of so grosse ignorance and non-sense as this No verily But perchance the matter is this you say that Protestants to whome the Roman Religion appeareth though but probably the safer cannot continue Protestants except they continue fooles Now Protestants by this confession of D. Potter cannot but see apparently the Roman Religion to be the safer Wherfore that this notwithstanding they may continue still Protestants you would make them such fooles as to belieue that though ioyned with a verbe in the Present Tense doth import onely an imaginary not a reall supposition Wherefore if you should say as in effect you do say though the Religion of Protestants be false and damnable yet I will do my best to defend it Protestāts must be such fooles as to take this not as a positiue assertion that their Religion is false damnable in your iudgment but as a Rhetoricall Concession as if you had said Imagine or put case the Religion of Protestants be false and damnable I hope Protestants will be wiser then to be made such fooles by you as to continue in a Religion which cannot be maintayned but by such fopperies as these Your Vanity in contemning the foresayd Argument §. 4. 9. You many times seeme to contemne and scorne the Argument drawne from the confession of Protestants and the former testimony of D. Potter You say we rely vpon his priuate Opinion vpon his vncertaine Charitable hope that his thinking so is no reason we should thinke so except we thinke him infallible that whosoeuer is moued with his argument is so simple c. Wherin you may seeme which happens very seldome to agree with D. Potter who doth much sleight our arguing from the Confession of our Aduersaries page 81. If they haue no better ground of their beleefe then their Aduersaries Charitable iudgment of their errours they will be so farre from conuincing their Aduersaries of lacke of wisedome that themselues cannot escape the imputation of folly 10. Thus the Doctour endeauours to lay the imputation of folly vpon vs for vrging our aduersaries fauourable iudgement of our errours as a good argument that may moue men to imbrace our Religion But in this charging vs with folly his owne lacke of wisedome and consideration may be conuinced by what he writeth some few pages before against zelots for these he condemneth not onely of want of charity but also of lacke of wisedome for iudging so seuerely of our errours as to cut vs of from hope of Saluation Pag. 76. The Roman Churches communion sayth he we forsake not no more then the Body of Christ whereof we acknowledge the Church of Rome a member though corrupted And this cleeres vs from the imputation of Schisme whose property it is to cut of from the Body of Christ and hope of Saluation the Church from which it separates And if any Zelots amongst vs haue proceeded to heauier censures their zeale may be excused but their Charity and Wisedome cannot be iustifyed Thus he From which words I conclude a double truth the one against you the other against D. Potter himselfe The first that this Charitable iudgement about the Saluation of Roman Catholiques because their errours are small and not in themselues damnable is not the priuate opinion of D. Potter but the censure and doome of the whole Protestant english Church condistinct from zelots or Puritans For how can this whole Church be iustified and cleered from the imputation of Schisme by reason of her Charitable iudgement of our errours if this be not the Charitable iudgement of this whole Church but only the opinion of D. Potter and of some other few priuate Protestants Secondly I gather that this iudgement is not onely according to Christian Charity but also according to Christian Wisedome and floweth from the rules and Principles of them both Otherwise what cause or reason hath D. Potter to charge Zelots who iudge not fauourably of our errours with want not only of Charity but also of wisedome Their Charity saith he and Wisedome cannot be iustified If the iudgment of Protestants so fauorable about our errours be of meere Charity not wise not prudent not solidely grounded on truth why may not the wisedome of Zelots who will not consent thereunto be iustified On the other side if the iudgment of Protestants be conforme to Christian wisedome and Diuine truth what wisedome is it in D. Potter to charge vs with folly and want of wisedome for building and relying theron 11. Besides this iugdment of Protestants that we may be saued in our Religion our errours not being damnable if it be voyde of wisdome and not solidly grounded on truth how is it charitable that is how can it proceed from true Christian Charity If fond loue and affection to the saluation of Creatures not guided by the rules of Christian truth be Christian charity then the iudgment of Origen were ful of Christian Charity who extended saluation euen vnto Diuells Wherfore your