that these Bookes be the word of God resteth finally not vpō the credit of human Tradition but vpon the Scripture onely which shewes it selfe with euident certitude to be diuine and supernaturall truth and so reuealed of God Euen as light is seene by its owne brightnesse and hony is proued to be sweet by the very tast thereof But this point of Protestancy you reiect as fond vaine ridiculous pag. 371. n. 51. and proue it to be such Because if the Bookes of Scripture were euidently certayne if they did with euident certitude demonstrate themselues to be Diuine truth then all men that haue vnderstanding and capacity to apprehend the right sense and sentence of Scripture would belieue them to be true which experience sheweth be otherwise If Protestants answere that such as haue their tast distempered to them hony is bitter so Infidels through preiudice and distemper of passions do not perceaue and tast the Diuinity of the Doctrines of the Scripture Against this the reply is ready and conuincing For they who through distemper of their palate iudge hony to be bitter do not apprehend the true tast of hony but a tast contrary to the true tast thereof which being in their palate they conceaue it to be in the meate But Infidels by their vnderstanding do rightly apprehend and conceaue the true senses of Scripture and the mysteries of fayth deliuered therein more cleerely then many Christians of meane capacity do and yet they do not iudge them to be Diuine truth or truth at all Ergo the very true sense and sentence of Scripture doth not with euident certainty shew it selfe to be Supernaturall truth such as could not be reuealed but of God 6. Finally if the Protestants beliefe of Scripture be grounded vpon sight of the truth thereof this their beliefe is not sauing fayth for Fayth by which men are saued as hath beene sayd is that wherby they submit by voluntary obedience their vnderstanding to Gods word belieuing firmely and assuredly vpon the Authority thereof things in themselues incredible and aboue the reach of human reason But Protestants do not belieue the doctrine of Scripture because it is the word of God but because as they say they see it to be Diuine truth and consequētly the word of God Ergo they haue not the fayth of humble submission to Gods word which is the onely fayth that pleaseth God and by which men are saued 7. The third Argument Protestants haue not fayth of infallible adherence that is fayth worthy of God about the sense and interpretation of Scripture For holding the Churches interpretation to be fallible they pretend to be sure by this rule that what they belieue to them seemes plainely cleerely euidently reuealed and proposed in the Scripture But this rule of assurance is not infallible but very fallible and deceytfull For euen Protestants thēselues contend that many texts and places of Scripture which seeme plaine and cleere are to be vnderstood figuratiuely against the plaine proper and literall sense For example the words of our Lord about the chiefe Sacrament mystery of fayth THIS is My Body This is My BLOVD in their plaine proper and literall sense deliuer and establish Transubstantiation as Protestants grant Hence Protestants that are resolued not to belieue a mystery so high aboue reason seemingly repugnant to sense will by no meanes allow these wordes to be true in their proper and literal sense they will not yield to the plain euidence of the Diuine text Whereupon it is euidently consequent that they cannot be sure about any mystery of fayth by vertue of the sole seeming euidence of the sacred Text. For instance take the most fundamental text of Scripture about the most fundamētal mystery of Christian Religion to wit the Incarnation of the Sonne of God The Word was made flesh How doth this text euidently conuince that the Eternal Word and Sonne of God was made Man truely substantially personally What Protestants say of the word of Christ This is my Body why may not Nestorians affirme about this text The Word was made ffesh that it is not true in a proper plaine and literal sense but metaphorically figuratiuely that God and Man were made one in Christ by affectual vnion as two great friendes are said to be one How can Protestants be themselues assured or how can they proue by the sole euidence of the text that this Nestorian interpretation is false And if their beliefe of the mystery of the Incarnation be not solide and firme grounded on a rule of interpretation infallibly certaine how can they be saued 8. Learned and iudicious Readers may find in your booke a world of laughter about your answering the arguments of Charity Maintayned you do it so vnscholler-like so okerly and vntowardly Let your answere to this argument serue for a patterne Our Maintayner vrgeth D. Potter that if the Church may erre in points of