continentur nihil est notins nihil certius vt stultissimum esse necesse sit qui illis fidem esse habendam neget There is nothing more knowen nothing more certaine then the holy Scriptures which are contayned in the wrytiâ—ges of the Prophets Apostles in so much that it were a most foolishe thing for any man to deny them Here first to make Bellarmine insinuate that he houldeth the authority of the Church in any thing to be doubtfull and vncertaine our minister of his owne brayne haith added these wordes other meanes may deceane me whereas there is not a fillable thereof in Bellarmine Secondly this place as we see is produced by him against the authority of the Church whereas indeede it is directed against the Swink feldians who denying the Scriptures relyed vpon their priuate illuminations as hereafter shall appeare by displaying a strang corruption and wresting of Bellarmines saying practised by M. Whyte in pag. 17. at the letter q. of which place of Bellarmine this here alledged is a parcell Thus our minister extremely strayneth euery Authority that he setteth downe till at the length it burst out into an open and inexcusable corruption The 2 Paragraph Bellarmine corrupted in proofe that the Scriptures are the onely rule of Faith Againe pag 17. to proue that all poyntes in controuersy must definitiuely be determined by the writen word alone without any respect to the Churches Authority in the explication thereof he marcheth owte once againe making Bellarmine his buckler thereupon alledgeth these wordes of his The rule of Faith must be certaine and knowen for if it be not certaine it is no rule at all If it be not knowen it is no rule to vs but but nothing is more certaine nothing better knowen then the sacred Scriptures contayned in the writinges of the Prophets and Apostles wherefore the sacred Scripture is the rule of Faith most certaine and most saife and God haith taught by corporall letters which we might see read what he would haue vs beleue concerning him Obserue here the refractory and incorrigible frowardnes of our minister and how artificiall and exact he sheweth him self in his art of corrupting For Bellarmine in this Chapter as is aboue touched writeth against the Swinkfeldians who denyed the Scripture to be the worde of God and rested onely vpon their priuate and hiddeÌ„ reuelations and answearably hereto the Tytle of this Chapter is Libris qui Canonicâ— appellaâ—tur verbum dei contineri That the word of God is contayned in those bookes which are called Canonicall Now the wordes at large are thus in Bellarmine Regula fides certa notaque c. The Rule of faith ought to be certaine and knowen for if it be not knowen it can be no Rule to vs and if it be not certaine it can be no Rule at all But the reuelation of the priuate spirit although in it self it might be certayne yet to vs it can no way be certaine except haply it be warraÌ„ted with diuyne testimonies to wit true miracles And then some sixe lynes after At sacris Scripturis c. But nothing is more knowen nothing more certaine then the sacred Scriptures which are contayned in the bookes of the Prophets Apostles And some fourtie or fiftie lynes after Quare cum sacra Scriptura Regula crodendi c. Wherefore seing the holy Scripture is a most certaine and a most secure rule of beleefe doubtlesse he can not be wyse who neglecting the same committeth him self to the iudgment of the priuate spirit which is often deceiptfull but euer vncertayne And againe some twenty lynes after Non igitur omnes vulgó c. Teerefore God teacheth not all men by internall inspirations what he wonld haue the faithfull to beleue of him or what they are to doe but it is his pleasure to instruct vs by corporall letters which we might see and reade Here now I referre this point to the most earneste protestant in England if he be Candid and ingenious with what face M. Whyte could alledg Bellarmine in this place to proue from him that the Scripture onely is the Iudg Rule of Faith for so doth the minister entytle that page thereby to make Bellarmine to reiect all Authority of the Church in exposition thereof all Apostolicall Traditions where we see vpon what different occasion from that he writeth in this Chapter against the Swinkfeldians Now here let vs note the particuler sleightes vsed in this corruption First M. Whyte you tye together without any c. or other word or note signifying the contrary seuerall sentences of Bellarmine for your greater aduantage as though one did immediatly folow the other though they lye in Bellarmine distinct by interposition of many lynes Secondly you haue concealed three seuerall parcels of different sentences expressing Bel. true mynde herein and all these parcels are euen partes and therefore the fowler fault of the sentences alledged by you Your concealemeÌ„ts are these Porro priuati Spiritus reuelatio et si in se certa sit nobis tamen nota nullo modo potest nisi forte diuinis testimoniis id est veris miraculis confirmetur And againe Sanus profecto non erit qui ea neglecta vz. the Scripture spiritus interui saepe fallacis semper incerti iudicio se coÌ„miserit And finally Non igitur omnes vulgoó per internum afflatum Deus docet All which your omissions are impaled and marked in the said english authority O how happy M. Whyte were you if you neuer had bene scholler since the tyme will come that you shall say with the Romane Emprour after he had subscribed to an vniust cause Vtinam literas nescirem For good thinges as learning are most perniceous to him who declyneth the true vse of them as you doe And in this respect you are to remember that the Arcke which was a blessing to the Israelites was yet a curse and hurt to the Philistians that abused it The 3. Paragraph Eckius fouly abused