iudgment that we may be saued because our errours are not damnable cannot be charitable vnlesse it be conforme to the rules and principles of Christian truth and wisdome on which if it be grounded why may we not build and rely theron Why may we not without imputation of folly make this one pillar of our comfort and constancy in the Roman Communion and Fayth 12. Adde hereunto that it is euen ridiculous in D. Potter and other Protestantes of his stampe to brag and boast as they doe that forsooth it is excesse of their Charity and good will to the Roman Church which makes them to iudge so kindly and fauourably of her errours For by their wordes and writings they shew themselues to be voyd of all loue and Charity and to be full of bitter zeale and passion towardes her so farre that though in their conscience they iudge her free from damnable errours yet in their passion they hate abhorre rate and reuile her as if she were the vildest Religion in the world These speaches of D. Potter against her she hath many wayes played the Harlot and in that regard deserued a bill of diuorce from Christ and the detestation of Christians the proud and curst Dame of Rome which takes vpon her to reuell in the house of God Popery is the contagion and plague of the Church These speaches I say euery man will presently perceiue that they are voyd of Charity wordes of contumely and reproach proceeding not from cleere and calme iudgment but from the fuming fornace of passion you produce them as if D. Potter by them did ouerthrow what we haue proued to be his iudgment that our errors be not damnable But in very truth they be only passionate speaches vttered without iudgment reason or discretion yea against his owne iudgment tokens of his mortall auersion from that Church in whome he can finde no mortall or damnable errour It is not then Charity or kind affection or any good will to Roman Catholiks
pardonable by Gods great mercy From the number of all Protestants whose Religion you defend to be a safe Way I hope Socinians or new Samosatenians are not excluded These hold that Christ Iesus is not the Eternall only begotten Sonne of God yea that he was and is a meere man though an holy man and a great Prophet Will you say that this errour which conceaues no more diuinely of Christ then do the very Turkes is not greater then any we maintayne not more fundamental and essentially destructiue of Saluation If you do most Protestants in England will thinke you worthy of the Fagot 22. Fourthly Pag. 290. num 87. you write that Protestants seing they be not free from errours that it is hardely possible but they must be guilty of extreme impiety In that place you endeauour to answere our Argument that it was great imprudency in Protestants to forsake the whole visible Catholique Church for errours not fundamentall seing they confesse that in their separation against her they could not be sure of not falling into errours of the like quality and note yea into greater to wit fundamental You are in this point eager and protest that Protestants are so farre from acknowledging that they haue no hope to auoyd this mischiefe of erring at the least vn-fundamentally that they proclaime to all the world that it is most prone and easy to do so to all those that feare God and loue the truth and hardely possible for them to do otherwise without supine negligence and extreme impiety Ponder I pray you this place and conferre it with other passadges of your booke you will see that you make all Protestants extremely impious For it is most prone and easy for Protestants that feare God and loue the truth to auoyd all errours specially such as need pardon and be damnable in themselues so that it is hardely possible for them to be in any errour without supine negligence and extreme impiety Now there are not any Protestants in the world no not English Protestants by name whome you dare defend to be free from errours not fundamentall and millions of them as you confesse are by the sinne of their will betrayed into and kept in errours damnable in themselues Ergo it is hardly possible but all Protestants must be guilty of supine negligence and extreme impiety about matters of Fayth Which being so how is that Religion a safe way of Saluation in which hardly any be saued yea how be not their errours vnpardonable seing you write Pag 275. lin 15. that God is infinitely iust and therefore it is to be feared will not pardon Catholiques who might easely haue come to the knowledge of the truth but through negligence would not How then will he pardon Protestants to whome it was you say most prone and easy to haue come to the knowledge of the truth and to haue auoyded all errours but would not through supine negligence and extreme impiety 23. I haue been the larger in declaring and strenghthening this Argument and shewing the insuperable force therof First