fayth not fundamentall you can neuer be sure of any such point For as you erre about some deceyued by the seeming euidence of the Scripture so you cannot be sure you do not erre about other You answere Pag. 117. n. 160. A pretty Sophisme depending vpon this principle that whosoeuer possibly may erre he can neuer be certaine that he doth not erre A Iudge may possibly erre in iudgment can he therefore neuer be sure he hath iudged aright A Traualler may possibly mistake his way must I therefore be doubtfull whether I am in the right way from my Hall to my chamber Or can our London-Carrier haue no certainty in the middle of the day when he is sober and in his wits that he is in the way to London And a litle after nu 161. whereas our Mayntainer argueth that you cannot be sure it is an errour to make the Church Iudge of Controuersies because you pretend to be sure by the seeming euidence of Scripture but this rule is not infallible so you cānot be sure by the warrant thereof The ground of this Sophisme say you is very like the former viz. that we can be certaine of the falshood of no proposition but those only that are damnable errours But I pray good Sir giue me your opinion of these The snow is balcke the fire is cold M. Knot is Arch-Bishop of Toledo the whole is not greater then a part of the whole that twise two make not foure in your opinion good Sir are these damnable heresies Or because they are not so haue we no certainty of the falshood of them I beseech you Sir consider seriously with what strāge captions you haue gone about to delude your King and your Country if you be conuinced they are so giue glory to God and let the world know it by your deserting that Religion which standes vpon such deceytfull foundations This you write which you could neuer haue written had you been with your London Carrier sober and in your wits You haue proued Gusman de
auouch that he is lodged in Hell For we are not alwayes acquainted with what sufficiency of meanes he was furnished for instruction we do not penetrate his capacity to vnderstand his Catechist we haue no reuelation what light might haue cleered his errours or Contrition retracted his sinnes in the last moment before death Here our Maintayner requires sufficient meanes of instruction that a man be bound to belieue but he sayth not as you make him say that this instruction must conuince his conscience that his owne Religion is false and the Roman true If a Protestant be thus farre instructed as to perceaue that the Roman Religion is by the full consent of former Christian ages and by the definition of Generall Councels deliuered as the doctrine of Christ Iesus and his Apostles if I say any Protestant be thus farre instructed he is so sufficiently instructed that if he refuse to belieue he is certainly damned Do not you professe that to forsake any Church without necessary causes is as much as a mans saluation is worth Doth not D. Potter auouch that it is not lawfull to goe against the definition of Generall Councels without euident reasons Wherefore Protestants that haue abandoned the Roman Church are by your principles conuinced to be in a damnable state if they know the Roman Religion to be the Christian tradition of their Ancestours the definition of Catholique Councels Nor is it necessary that they be conuinced in conscience that the Roman Religion is true it sufficeth they haue no conuictiue demonstrations against it Wherefore it is extreme want of conscience in you to say that our Maintayner and the most rigide Aduersaries of Protestancy affirme that no Protestant shall be damned for any errour whatsoeuer he holdes against the Roman Church except he be conuicted in conscience that his owne Religion is false and the Roman true 11. And yet not content to haue brought this falshood as a Corollary from his wordes you make it his formal saying and set it downe in a distinct Character as his verball and formall assertion Pag. 31. n. 4. lin 6. Charity mistaken affirmed vniuersally and without any limitation that Protestants that dye in the beliefe of their Religion without particular repentance cannot be saued But this presumption of his you qualify by SAYING that this sentence cannot be pronounced truly and therefore not charitably neyther of those Protestants that want meanes sufficient to conuince them of the truth of your Religion and falshood of their owne nor of those who though they haue neglected the meanes they might haue had dyed with Contrition that is with a sorrow for all their sinnes proceeding from the loue of God Thus you shewing the Adamantinall hardnes of your Socinian for head and Samosatenian conscience For this long sentence which you set downe charactered as the saying of Charity Maintayned with a direct affirmation that it is his saying is forged and feigned by your