concerning the Authority of the Church and Traditions As heretofore he laboured to ouerthrow the doctrine of traditions from the corrupted testimonies of Catholicks and auncient Fathers so heare he endeuoreth from their lyke abused testimonies to intimate that we ascribe to them a greater perfection then we doe And to this end pag. 145. thereby the rather to cast vpon vs an vnworthy aspersion of vnderualewing the Scriptures he bringeth in Eckius in Enchirid. ca. 1. saying The Scripture receaueth all the authority it haith from the Church and from Tradition The wordes of this Author are these Scriptura non est authentica sine authoritate Ecclesiae whereby we see the wordes and from Tradition are falsly inserted by our deprauing minister making vs thereby to geue with we doe not a greater prerogatiue to Tradition then to Scripture And though perhaps he could light vpon those wordes and from Tradition in some other place or Chapter in Ecckius though in a different
in the tyme of Christianity there are no Traditions but the Scripture of the old Testament it the onely rule of Faith Againe Remember the Law of Moyses my seruant which I commaunded him in Horeb for all Israell with the statutes iudgments Therefore no Traditions Lastly The brethren of the rich glutton had Moyses and the Prophets Therefore no pointes of Christian Faith are to be proued froÌ„ any Traditions of the Church Strangly wildly most exorbitantly concluded for what reference haue these textes with the rule of Faith the which is not so much as glaunced at in any one of them or graunting that they had why should the old Testament be a paterne for the Faith professed in the new Testament since all Christians do graunt that the time of Grace is enriched with many priuiledges and immunities whereof the old Law was altogether depriued After these and such like textes of Scripture he descendeth to proue the soresaid point from the testimonies of the auncient Fathers as to omitt diuers others he alledgeth Tertulian saying The Scripture is the rule of Faith which we graunt for we teach that it is Regula partialis fidei a Rule of our faith in part yet hence it followeth not which is the point here onely to be proued that it is Regula totalis an entyre sole rule of Faith without the help of any Traditions and as large in extent as our faith is Also S. Augustine thus wryting This controuersy depending betwene vs requyres a Iudg let Christ therefore iudg and let the Apostle Paule iudg with him because Christ also speaketh in his Apostle As if Christ his Apostles could not aswell speake in Traditions as in writinges or because graunting that that particuler controuersie there ment by S. Augustine was proued from the wrytinges of S. Paule therefore all other Articles of Christian Religion should thence also receaue their sole proofe Againe Gregory Nyssen tearming the Scripture a strait and inflexible Rule as in that the Scriptute is inflexible and inchangeable for those pointes which it proueth therefore it alone and no Apostolicall traditions is to proue any article of our Faith Lastly he introduâ—eth S. Austine againe saying Whatsoeuer thing it be that a man learnes out of the Scripture if it be hurtfull there it is condemned if it be profitable there it is found Which place particulerly concerning conuersation of life as vertue and vyce of both which the Scripture most fully discourseth how it may condemne Apostolicall traditions which may deliuer supernaturall and high misteries of Christian faith I leaue to the censure of any iudceous man This done he next falleth to the sentences of more late Catholick writers as first of S. Thomas Aquinas saying The doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets is Canonicall because it is the Rule of our vnderstanding But what do these wordes force onely in the behalfe of Scripture and against Apostolicall Traditions since in leede they do not peculierly concerne the Scripture but as the wordes litterally import that the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets in generall whether it be written or vnwritten is Canonicall Againe he vrgeth S. Thomas the second tyme Our Faith resteâ—h and stâ—eth it self vpon the reuelation geuen to the Apostles and Prophets which write the Canonicall bookes and not vpon reuelation if any such haue bene made to any other Doctors But who denies that the prophets Apostles did write the canonicall bookes Or who reacheth that our Faith ought to rest vpon the reuelation of any other Doctors then the Prophets the Apostles Or shew any reason which is the cheif point in this sentence to be shewed why the reuelations of the Prophets and especially the Apostles may not aswell comprehend traditions as the writen word In like sort he bringeth in Gerson saying Scripture is the Rule of our faith which being well vnderstoode noe authority of men is to be admitted against it As I haue said before we do teach that the Scripture is the Rule of Faith but not the sole Rule which M. Whyte ought to proue Againe we willingly acknowledg that no authority of man is to stand against the Scripture but what doth this impeach Apostolicall traditions which are nomore the bare authority of man then the Scripture it self both equally proceding froÌ„ God by the assistance of the holy Ghost Finally he comes in with Perisius wryting that The Authority of no Sainct is of infallible truth for S. Augustine geues that honour onely to the sacred Scriptures But here the question is not touching the tradition of any other Sainctes then onely of our Sauiour his Apostles and the whole Church yet we see Peresius here speaking of Sainctes must needes meane only of Particuler Sainctes or holy men since the tymes of the Apostles seing otherwise he