because it is the Argument most vrged by the pithy and learned Catholique Treatise of Charity mistaken as also by Charity maintayned both which bookes by the cleering of this point are shewed to remayne vnanswered Secondly because this Argument from the confession of our Aduersaries as it is cleere manifest and conuincing so it is within the reach and capacity of euery one For who so stupide voyd of sense as not to see that Religion to be the safer which is confessed to be safe euen in her Aduersaries iudgment grounded vpon the neuer fayling principles of Christian Charity wisdome and truth The Second Conuiction THough we should grant that most vntrue and impossible supposition that the Roman Church erreth yet it would be impossible that Catholiks should be damned for following her errours The reason is because their erring cannot but be excused by ignorance inuincible wheras Protestantes if they erre damnably as without doubt they do neither by shelter of Ignorance nor of Generall Repentance can they be saued Three Suppositions §. 1. 1. TO proue this we must suppose three thinges which are knowne and notorious truths First that Christians who belieue in Christ the eternall Sonne of God and Sauiour of the world cannot be damned for any errours of ignorance inuincible or for any inuoluntary erring This truth you often affirme in some passages of your booke and deny it as often in other Pag. 19. lin 27. you say That if in me alone were a confluence of all such errours of all Protestantes in the world that were thus qualified with ignorance inuincible I should not be so much afrayd of them all as I should be to aske pardon for them c. To aske pardon of simple and purely inuoluntary errours is tacitely to imply that God is angry with vs for them and that were to impute to him the strange tyranny of requiring bricke when he giues no straw of expecting to gather where he strewed not to reape where he sowed not of being offended with vs for not doing what he knowes we cannot do Heare you make it a kind of blasphemy to say that involuntary errours are pardonable or need pardon because the very saying they were pardonable importes they need pardon and consequently that God is offended with vs for them Notwithstanding that errours purely inuoluntary or of inuincible ignorance be pardonable and need pardon from Gods great mercy you frequently professe speaking of our errours Pag. 308. lin 41. We hold your errours damnable in themselues yet by accident through ignorance inuincible we hope they were not vnpardonable Pag. 291. lin 4. Your erring was we hope pardonable in them that had no meanes to know their errours Pag. 263. lin 27. Your errours were in themselues damnable yet we hope that those amongst you that were inuincibly ignorant of the truth might by Gods great mercy haue their errours pardoned and their soules saued This is your wauering and tottering manner of discoursing but the truth is God is not offended with errours of ignorance inuincible because God is offended only for sinne wheras inuoluntary erring cannot be sinne because to be voluntary is of the nature and difinition of Sinne. 2. Secondly we suppose that the Roman doctrines which Protestants accuse to be errours are definitions of Generals Councells and were for many ages the publike receiued doctrine in the whole visible Christian Church for which reason you say That euen the visible Church is not free from damnable errours Thirdly we suppose that it is vnlawfull and damnable for any man to depart from the Roman Church to forsake her doctrine or to oppose the definition of a Generall Councell except he haue apparent and euident reasons which demonstrate that the truth stādeth on his side This you teach pag. 272. n. 53. It concernes euery man that separates from any Churches Communion euen as much as his
Saluation is worth to looke most carefully that the cause of his separation be iust and necessary And pag. 200. lin 25. I willingly confesse the iudgment of a Councell though not infallible yet is so far directiue and obliging that without apparent reason of the contrary it may be sinne to reiect it at least not to afford it an outward submission But D. Potter more cleerly and fully affirmeth That Generall Councels are the highest Tribunals which the Church hath vpon earth that their authority is immediatly deriued delegated from Christ that no Christian is exempted from their censures and iurisdiction that their decrees bind all persons to externall obedience and may not be questioned but vpon euident reasons That the belieuers of the Roman Church cannot erre but through Ignorance inuincible §. 2. 