selfe from the first to the last syllable thereof not only against his meaning in that place but also the whole drift of his Treatise For what is the drift thereof but only to shew that the Roman is the true Church and that her proposing of a doctrine to be belieued is sufficient to bind men to belieue it without any other Conuiction besides the authority of her infallible word 12. Also the second assertion you impute to him That nothing hinders but that a Protestant dying a Protestant may dye with contrition for all his sinnes is an impudent vntruth no such acknowledgment in all his book You seeke to gather it from these wordes We haue no reuelation what light may haue cleered his errours or Contrition haue retracted his sinnes This reason say you or contrition haue retracted his sinnes being distinct from the former and deuided from it by the disiunctiue particle or insinuates that though no light did cleere the errours of a dying Protestant yet Contrition might for ought you know retract his sinnes This is a fond voluntary inference for the clause or contrition retracted his sinnes was not added to signify that a Protestant may haue contrition of all his sinnes though his vnderstanding be not cleered from his errours but to declare that though his vnderstanding be cleered from errours yet this will not suffice that he be saued except after the abiuration of his errours he do further conceaue hearty sorow Contrition for the deadly and damnable sinnes of affection and action he may haue committed 13. For that a Protestant cannot be truly penitēt of all his sinnes vntill his vnderstanding be cleered or at least his zeale allayed that he become remisse in his Religion and doubtfull this reason doth inuincibly conclude It is impossible that a man should repent of a thinge at that time when he is in actual or habitual heat of affection vnto it But Protestants so long as they are Protestants and their Vnderstandings not cleered from their errours or their zeale allayed with cold doubtfulnes are alwayes either actually or habitually in the heat of condemning the Roman Church for Impieties and Idolatries in the heat of presumptuous Pride whereby they preferre their seely conceits about the sense of Scripture before the iudgement of the Church and her Generall Councels Ergo it is impossible that a Protestant persisting stiffely in his Religion should be penitent of all his sinnes knowne and vnknowne The third Conuiction IN this Conuiction I am to proue three things first that Roman Catholiques hold all fundamētall truth and so are secure from damnation Secondly that it is madnesse to persuade any man to leaue the Roman Church Thirdly that it is impossible that Protestants should be sure they belieue all Fundamentall truths That Roman Catholiques are free from all Fundamentall Errours and your Contradictions herein §. 1. 1. HE that belieues all Fundamentals cannot be damned for any errour in fayth though he belieue more or lesse to be Fundamentall then is so This is your formall assertion in so many wordes pag. 207. n. 34. which supposed I assume But Roman Catholiques belieue all Fundamentals that is all necessary truth Ergo they cannot be damned for any errour in fayth The assumption of this argument might be proued by many testimonies from your Booke I will insist vpon two the one in this Section the other in the next Pag. 16. lin 8. We grant the Roman Church was a part of the whole Church And if she were a true part of the Church she retayned those truths which were simply necessary to saluation For this is precisely necessary to constitute any man or Church a member of the Church Catholique In our sense therefore of the word Fundamentall we hope she erred not fundamentally Thus you who pag. 280. n. 95. say the playne contrary that our errours are fundamentall And pag. 289. nu 86. that our Church not onely might but also did fall into substantiall errours 2. I know that to salue
Alfarache his saying that the Fooles Hospital is of large extent to be most true He can range and reuell within the compasse thereof in a world of sottish extrauagances from hoat to cold from snow to fire from Oxford to London from London to Toledo from Toledo backe againe to King and Country and then fetch a new carriere ouer the whole Vniuerse and euery part thereof to be sure that no part is greater then the whole What is impertinentcy what is deserting the matter and argument in hand if this be not Good Syr be pleased to vnderstand that the Controuersy betwixt D. Potter and our Maintayner is not about all Kind of propositions nor whether snow be blacke or fire cold nor about your not being Arch-Bishop of Canterbury nor about the way from your Hall to your Chamber but about propositions pertayning to Christian faith not euident to sense but only to be knowne by