should teach which were most wicked that the authority of the Apostles and the Euangelistes are not of infallible truth Besides S. Augustine in that place restrayneth without any reference at all to Traditions his meaning onely to the writinges of priuate Doctors in respect of the sacred Scripture and in this reguard still speaking of bookes written we all graunt that the Scripture is of an infallible truth Such vnprofitable and wast testimonies M. Whyte is accustomed to heape together in his booke the which that they shall not so easely be espied he subtilly for the most part mingleth them with other Authorities more pertinent at least in outward for the c shew of wordes lyke a good Captaine who rangeth his worst weakest souldiers in the middest thâ—ong of the more experienced so making those formes to serue onely to encrease in the enemies eye the number though not their force The 2. Paragraph Wherein are discussed certaine Arguments drawne from Scriptures and Fathers in proofe that the sacred Scriptures the true sense there of are made sufficiently known vnto vs without any approbation or explication of the Church The next subiect of his loose kind of Inferences wherein I will insist partly conspireth with the former and is touching the absolute and supreme soueraigâ—ty of the Scriptures in determining of controuersies without any needefull explicatioÌ„ of gods Church this assertion being indeede a head Theoreme or principle with the sectaries of this age For page 4â— M. Whyte thus writeth Digressio 11. prouing that The Scripture it self haith that outward authority whereupon our faith is built and not the Church Now here for the better vindicating and freeing vs from all contumelious calumnies touching our supposed contempt of the Scriptures as also for the more manifest discouery of M. Whytes weake arguing herein the Reader is to take notice that the Catholicks do ascribe all due reuerence estimation and respect to the Scripture whatsoeuer acknowledging it to be gods embassadour which vnfouldeth vnto man vpon earth the sacred will and pleasure of our heauenly King as also that it is the spirituall
not Israell which are of Israell himselfe being one of those which will not cease to peruert the way of our Lord. A TABLE OF THE CONTENTES The first Part. Chapiter 1. Conteyning Corruptions concerning woorkes and Iustification The First Paragraph Premenitions geuen to M. whyte if he entend to reply vpon this present Treatise 2 The Rhemistes Corrupted concerning merite of workes 3 Cardinall Bellarmine Corrupted concerning iustification 4 Bellarmine againe abused against merite of workes 5 S. Thomas Corrupted against iustification by workes 6 S. Augustine Corrupted against iustification Chapiter .2 Concerning the reading of the Scriptures The first Paragraph S. Ierome Corrupted concerning the reading of the Scriptures by the vulgare people 2 S. Cirill of Alexandria abused for the same purpose Chapiter .3 Concerning the Church and the Pope The first Paragraph Vincentius Lirinensis Corrupted in proofe that the Church may erre 2 The Rhemistes Corrupted for the Churches inuisibility 3 S. Augustine Corrupted concerning the same subiect 4 Doctor Stapleton abused in behalfe of the protestantes markes of the Church 5 S. Gregory de valentia Corrupted concerning the same 6 Bellarmine egregiously Corrupted for the same 7 S. Thomas fouly corrupted concerning the Popes authority 8 Doctor Sapleton corrupted concerning the same subiect 9 S. Ciprian corrupted against appeales to Rome 10 The Rhemistes abused concerning the authority of the Church 11 Cardinall Cusanus corrupted concerning the same 12 The canon lawe corrupted concerning the Pope 13 Bellarmine corrupted against the Popes authority Chapiter 4. wherin are discouered sundry corruptions concerning the sacred Scriptures and Traditions The first Paragraph Bellarmine corrupted in behalfe of the Scripture prouing it selfe to be the word of god 2 Bellarmine corrupted in proofe that the Scriptures are the onely rule of faith 3 Eckius abused concerning the Authority of the Church and Traditions 4 Canus corrupted concerning Traditions Chapter .5 Concerning Faith and Heresy The 1 Paragraph Bellarmine corrupted against the necessity of true Faith 2 Bellarmine againe corrupted against the knowledg of the misteries of our faith and in preferring of ignorance 3 Nauar corrupted concerning the sinne committed by the Laity in disputing of matters of faith Chapter 6. Concerning mariage of Preistes Fasting and Miracles The 1 Paragraph Sinesius impudently abused concerning his owne mariage 2 Paphnutius abused concerning the mariage of preistes 3 S. Angustine corrupted against fasting Baronius notoriously corrupted in proofe that heritikes can worke true miracles Chapter .7 Concerning the Sacramentes of the Eucharist and Pâ—nance The 1. Paragraph Bellarmine corrupted against Transubstantiation 2 The. M. of the Sentences corrupted against confession to a Preist 3 Bellarmine corrupted against Satisfaction 4 S. Thomas corrupted concerning the remission of veniall sinnes Chapter 8. Concerning the Author of sinne and Reprobation The 1. Paragraph Bellarmine egregiously falsified in proofe that god is the Author of sinne 2 S. Augustine abused concerning reprobation Chapter 9. Concerning the honour to be geuen to Sainctes and their Images The 1 Paragraph S. Epiphanius corrupted in dishonour of the B. Virgin Mary 2 S. Gregory notoriously corrupted against the worshiping of Images 3 The Councell of Eliberis corrupted against Images The second part Containing sundry notorious vntruthes or lyes proued to be such by the confession of learned protestantes And first is preuented a weake euasion which may be vsed by M. Whyte against this second