor prejudicial to any; because the quantity or greatness of that sin is not measured so much by the thing which is affirmed, as by the manner and authority whereby it is avouched, and by the injury that is offered to Almighty God, in applying his testimony to a falsehood in which respect it is the unanimous consent of all divines, that in such kinds of oaths, no levitas materiæ, that is, mallness of matter, can excuse from a mortal sacrilege against the moral virtue of religion, which respects worship due to God: if, I say, every least falsehood be deadly sin in the foresaid kind of oath, much more pernicious a sin must it be in the public person of the catholic church to propound untrue articles of faith, thereby fastening God's prime verity to falsehood, and inducing and obliging the world to do the same. Besides, according to the doctrine of all divines, it is not only injurious to God's eternal verity to disbelieve

M