reuelation from heauen Our Maintayner auoucheth that these Diuine truths cannot be knowne assuredly but by the teaching of Gods Church infallible in all her proposals This he proueth not as you feigne by this principle He that may possibly erre can neuer be sure he doth not erre but by this He that may erre and hath some times erred by following some certaine Rule can neuer be sure he doth not erre by following the same rule If a Iudge condemne a man to death wrongfully vpon euidence giuen against him by two witnesses how can he be sure that he doth not condemne another man vniustly if he haue no greater assurance then the deposition of two witnesses not knowne to be of better credit conscience A traueller hath been misguided out of his way by inquiring of the first man he met trusting his direction how can he be sure he is not out of his way by crediting the word of another directour equally vnknowne vnto him This then is the Argument of Charity Maintayned which you durst not encounter but ran about the world in the wild-goose chase to auoyd the force thereof No man can be sure he doth not erre by following a rule which is fallible and deceitfull But to iudge of the sense of the Scripture by the sole seeming euidence of the text is a rule fallible which often fayleth and deceaueth them who rely thereon because many places are not taken in their plain proper literall sense and many texts considered by themselues seeme cleere and plaine which conferred with other texts that seeme to say the contrary become darke and obscure Therefore to discerne the true sense and meaning of Scripture by the sole seeming euidence of some text thereof is a rule fallible Protestāts by the sole direction therof can neuer be sure or infallibly certain about any mystery of faith 10. And I pray you good Sir leaue your wild vagaries come home to the litle closet of your wits hold them close to the matter and then tell vs A Protestant who denyes the wordes of Christ This is my Body to be true in their plain proper and literall sense how can he be sure himselfe or how can he assure others that this text The word was made flesh is to be taken and true in the plain proper and literal sense Do not tell vs that you know the way from your Hall to your chamber that snow is white fyre hoat M. Knot is not Arch-Bishop of Toledo but giue vs an assured rule whereby to know that this text The word was made flesh is literally to be vnderstood in the plain substantial sense the text This is my body ought to be figuratiuely interpreted so that the Body of Christ be taken for but a peece of Bread The meane while I conclude that Protestants seing they haue not any infallible rule to assure them of the sense of Scripture cannot firmely belieue the Mysteries reuealed therein and so they haue not such a persuasion of the truth of Gods word as is worthy of God and pleasing to him nor will they euer obtayne sauing fayth till they ioyne with Roman Catholiques to acknowledge the infallible authority of the visible Catholike Church The seauenth Conuiction BEcause you cannot damne Roman Catholiques for any want of necessary and fundamentall truth you endeauour to procure their damnation and plead earnestly for it in regard they do not endeauour to know all profitable truth In which discourse you prodigiously contradict other assertions of your Booke By the discouery of which damnation will be seene to fall a way from vs vpon your owne head togeather with the cause meritorious thereof the not caring to auoyd vnfundamentall heresies 1. First you contradict your selfe in the same sentence wherby you make your Way plaine and yet impossible to be gone Pag. 221 lin 19. This is a way so plaine as fooles cannot except they will erre from it Because not knowing absolutely all truth nay not all profitable truth not being free from errour but endeuoring to know the truth and obey it and to be free from errour is by this Way made the onely condition of Saluation It is strange you should say that fooles cannot erre from your Way vnlesse they will whereas your selfe being so wise a man haue erred so mightily from your Way no doubt against your will as you are gone a contrary way In the first part of your saying you pronounce your Way to be so plaine as fooles except they will cannot misse of being saued therein but in the second you require so much and so hard conditions of Saluation as you make the same wholy impossible for fooles and ignorant persons and morally impossible euen to the learned'st leaders of your flocke For you require to Saluation that men know not onely all necessary truth but also that they endeauour to know all profitable truth yea absolutely all truth For by vertue of your speach they are bound to endeauour for the knowledge of that truth which in this sentence you say they are