part The 1. vntruth That protestantes embrace that kind of tryall which is by antiquity 2 Against Traditions 3 In proofe of the protestants Church to haue continued in all ages 4 In proofe of the vnity of faith and doctrine amongst protestantes 5 In proofe of the immutability of the present English Religion 6 In proofe of the Romane Churches mutability in matters of faith 7 In proofe of the protestantes concord in matters of Religion 8 Against the vnity of Catholickes in matters of faith 9 Against the Popes primacy 10 That Gregory the great detested the Popes primacy 11 In proofe that Catholickes are more viceous then protestantes 12 Against auriculer confession 13 Against Fasting 14 In proofe that Montanus the herityke was the first that brought in the lawes of Fasting 15 In proofe that they make not God the Author of sinne 16 In proofe that S. Bernard was noe papist 17 Against the miracles wrought by S. Bernarde and S. Francis 18 In proofe of the protestantes Churches euer visibility 19 In defence of Preistes mariage 20 Against Images 21 Against Transubstantiation 22 Against the conuersion of England by S. Augustine the Monke 23 Concerning the Conuersion of Countries 24 Against the Popes Authority in calling of Councels 25 Against merite of woorkes 26 Against the Sacrifice of the Masse 27 Concerning wafer cakes 28 Against the Adoration of the B. Sacrament 29 Against the succession of Catholick Pastors 30 In defence of Martin Luthers lyfe and manners The Third Part. Contayning diuers impertinences or absurd Illations or reasoninges The 1. Paragraph Wherein are discouered strange Illations or arguinges in proofe that the Scriptures are the sole rule of faith and against Traditions 2 Wherein are discussed certaine arguments drawne from Scriptures Fathers in proofe that the sacred Scriptures the true sense thereof are made sufficiently knowne vnto vs without any probation or explication of the Church 3 Wherein are examined some of M. Whites profes against the visibility of the Church 4 Wherein are discussed certaine proofes of M. Whytes in behalf of the protestantes markes of the Church 5 Wherein are examined strange kindes of Argunges against the Authority of the Church Faultes escaped in the printing In the preface to the Vniuersity of Cambridge Pag. 1 lin 10. for iudiceous reade iudicious Ibid. lin 11. for grearly read greatly Ibid. pag. 4. lin 27. for Iugements read Iudgements Ibid. pag. 5. lin 22. for inuisibilites Inuisibilistes Preface to the Reader Pag. 2. lin 4. leaue out said worke Pag. 4. lin 15. for â—nlour read colour Chapter 1. Pag. 4. lin 25. for Iustifieth read insisteth in Pag. 5. lin 25. for preadmonish read premonish Pag. 18. lin 21 for great read greatest Pag. 27. lin 9. for Quod read Quid. Pag. 31. lin 23. for Anologie read Analogie Pag. 47. lin 4. betwixt druncke and should insorte one Pag. 52. lin 16. 17. leaue out these wordes All which your omissions are impaled and marked in the said english authority Pag. 52. lin 20. for Emprour read Emperour Pag. 53 lin 14. for disopting read dissorting Pag. 53. lin 23. for perusing read pursuing Pag. 64. lin 14. leaue out the word is Pag. 77. lin 10. for Chapiter read Chapter Pag. 87. lin 24. for maliuolent read maleuolent Pag. 138. lin 27. next after the word Masse insert affirmeth Pag. 159. lin 10. betwixt authority the insert in Pag. 73. lin 30. for fully read fouly Pag. 87. lin 33. for paralayes read parallels Pag. 92. lin 4. for differences read discoueries Pag. 97. lin 28. for musk read musick Pag. 114. lin
sence which hitherto I can not find yet it is no small dishonesty in M. Whyte thus vnkindly to match and ioyne together such disopting sentences without the parents consent Againe what a strange construction or translation is this Scriptura non est authentica sine authoritate Ecclesiae The Scripture receaueth all the authority it haith from the Church and from Tradition If this liberty be Iustifiable what errour so grosse may not easely be iustifyed against all Scripture thongh neuer so plentifull though neuer so manifest The 4. Paragraph Canus corrupted concerning Traditions Againe perusing his former proiect he pag. 2. fortifyeth him self with a wrest d authority of Canus whom li. 3. ca. 3. he bringeth in thus teaching There is more strength to confute heritykes in Traditions then in the Scripture yea all disputations with them must be determined by Traditions Here againe the proteruity of our Doctor more and more discouereth it self For thus Canus speaketh Non modo aduersum haereticos c. Not onely against heritykes Tradition is of more force then Scripture but also omnis fermè disputatio almost all disputation with them is to be reduced to Traditions receaued from our Auncestors For seing both Catholickes heritikes doe alledg Scripture for them selues the difference betwene them is in the sence and interpretation thereof Now which is the true and lawfull sence of it can not otherwise certainly be knowen then by the traditioÌ„ of the Church Here now our ministers sleight is three-fould for first Canus borroweth this saying from Tertulian of whom twenty lynes before this place Canus thus us writeth Tertulianus monet vt aduersus hareticos magis Traditionibus quam Scripturis disseramus Scripturae enim varios sensus trâ—huntur Traditiones non item TertuliaÌ„ counseleth vs that we hould dispute against heritikes rather with Tradition then with Scripture since the Scriptures are drawen into seuerall constructions whereas Traditions are not so Thus it appeareth that the opinion is Tertulians and borrowed onely from him by Canus yet M. Whyte thought it more conuenient to deliuer it as proceding onely from Canus so concealing Tertulian as vnwilling to haue it graced and countenanced