3. FOr the title of this Section I argue thus Those errours are vnauoydable and inuincible which cannot be auoyded without damnable sinne But Roman Catholiques cannot auoyd the errous of the Roman Church if she haue any without damnable sinne Therfore their errours if they do erre must of necessity be ignorances inuincible and vnauoydable such as they cannot shake of without damning themselues The Minor or assumption of this argument I proue because Roman Catholiques that be sincere and cordiall belieuers of the doctrine of the Roman Church cannot haue necessary forcing reasons nor euident demonstrations that the Roman Church is in errour This is cleere For if they haue necessary and inforcing reasons and euident demonstrations whereby they are conuicted in conscience that the Roman Church erreth they be now no more Roman Catholiques nor belieuers of the Roman Church but Protestants and her Aduersaries in their iudgment It is therefore impossible that Roman Catholiques so longe as they be sincere and Cordiall belieuers of the Roman Doctrine should haue euident demonstrations that the Roman Church erreth And if the◠haue not euident demonstrations it were damnable for them to forsake her doctrines which Protestants account erroneous nor can they do it without damning their soules Who then doth not see that their erring if they erre is enforced vn auoydable proceeding from ignorance inuincible for which sort of ignorance it is impossible they should be damned 4. You to auoyde the force of this Argument contend that though your reasons are necessary enforcing as cleere as the light at noone yet we are not conuicted by them in conscience not that they want euidence but that we are obstinately peruerse This your shift cauill is easily shewed to be friuolous and false Friuolous because you only say without any proofe that we are obstinately peruerse and if to say it without proofe be inough then the same answere will serue and doth de facto serue euery Heretique euery Sect-maister euery forger of new Monsters for when he findeth himselfe in straytes and not able to bring so much as a probable reason for his new deuised impieties he falleth presently to cry that his Texts of Scripture are as cleere as the sunne his Arguments euident demonstrations that the reason Catholiques neglect and reiect him is not want of euidence in his arguing but that we are wilfully blind obstinately peruerse men that haue eyes to see and will not see giuen ouer to stronge delusions and vnto a reprobate sense And what is this but to change schollership into scolding reasoning into rayling disputing into clamorous and contumelious wrangling wherin he getteth the victory who is the stoufest Stentor and can crye loudest against his Aduersaries You are willfully blind you are obstinately peruerse In which kind of arguing you are very eloquent according to the stile of heretiques quorum doctrina sayth S. Hierome non in sensu sed in multiloquio elamore consistit 5. Secondly it is false because necessary and enforcing reasons or euident demonstrations presented vnto the vnderstanding necessitate the said Vnderstanding and compell the Conscience to assent let the Will be neuer so peruerse The peruersity of Will may make a man deny with his mouth what in Conscience he knoweth to be true it may make him hate impugne knowne truth but it cannot possibly make him not see what by the light of euident demonstration is made cleere to his vnderstanding This I proue by your owne sayings as pag. 370. n. 50. Apparent arguments necessitate the vnderstanding to assent and Pag. 371. n. 81. You contend that Protestants hold not that it is euidently certaine that these bookes in particular are the word of God For say you they are not eyther so fond as to be ignorant nor so vaine as to pretend that all men do assent to it which they would if they were euidently certain or so ridiculous as to imagine that an Indian that had neuer heard of Christ or Christianity reading the Bible in his owne language would without miracle belieue it to be the word of God which yet he could NOT CHOOSE but do if it were euidently certaine Heere you affirme that all men in the world would belieue the Christian Bible to be the word of God yea they could not choose but assent vnto it as vnto Diuine truth if it did shew it selfe to be such with euident certainty And yet there be millions in the world that be obstinately peruerse against the Christian Bible Ergo demonstrations which shew a truth to the vnderstanding with euident certainty necessitate the Vnderstanding to assent though the Will be obstinately peruerse But Catholiques though they vnderstand ponder and consider your pretended euident demonstrations and texts of Scripture as cleere as the sunne can dissent from them rest persuaded in their conscience against your conclusions by pious constancy of fayth Wherefore your Arguments be not euident demonstrations and consequently no man can be moued with them to forsake the Roman Church and her Doctrine of Generall Councels without committing damnable sinne yea they are so farre from being irresistable as they are vaine weake contemptible euen those which you pretend to be so cleere as none can possibly be cleerer as I haue shewed in the former Treatise Cap. 6. Conuict 6. n. 29. That Protestants if they erre cannot be saued by ignorance or generall repentance §. 