not bound to know But the truth you say in this sentence they are not bound to know is not all necessary truth but all profitable truth yea absolutely all truth Ergo your followers are bound as they will be saued though not to know yet to labour endeauour study to know all profitable truth yea absolutely all truth about Diuine matters Which is as much as to say that none can be saued in your way but such as haue studied Diuinity and haue not omitted so much as one question thereof not only about profitable points of that Science but also about vnnecessary and vnprofitable quirks absolutely all What can be imagined more vaine fond and absurd then to bind all men as they will be saued to study and endeauour for the knowledg of all Diuinity and Diuine truth And yet such is your desire to damne vs as you will do it vpon any condition though your selfe and all other Protetestants be damned in our company 2. Secondly you grossely
consequently of the Doctrines contained therein only as an opinion very probable as is hereafter shewed Ergo you question the holy Scripture the Religion and Gospell of Christ you make an if of the truth and certainty thereof You examine it doubtingly with liberty of iudgment prepared in mind to leaue it if perchance you find the grounds thereof apparently false What is this but to be a Nullifidian a man setled in no Religion but doubtfull of all Such an one as they were whome the Apostle checketh terming them men still learning but neuer attayning to the assured knowledge of any thinge Againe Pag. 307. n. 107. you write thus speaking vnto our Maintayner Your eleauenth falshood is that our first reformers ought to haue doubted whether their opinions were certaine which is to say they ought to haue doubted of the certainty of Scripture which in formall and expresse termes contaynes many of these opinions From this testimony I conclude that you doubt of the cetainty of the Scripture You professe to examine and question all your Protestant opinions of Diuine matters to make a doubt of the certainty of them But you contend that some of your Protestant opinions of Diuine matters be such as to make a doubt or question of the certainty of them is to doubt of the certainty of formall and expresse Scripture Ergo your Way and practise of doubting of all your opinions about Diuine matters is doubting euen of the truth of the Christian Scripture and Ghospell of Christ A thinge most impious and execrable as you now suppose yet so fond and forgetfull you are as to say you should haue litle hope of Saluation did you not do it or endeauour to do it 6. In fine your safe Way is a Labyrinth of implicatory and inextricable errours Protestants that are concluded therein are lost in a maze of vncertainties and in an intricate mixture of contrary doctrines being sure to find nothing therein but damnation which way so euer they turne themselues Do they doubt of the truth of their Religion which they belieue to be the Ghospell They are both according to truth and in your doctrine damnable wretches as being formall Heretiques Be they so firme in their Religion as they ranke doubting thereof among deadly sinnes Then they are you say obstinately blind sure to fall into the pit of perdition as much as we are at the least you affoard them litle hope of obtayning Saluation The sixt Conuiction 1. THis Conuiction sheweth that only Roman Catholiques haue sauing fayth which is demonstrated by three Arguments The first Sauing fayth is that without which it is impossible to please God Now fayth which pleaseth Gods must be on the one side certaine and infallible otherwise it is not worthy of God to whose word we owe so firme beliefe that if an Angel from heauen should Euangelize against that we haue receaued as his word he were not to be heard but to be accursed On the other side it must be a free and voluntary assent not enforced by the euidence of the thinge For if the reason of belieuing be euident and such as doth necessitate the Vnderstanding to assent the assent is not pleasing to God because it is not voluntary obedience and submission to his word Roman Catholiques by belieuing the Church to be infallible in all her proposals obtaine a persuasion about Diuine mysteries firme and infallible and yet of voluntary obedience and submission But the Opposers of the Roman Church not only want certainty in truth but also know not which way to challenge infallible certainty without euidence 2. This may be proued by what you write Pag. 329. lin 31. The infallible certainty of a thing which though it be in it selfe yet is not made appeare to vs infallibly certaine to my vnderstanding is an impossibility What is this but to say that fayth of a thing cannot be infallibly certaine except the thinge belieued be made so cleere and apparent that the vnderstanding