with the Authority of so auncient a Doctor The second deceipt here lyeth in not translating but concealing the reasoÌ„ of Canus his IudgmeÌ„t therein though it be expressed by Canus in the wordes immediatly folowing the place alledged which shew that the cause why we are to dispute with heritykes with Traditions rather then with Scriptures is not as our minister falsly pretendeth our distrust in the Scripture or want thereof to proue our Catholick Faith but as Canus saith because the true sence of it is cheifely to be taken from Tradition warranted by the Church Thirdly and lastly he abuseth his Reader in concealing the aduerbe ferme in those words aboue omâ—is ferme disputatio almost all disputation whereas he translateth all disputations Thus Canus by vsing the worde fermè exempteth some points from being decyded onely by traditions whereas by our ministers translation not any one is excepted Thus haue we seene how our Doctor by his fowle collusions haith laboured seuerall wayes to depresse and obscure the worthines of gods Catholick Church as by making her become somtimes inuisible by falsly ascribing to her and her head in the catholickes name an vsurping soueraignty thereby to make her due Authority the more contemned to conclude by depryuing her of all Apostolicall Traditions and of all preheminency in explayning and expounding the Scriptures whereas she especially now in the tyme of the Gospell euer sendeth from her self most glorious beames and splendor of truth and perpetuitie according to that of the princely psalmist In sole pos uit Tabernaculum suum for indeede she is that Soon which contrary to our inuisibilistes for these sixteene hundreth yeres did neuer once set vnder the horizon of an vniuersall latency that Soon which neuer expatiates beyond the tropickes of Gods Traditionary or writen word that Soon which with it defyning and infallible authority in explicating the true sense of Gods word dissipates and dissolues all cloudes of errour exhaled through the weake influence of the reuealing spirit finally that Soon whose concentrous vniformity could yet neuer broke any Phaniomena or apparances of innouation and nouelty whereas all other sectes professing the name of Christians are in regard of it but as Planetary and wandring starrs producing many Anomalous irregularities of vncertainty dissention and confusion Chapiter 5. Concerning Faith heresy The 1. Paragraph Bellarmine verrupted against the necessity of true Faith BVT to returne to our Doctor from Traditions we will descend to such other his deprauations as concerne Faith in generall as pag. 212. suggesting that we exact not besides other vertues any true or inward Faith to denominate or make one a perfect member of Gods Church but onely an outward show hereof he introduceth Bellarmine thus speaking de Eccl. mil. lib. 3. ca. 2. Noe inward vertue is required to make one a part of the true Church but onely the externall profession of Faith And then M. Whyte ryoteth in great profusion of wordes that vpon this grounde in the papistes Iudgment all holines of lyfe and conuersation is superfluous and needelesse But let vs recurre to Bellarmines wordes them selues Not credimus in Ecclesia inueniri c. We doe beleue that in the Church are found all vertues at Faith Hope Charity the rest ver vr aliquis aliquo modo dicâ— possiâ— pars verae Ecclesiae c. That any one may be called in some sort or manner a part of that true Church whereof the Scripture speaketh we doe not think any inward vertue to be requyred but onely an externall profession of faith c. And in the folowing paragraph he saith that those who wanting all vertue haue onely an externall profession of Faith câ— are as it were de corpore but not de anima Ecclesiae of the body not of the soule of the Church c. He but sicut capilli an t mali humores in corpore humano So wrongfully here we see is Bellarmine traduced by our Doctor First in concealing the beginning of the sentence wherein he acknowledgeth all theologicall vertues euer to be found in Gods Church Secondly in suggesting to the Reader that Bellarmine requyreth no true inward vertues as necessary for a Christian soule but onely an externall faith this is a false and selanderous contumely for pulchra es decora â—â—lia Hierusalem Caâ— 6. And Bellarmine is so farre froÌ„ teaching that such doe take any benefite by this theire outward profession that he saith as we see they are but onely of the body of the Church not of the soule to which kynd of members internall vertues at least are necessary and that they are to be resembled to the lesse profitable and but excrementall partes of mans body as the hayres of the head the nayles and other such bad humors Thirdly
it self or conference thereof but from the tradition and Authority of the Church such wrytinges are certainly knowne to be the vndoubted word of God most contrary to M. Whyte pag. 47. who saith that The Scripture proueth it self to be the very word of god receaueth not authoritie from the Church To this end we fynde D. Whitakar first reiccting the testimony of the pryuate spirit to say thus Non nego Traditionem ecclesiasticam esse argumentum quo argui et conuinci possit qui libri Canonicâ— sunt qui Canonicâ— non sunt I do not deny but that Ecclesiasticall tradition is an Argument from the which it may be proued which are the Canonicall bookes and which are not In lyke sort M. Hooker assenteth hereto saying In thinges necessary the very cheifest is to know what bookes we are bound to esteeme holy which poynt is confessed impossible for the Scripture it self to teach But what the Scripture teacheth not is by our aduersaries confession a mere Tradition Hookers iudgment in this poynt is iustifyed by Doctor Couell Now if