3. 6. THe first part of the Title that they cannot be saued by ignorance I proue thus Either Protestants haue demonstrations euident certainty that the Roman Church erreth that her definitions which they forsake and keep themselues in opposition against them be false and impious or they haue not If they haue they be not ignorant but full of cleere and manifest certainty about all those points wherein they forsake the Roman Church If they haue not they are indeed in ignorance but in such ignorance as will not saue them but rather make them more damnable to wit in the ignorance of Pride For is it not damnable and execrable Pride for a simple and ignorant man to abandon the Roman Church adorned with
THE TOTALL SVMME OR No danger of Damnation vnto Roman Catholiques for any Errour in Faith Nor any hope of Saluation for any Sectary vvhatsoeuer that doth knovvingly oppose the Doctrine of the Roman Church This is proued by the Confessions and Sayings of M. William Chillingvvorth his Booke Summa est quae conficitur ex Confessis Aug. princ dialect cap. 3. Vnum est necessarium Luc. 10. v. 42. Permissu Superiorum 1639. The Preface THIS Discourse was intended at first as the Conclusion and closing vp of the Treatise I termed The Church Conquerant ouer human VVit but being when I wrote it in great doubt that the sayd Treatise was lost in the transporting therof from one place to another which often happens in Countries which are infested with warre I resolued to make this Discourse more large by the discouery of many other Contradictions in this our Aduersary and with the Refutation of such tergiuersations as Cauillers might deuise to stay piously disposed Protestants from yielding prompt and assured assent to this most important Verity And as they who make Bills of Account whē they haue set downe distinctly for their discharge the particular Summes of expences are accustomed in the end in few Cyphers to abbreuiate the Totall Summe so this Treatise comming after the former as the Conclusion thereof I haue giuen it the name of Totall Summe the Argument handled therein being worthy of that stile For what is the finall marke the Totall the All in all of our pious endeauours labours cares sollicitudes in this mortall life but only to find out the true Religion wherein one shall be sure of his Saluation if simply and constantly he belieue the Doctrines and liue according to the lawes thereof Verily this is the pith the marrow the Summe the quintessence of all Controuersies ventilated betwixt Protestants and vs and in particular it was the sole scope of that short substantiall Treatise Charity mistaken by Protetestants which being by D. Potter in his VVant of Charity impugned was defended and confirmed by the learned labours and elucubrations of Charity maintayned For the maine Cōtrouersy debated in these three bookes is whether Roman Catholiques Protestants may both be saued in their seuerall Religions or which comes to the same issue seing Protestants grant we may be saued in our Religion because our Errours are not Fundamentall and damnable whether it is not want of Charity in vs that we will not requite them with the like mild gentle and comfortable doome but constantly maintayne that Saluation cannot be had in any course of Separation and Opposition against Doctrine proposed by the Roman Church as matter of faith And though this our Catholique determination hath beene in the before named Treatise demonstrated especially in the two last Chapters thereof which shew all Sects Diuisioners all Protesters and Opposers against the Church of Rome to be guilty of the two most heynous crimes Schisme Heresy yet I haue thought fit conuenient to hādle this Totall of Controuersies in a particular short Treatise wherin omitting the former two heads of proofe I haue vrged peculiar and proper Arguments grounded vpon euident Truths confessed approued confirmed euen by this our Aduersary whose Booke Protestants so much esteeme as they stand thereon against the cleere demonstrations for the Catholique Church brought by Charity maintayned If in this very Booke in which they so much confide which beareth the title The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Saluation the happy security of Roman Catholiques and togeather the vnauoydable danger of their Opposers be proued and proclamed if no safe path to Saluation for English Protestants be shewed in his Treatise but they be forced to goe the broad way wherein the most damned Heretiques that liue vnder the cope of Heauen not onely Anabaptists and Arians but also