cannot choose but assent vnto it For what appeares to vs to be infallibly certaine is seen of vs to be infallibly certaine What we see to be infallible certaine we cannot choose but assent that it is so So that a firme grounded beliefe of the truth of thinges not appearing without which it is impossible to please God is by your doctrine to Protestants impossible 3. Moreouer that Protestants cannot haue fayth pleasing to God that is fayth infallibly certayne not grounded on euidence I demonstrate in this sort No man can be assured infallibly of the truth of things not seene nor to him euidently certaine but by the word of an Authour infallibly veracious in all his words deliuered vnto him by a witnesse of infallible truth For if the witnesse or messenger of the word be fallible let the Authour of the word be neuer so infallible our assent to the truth of the thing proposed cannot be infallible Now Protestants haue not the word of God by meanes of a witnesse and messinger infallible For the witnesse proposer and messenger of the word of God is the visible Catholique Church which Protestants hold to be fallible full of false Traditions not free so you say from errour in it selfe damnable and in this sense Fundamentall Wherfore it is demonstratiuely certaine that onely Roman Catholiques who belieue the Church to be infallible can haue Fayth worthy of God Fayth of voluntary submission to Gods word that is fayth of things to them not euidently yet infallibly certayne and consequently they only please God by their belieuing and are saued 4. The second Argument You say pag. 148. lin 16. There is no other reason to belieue the Scripture to be true but onely because it is Gods word so that you cannot belieue the doctrines and myestries reuealed in Scripture to be true more firmely and infallibly then you belieue the Scripture to be Gods word for we must be surer of the proofe then of the thing proued thereby otherwise it is no proofe as you say pag. 37â— n. 59. But your assurance that the Scripture is the word of God is onely human probable and so absolutely fallible For you belieue the bookes which were neuer doubted of in the Church to be Gods word and a perfect rule of fayth onely by the tradition or testimonies of the ancient Churches pag. 63. lin 35. But the ioynt tradition of all the Apostolicall Churches with one mouth and one voyce teaching the same doctrine is onely a very probable argument as you affirme pag. 361. n. 40. Ergo your fayth that Scripture is Gods word consequently of all the mysteries therin reuealed is but human and probable and therefore vnworthy of God being not firmer then the credit we yield to euery morall honest man For to vs his word is probable and credible and to you the word of God is no more 5. Protestants commonely pretend that their fayth
contradict your selfe whiles your declame against our Religion as extreme dangerous because we do not you say care to auoyd errours not fundamentall which declamations are frequent in your booke particularly Pag. 277. n. 61. lin 29. Neither is there any reason why such a Church should please her selfe too much for retayning fundamentall truths whiles she remaynes so regardlesse of others For though the simple defect of some truths profitable onely and not simply necessary may consist with Saluation yet who is there that can giue her sufficient assurance that the neglect of such truths is not damnable Besides who is there that can put her in sufficient caution that these errours about profitable matters may not according to the vsuall fecundity of errour bring forth others of a higher quality such as are pestilent and pernicious c. Lastly who can say that she hath sufficiently dicharged her duty to God and man by auoyding onely fundamentall Heresies if in the meane tyme she be negligent of others which though they do not destroy Saluation yet obscure and hinder onely not blocke vp the way to it Thus you who seeme as forgetfull of your selfe as he was who is sayd to haue had so little wit as he could not remember his owne name For had you remembred your name to the questions Who can giue such a Church sufficiēt assurance who can put her in sufficient caution Who can say she hath done her duty sufficiently You would haue readily answered I William Chillingworth for you often vndertake for a Church that retaynes all Fundamentall truths to be her surety and giue her assurance of Saluation agaynst all these pretended dangers You say they who belieue all fundamentals belieue all necessaries and so wee must confesse that they may safely expect Saluation except we will say that more is necessary then that which is necessary You say poynts circumstantiall that is not fundamentall be those of which we may be securely ignorant such as euen the Pastours themselues are not bound to know