these eminent protestantes do ascrybe onely to the Church the Indgment of discerning which is Scripture and which is not Scripture then we know from the Authority and Tradition of the Church not from the Scripture it self which is the true vndoubted word of God and what bookes are but spurious and adulterated and consequently M. Whyte lyed most grosly in affirming that no part of their faith standes vpon Tradition thus ranging him self amonge those who according to the Scripture mendaciorum funiculis conantur subuertere By the meanes of lyes endeuour to ouerthrow The third vntruth The Third vntruth in proofe of the continuance of the protestantes faith in all ages Our minister labouring to enamell and bewtify his deformed faith with the speceous tytle of antiquity succession pag. 86. vseth these swelling speaches Against all papistes whatsoeuer we make it good that the very faith we now professe haith successiuely continued in all ages since Christ was neuer interrupted so much as one yere month or day and to confesse the contrary were sufficient to prooue vs no part of the Church of god Wordes of brasse but if he be put to the proofe no doubt leaden performance To set downe the Iudgmentes of the learned protestantes touching the interruption of their faith for many seuerall ages since Christes tyme were laboursom and withall needeles since to conuince this bould assertion of falshood it is sufficient to insist in any one age or tyme. Therefore I will content my self with the authorities of two learned protestaÌ„ts touchiÌ„g the very time of Luthers first Apostacy and departing from our Church they graunting that their faith before Luthers reuolt was not to be found in any man liuing which they neuer would haue done if the euidency of the matter did not force them thereto considering how much such a confession doth enaruate and weaken their cause First theÌ„ we finde euen Luther himself to acknowledg this poynt who thus wryteth hereof Ego principio causae meae c. In the beginning of this my cause speaking of his change of religion I had this guift graunted me euen from heauen that I alone should vndertake so great a matter and I did conceaue that it should be made good onely by me neither did I put any confidence in the trust of others Here we see that he graunteth him self to haue bene alone in this his supposed restauration of the Gospell And hereupon it is that Luther in an other place thus vaunteth Christum a nobis primo vulgatum andemus gloriari We dare glory that Christ was first made knowne by vs. In lyke sort M. Iewell no meane Rabbi in our English Sinagoge saith that the truth was vnknowne at that tyme and vnheard of when Martin Luther and Vldrick Zuinglius first came vnto the knowledg and preaching of the Gospell The 4. Vntruth In proofe of the vnity of faith doctrine amongst protestantes Pag 138. For the more iustifying of the protestantes doctrine he thus saith of the booke entituled The Harmony of confessions The Harmony of confessions wherein the particuler Churches set downe and name the articles of their faith if the Iesuite can shew to â—arr in Dogmaticall poyntes of faith I am content you beleue him in all the rest Here the reader haith a bould assertion which as you see the more easely to winne a credulous eare is steeped in muske but I feare M. Doctor the note Diapason which implieth an absolute and generall concord and which is so much commended by all the most skilfull in that science will here be wanting And therefore for the more exact disquisition of that poynt we will refer our selues to that very booke called the Harmony of confessions englished printed at Cambridg by Thomas Thomas 1586. where for the greater expedition I will touch but some few stringes thereof onely to heare how they sound First then we fynde this harmony to teach that sinnes are efâ— sons punished euen in this lyfe at Dauids Manasses and the punishments may be mitigated by good woorkes pag. 229. See here how fully it acknowledgeth the abstensiue nature of penance and satisfaction Againe this obedience towardes the Law is a kind of Iustice marke you this discord and deserueth rewarde pag. 266. Like at the preaching of penance is generall euen so the promise of grace is generall c. Here needeth no disputation of Predestination or such like for the promise is generall pag. 268. 269. As touching priuate Confession c. we affirme that the ceremony of pryuate absolution is to be retayned in the Church and we do constantly retayne it pag. 231. In lyke sort it saith that the Bishops haue inrisdiction to forgeue sinnes pag. 366. Finally not to rest vpon euery perticuler stop thereof we thus fynde there We do not speake of the Church as if we should speake of Platoes Idea but of such a Church as may be seene and heard c. The eternall Father will haue his Sonne to be heard amonge all mankinde pag. 326. A note which must needes sound most harshe with our inuisibilistes Now I referr the matter to M. Whyte him self whether there be in these poyntes any concordance betwene the harmony of Confessions the doctryne of our English protestantes of the Hugonots in France and the Caluenistes in Germany so assured I was that a diligent eare would easely obserue many iarring stringes in the Consort The 5. Vntruth In proofe of the immutability of the present English Religion Page 138. He particulerly insisteth in his supposed constancy of religion here in England and thus wryteth If the Iesuite can shew the Church of England since papistry was first abolished to haue altered one article of the present faith now professed I am content c For the disproofe of this falshood we will conuince the same by discouering the manifould