the new Samosatenians or Socinians may be saued aswell as they this being shewed our Protestants will be compassed about on euery side with the light and euidence of this eternally importing Truth No hope of saluation out of the Catholique Roman Church And then God forbid they should not yield vnto so cleere Euictions but fall into the extreme misery of peeuish obstinacy whereof S. Augustine sayth Nihil infelicius homine qui non vult cedere veritati quâ ita concluditur vt exitum inuenire non possit Nothing more vnhappy and wretched then the man that will not yield vnto that truth wherwith he is so concluded and inclosed as he knowes not which way to get out THE TOTALL SVMME OR The assured Saluation of Roman Catholiques c. An Aduertisement IN this treatise as in the other I haue beene exact and euen scrupulous to rehearse fully and largely our Aduersaries formall words many times also though they were cited before repeating them agayne for the Readers greater ease and to make this poynt whereon the Totall of our Eternity doth so much depend cleere and plaine In the text I cite the Page Number and Line or whē there is no number in the page or when the place cited comes before any number only page and line I haue also in the margent quoted the Chapter and number whereby the Reader may find the wordes in the second edition of London The first Conuiction 1. THis is drawne from the concession of Protestants that Roman Catholiques may be saued in their Religion because their errours are but litle on s not Fundamentall or in themselues damnable wheras Roman Catholiques neyther do nor can by the principles of their Religion grant the same warrant to any whatsoeuer that continues vnto death an opposer of the Church of Rome An argument often vrged by Charity maintayned grounded on a testimony of D. Potter which you say he buildeth on in almost fourty yea more then in an hundred places of his booke and you as often at least striue and struggle with this Argument labouring to remoue the pressing difficulties thereof with the same progresse successe as Sifiphus is said to make who to aduance a huge stone vp-hill striueth eternally in vaine Your euasions and shiftes I will particularly refute and lay open their falshood and vanity wherby it shal be made apparent that both the booke of Charity maintayned resteth hitherto vnanswered and that this Argument drawne from the confession of Protestants is altogether vnanswerable I shall first propose our Argument strenthened with D. Potters suffrage Secondly discouer how impudently you deny D. Potters text Thirdly how at last you acknowledge it giue an explication therof full of grosse ignorance Fourthly how weakly and in vayne you would seeme to contemne this Argument as poore and seely Fiftly I will declare the force of this Argument and shew the reason why Protestants that be wise and not distempered with furious zeale dare not condemne the Roman Religion Communion as damnable of it selfe Finally that not only Roman Catholikes but that you your selues dare not
such as belieue as they professe to all such as be not hypocriticall Professours but professe it in simplicity of heart belieuing it to be true Nor doth he say that vnto such Roman belieuers our errours are not damnable by accident as you feigne but the expresse contrary that euen in themselues they be not damnable to them Behold how opposite is D Potters true sentence to that you haue forged for him You make him say Our errours are euen in themselues damnable and only by accident pardonable whereas he sayth the contrary they are in themselues but littleons but venial and consequently if any sincere Roman Catholiques be damned this is by accident by reason of some extrinsecal damnable circumstance not by the intrinsecal malignity of their errours not by the force such errours haue in themselues and in their owne nature to merit damnation 6. But some may obiect that D. Potter doth not say absolutely Our errours be not in themselues damnable but only not in themselues damnable to them that belieue as they professe which is a different thinge I answer this is a subtilty which findeth a difference where there is no diuersity As to say of a potion that it is not of it selfe deadly to such as drinke it take it into their bowells and heart is all one as to say it is deadly to none but harmelesse and innoxious in it selfe so to say our errours are not in themselues damnable to such as heartily belieue and professe them is as much as to say they are of themselues damnable vnto none but absolutely veniall of their owne nature not destructiue of Saluation For to whome may they be in themselues damnable if they be not so to them that take them into their heart by sincere and cordiall beliefe As none can be damned for sinne but such as commit sinne so none can be damned for erring but such as erre and are guilty of erring Now those that in their heart belieue not errours do not erre nor are guilty of erring wherefore such neither are nor can be damned for erring or holding of errours For if they hypocritically professe Errours which they do not belieue they be damnable indeed but not for erring but for their hypocrisy and dissimulation as D. Potter truly sayth Your ignorant exposition of D. Potter §. 