or belieue or not disbelieue them absolutely and alwayes but then only when they do see know them to be deliuered in Scripture as Diuine Reuelations I say when they do so and know and not onely when they may c. Otherwise it should be a damnable sinne in any learned man actually to disbelieue any one particular Historicall verity contayned in Scripture for though he did not know it to be reuealed yet he might haue knowne it had he with diligence perused Scripture You say he that belieues all fundamentals cannot be damned for any errour of fayth You earnestly demand He that belieues all necessary truth how can he possibly fayle of Saluation if his life be answerable to his fayth 3. By these sayings do not you giue men that retayne all fundamentals good cause of too much that is of excessiue pleasure and content by telling them they cannot possibly be damned for any errour in fayth Do not you affoard abundant assurance that neglect to know truths not fundamentall is not damnable there being no obligation to know them or to vse diligence to find them The people and euen the Pastours may securely be ignorant of them yea actually disbelieue them Do not you put such a Church in sufficient caution that errours not Fundamentall cannot bring forth errours pestilent and pernicious that she hath performed her duety to God and man sufficiently vnto Saluation by auoyding Fundamentall Heresies Except you will say more is necessary then that which is necessary that can be which cannot be that is possible which is altogether impossible men are bound to know that which they are not bound to know men are damned for not caring to know that whereof they might be securely ignorant Into this maze of contradictions you are brought by your will to damne vs which is much stronger then your wit 4. Your third Deuise to damne vs it yet more full of strange forgetfulnesse and contradiction of your selfe You suppose that we distinguish Heresies into two kinds some fundamentall some not fundamentall that we hold the first damnable and vtterly destructiue of Saluation and so to be carefully auoyded but that men may be saued in their heresies of the second kind Hence you say we regard not Heresies vnfundamentall we are carelesse and negligent to auoyd them being persuaded that if we hold all fundamentall truth we cannot be damned for any errour or heresy against fayth In regard of this loose doctrine and our negligence consequent thereupon you say we are in great danger of damnation This is your Plea against our Saluation so dull and so voyd of memory as you may seeme to haue forgotten euen the argument of the whole booke of Charity manitayned and of your owne For this distinction of Heresies into two sortes some Fundamentall some not Fundamental is taught by Protestants who by the largenesse laxitie of this doctrine would draw some kind of Heretiques to wit Heretiques not fundamentall within the compasse of the fold of Christ and the number of them that be saued This is the substance of D. Potters whole treatise which our maintayner impugneth Is it not thē prodigious want of memory to charge the Roman Church with this Doctrine and to seeke her damnation because forsooth she doth not care to auoyd Heresies not Fundamentall For our Roman Theology doth not allow the distinction of errours or heresies agaynst fayth into Fundamentall and not Fundamentall in your sense for we hold Heresies damnable and equally damnable as much those that are against Truths profitable only as those that destroy truths simply necessary Hence in the Way of the Roman Church he that knowing Transubstantiation to be proposed as matter of fayth by the definition of the Church shall presume to gaine say it is as full formall and very an Heretique as he who denyes the personall vnion of two Natures Diuine and Human in Christ For the greatnes of the malice of Heresy is not measured by the greatnesse of the matter denyed but by the greatnes of the pride wherby an Heretique preferres his fancies of Scripture before the definition of the Church by the greatnes of that impiety wherby he presumes to reiect that doctrine which he hath so many stronge reasons to belieue to be reuealed of God 5. If you say that Charity maintayned doth suppose that the Roman Church hath some corruptions and errours in fayth not Fundamentall I answere it is impudently in you so to affirme and great vanity to gather your affirmation from these his wordes As for our Churchs corruptions in doctrine I speake vpon the vntrue supposition of our Aduersaries you vpon no better warrant then this say to our Maintayner pag. 274. n. 58. You are so courteous as to suppose corruptions in your doctrine And a little after pag. 275. n. 59. I thanke you for your courteous supposall that your Church may erre And pag. 276. lin 2. You suppose your