he wrongeth the Cardinall who saith that a man onely of outward profession is but aliquo modo pars Ecclesia meaniÌ„g onely in aÌ„ imperfect equiuocall manner of being whereas our minister concealing the wordes aliquo modo maketh Bellarmine to asscribe to such a one as perfect a being a member of the Church as to any other man endewed with all the Theologicall vertues But M. Whyte as we haue seene in others of his corruptions so also in this haith a great facility in passing ouer and concealing diuters such wordes as si ferme aliquo modo and the lyke in any Author that he alledgeth though they mightely alter the meaning of the sentence It may be perhaps he haith framed to him self a new Accidence houlding such poore particles but as imperfect partes of speach be accomptes them as vnworthy to be traÌ„slated or set downe by his learned pen. The 2. Paragraph Bellarmine corrupted against the kuowledg of misteries of our Faith in preferring of ignorance Againe to our more depressing of faith our supposed aduancing of ignorance the Doctor telleth his Reader how among vs the lay people are not bound to know what the matters of their faith be but that ignorance is better and thereupon in his mergent he fortifyeth him self with a sentence of Bellarmine de Inst. l. 1. ca. 7. in these wordes Fides melins per ignorantiaÌ„ quam per notitiam definitur Faith is better defyned by ignorance then by knowledg I think the minister euen for feare of breach of his oath taken as it should seme to the contrary is loth to alledg any one sentence entyrely ingeniously and truly For mark here how vntruly he diuorceth Bellarmines wordes from his owne drift and mynde For the Cardinall entytuling that Chapiter Fidem iustificantem non tam esse notitiam quaÌ„ assensum Iustifying Faith rather to be assent then knowledg there proueth that faith euen according to the Apostles definition thereof can not be demoÌ„strated and that the assent which we geue thereunto saith he followeth not rationem euidentiam rei a cleare euideÌ„ce of the poynt beleued which is property called notitiaÌ„ but it followeth authoritatem proponentia the authority of the proposer and therfore it is more properly called fides And then some three lynes after he thus sayeth Igitur misteria fides quae rationem superant credivius non intelligimus ac per hoc fides distinguitur contra scientiam melius per ignorantiam quam per notitiam definitur Therefore we beleue the misteries of faith which are aboue reason we vnderstand them not and in this respect Faith it distinguished against science of knowledg and iâ— better defyned by ignorance then by euidency of knowledg Now here I doe demaund euen in sincerity whether these wordes with any tecture of colour of possibility can be wrasted to the supporting of a supine and an affected ignorance of the articles of our Faith as here our minister seeketh to strayne them Wherefore I say that M. Whyte dealeth vnchristianlyke and most irreligiously with Bellarmine herein For first he inuesteth his wordes which are spoken onely of the nature of faith with a new construction neuer dreamed of and therefore you see the minister besides his passing ouer the ground and reason of his sentence purposly omitteth in his translation the beginning of the seÌ„tence alledged though it doth expound the wordes following to wit Therefore we beleue the misteries of Faith which are aboue reason we vnderstand them not and in this respect Faith is distinguished against science Secondly he taketh aduauntage in translating the word notitia which though it signifyeth in large construction knowledg in generall in which sence he forsaw the ignorant reader would take it yet with the schoolemen it is restrayned as Bellarmine here expresly noteth to that kynd of knowledg which is properly Scientia which procedeth out of a demonstrable euidency of the thing knowen and consequently it is incompatible with Faith For shame of your owne credit M. Whyte and for the feare that you owe to God forbeare to seduce any longer the ignorant by these deceauable meanes and making your benesyte of these my trendly admonitions which indeede procede from Christian Charity remember that meliora sunt vulnera diligentis quaÌ„ fraudulente oscula prou 27. The 3 Paragraph Nauar corrupted concerning the sinne committed by the Laity in disputing of matters of Faith Now next let vs come to one or two deprauations consisting of the word heresy where pag. 6. to intimate that we hould it no lesser offence then heresy for a Lay man to argue of matters of Religion as though the Church barred them in any sort whatsoeuer not to speake thereof he alledgeth Nauar Manual ea 11. nu 26. It is heresy for a Lay man to dispute in a point of Faith Nauars wordes are these Quinto qui disputat de fide cum sit Laicus sciens Laicis esse prohibitum sub excommunicationis paena de tlla disputare Fiftly who being a Lay man disputeth of Faith knowing that Lay men are forbidden vnder payne of excommunication to dispute thereof Here you see there is no mention of heresy and indeede without reference to some other wordes the sense is here imperfect therefore the Reader is to vnderstand that the Tytle of this Chapiter in Nauar is this Modivsitatiores peccandi mortaliter contra praeceptum de rectè colendo honorando Deo c. The seuerall more accustomed kindes of sinning mortally against the precept of worshiping and honoring God aright c. and so answearably to this tytle he setteth downe dyuers wayes of sinninge mortally in that sort keping the methode of primo secundo c. and so comming to quinto he sheweth in what manner a man sinneth thereinâ— therefore the offence here committed is not heresy as our minister falsly saith but it is a mortall sinne which yet is so to be vnderstoode as when a Lay person pertinaceously