3. 7. HAuing at last acknowledged D. Potters text that he said of our errours though in themselues they be not damnable you tell vs that we mistake his meaning by taking a supposition of a confession for a confession a Rhetoricall concession of the Doctours for a positiue assertion For to say though your Errours be not damnable we may not professe them is not to say Your errours are not damnable but only through they be not As if you should say Though the Church erre in points not fundamental yet you may not separate from it or Though we do erre in belieuing Christ really present yet our errour frees vs from Idolatry I presume you would not thinke it fayrely done if any man should interprete these your speaches as confessions that you do erre in points not fundamentall that you erre in belieuing the Real Presence And therefore you ought not to haue mistaken D Potters wordes as if he confessed the Errours of your Church not damnable when he sayes no more then this though they be not damnable or suppose or put case they be not damnable Thus you Wherein your falshood is notable and your ignorance admirable First it is false that D. Potter sayes no more but this though they be not damnable For besides this he sayth that Protestants who belieue them to be errours must not presume to professe them because they are but littleons He saith in the name of all Protestants We belieue the Roman Religion to be safe that is not damnable to such as belieue as they professe We hope and thinke very well of all those holy and deuout soules which informer ages liued and died in the Church of Rome c. We doubt not but they obtayned pardon of all their ignorances Nay our Charity reaches further to All those at this day who in simplicity of heart belieue the Roman Religion and professe it Be these Rhetoricall Concessions not Positiue Assertions that the errours which Protestants impute to the Roman Church are not damnable of thēselues but onely by accident when they are hypocritically against conscience professed 8. Secondly I am amazed that you a Maister of Arts of Oxford of so long standing are ignorant of the difference in speach betwixt the Present Tense and the Preter imperfect which euery man and woman by common sense doth feele and perceaue For the particle though ioyned with a verbe of the Present Tense doth suppose a thing present and existing in reality truth so that if you will suppose the existence of a thing by imagination or in conceyt onely you must vse the Preter imperfect Wherfore neyther the Author of Charity maintayned nor any Catholique that is intelligent will say to you in the Present Tense as you make him Though the Church do erre in points not fundamentall yet you must not separate from it but in the Preter imperfect Though the Church did erre in points fundamentall yet you were not to separate from her Nor will he or any Catholique that is wise vse that eyther sottish or impious speach you haue penned for him Though we erre in belieuing Christ really present yet our errour frees vs from Idolatry God forbid This were not a Rhetoricall Concession but a Diabolical Profession that our beliefe of the Reall presence is an errour A true Catholique that can vtter his mind in good English will say Though we did erre in belieuing the Reall Presence of our Lords Body in the Eucharist yet this errour would free vs from Idolatry Thus the examples you bring of Rhetoricall Concessions make against you being in deed positiue Assertions and shew your discourse to be neyther good Logick nor Rhetoricke nor Grammer 9. And I pray you the Proposition you haue forged for D. Potter though the errours of the Roman Church be in themselues damnable and full of great impiety yet by accident they do not damne all that hold them is it not a Positiue Assertion that our doctrines are damnable and full of great impiety in D. Potters opinion Wherfore this proposition which is truly D. Potters though the errours of the Roman Church be not in themselues damnable yet Protestants who know them to be Errours may not professe them is a positiue Assertion that our supposed errours be not damnable in his iudgement Should one say to you though in your iudgement you belieue Christ our Sauiour not to be true God yet you dare not professe it outwardly for feare of the fagot would you take this as a Rhetoricall supposition not as a Reall accusation that you are an Infidell in your heart Is it possible you should be guilty