without subiecting his Iudgment to the Church wauereth in disputatioÌ„ in any point of the Catholick faith and thus much of M. Whytes fynding the word heresy in Nauar. But I may well say he is a man of a very strange and as I may terme it imperfect perfect eye-sight since he can not see wordes in testimonies which euery other man doth see and yet seeth other wordes in them which no man els can see Chapter 6. Concerning mariage of Preâ—stes Fasting and Miracles The 1 Paragraph Sinesius impudently abused concerning his owne mariage The next corruption shall be touching mariage of Preistes the lawfulnes whereof this our yoked minister is more willing to iustify in that such as professe voluntary Chastity are according to the principles of his faith accompted noe better then superstitious wilfull Eunuches Now then for the warranting thereof page 343. he produceth a testimony from Sinesitus Bishop of Ptolemais who in his Epistle to a frend called Euopius thus writeth of
did withdraw men from the first forme thereof In lyke sort Sebastianus Francus an other learned protestant thus plainely writeth Statimpost Apostolos c. Presently after the Apostles all thinges were turned upside downe cana domini in sacrificium transformata c. The Lordes supper is turned into a Sacrifice To conclude M. Bacon a great protâ—stant here in England thus confesseth The Masse was conceaued begoten and borne anone after the Apostles tymes if all be true that Historiographers do write Thus much of the antiquity of the Masse which poynt thus acknowledged who seeth not that the testimonies of the former protestantes do vtterly ouerthrow the supposed truth of the D. Wordes affirming that the Masse came in by degrees and intimating to the credulous Reader that it was brought in by litle litle in these latter ages But M. Whyte if in the defending of your former vntruthes you can not blush for shame yet here grow pale through feare for your sinne is not ordinary seeing your mendaceous assertion doth obtrude an innouation vpon no lesser Article then the immolation and offering vp of the most sacred body and bloud of our Sauiour and Redeemer to his heauenly Father for the expiation of our sinnes first instituted out of the bowels of his mercy euen by Christ so as him self being the Preist did the sacrifice him self Quid gâ—atius offerri faith one Fa. aut daripotest quam caro sacrificiâ— nostri corpus effectuÌ„ sacerdotis nostri The 27. Vntruth Concerning wafer Cakes Page 389. the Doctor inueighing further against the Masse that wafer-cakes were first brought into the Sacrament in the eleuenth age or Century after Christ and answearably thereunto he haith made a reference to this place in his Alphabeticall Table at the latter end of his booke at the word wafer thus setting down wafers when brought in Sect. 5. nâ—m 31. Now that this procedeth from the same sirayne to wit a spiritu mendacit from whence all his former assertions had their origine is proued in that it is confessed by D. Bilson that in the dayes of Epiphanius it was rownd in figure Cartwright though he will needes find a beginning thereof after the Apostles yet thus writeth of the bread of the Sacrament It was a wafer-cake brought in by Pope Alexander which Pope euen by the testimony of Osiaâ—der liued fifteene hundreth yeres since And yet contrary to all these authorities we mightily wrong our minister if we will not beleue him affirming that wafers were brought in about a thousand yeares after Christ. The 28. Vntruth Against the adoration of the B. Sacrament Page 399. The minister persâ—sting in his serpentyne and vâ—nemous disposition against the most B. Sacrament touching the Adoration thereof thus lyingly forgeth The Adoration of the Sacrament is a late inuention folowing vpon the conceit of the Reall presence and prescribed 1220 yeres fâ—â—â— Christ by Honorius the third c That Adoration followeth vpon the beleefe of the reall presence it is graâ—â—ied but that it is a late inuention begon in the tyme of Honorius is false Thus the Doctor for the letter countenancing of this lye doth calumniously coople with it a truth that the one might be shrouded vnder the winges of the other Now that there was no innouation touching the Adoration of the Sacrament at that tyme is euinced from two reasons First because no Historiographer doth geue the least intimation of any such institution as then but newly brought into the Church onely Honorius decreed that the preist should more diligently admonish the people thereof in reguarde of some former negligence crept in concerning the same And this is all which can be truly collected from the Decree of the said Honorius Secondly the former poynt is proued from the abundant testimonies of our aduersaries charging the tymes precedent to Honorius with the said doctrine of Adoration For first we reade that Auerroes a hea then Philosopher who liued aboue 80. yeres before the prescribed time of Honorius his former supposed innouation did perticulerly deride the Christians of his dayes for the Adoring of the Sacrament This is acknowledged by D. Fulke and D. Saâ—liffe But to ascend to higher times the Centuristes speaking of the prayers of S. Ambrose in his booke entituled Orat. praeparat ad Massam do thus write Continent adorationem panis in Sacramento Those prayers do conteâ—ne the Adoration of the bread in the sacrament Chemâ—â—tius produceth diuers sentences of Augustine Ambrose and Nazâ—anzen which sentences in Chemâ—â—tius his Iudgment do affirme the Adoration of the Sacrament Now all these authorities do demonstratiuely conuince that the Adoration of the Sacrament was not introduced in the Church as an innouation in the time of Honorius From all which it is manifest that as in any other poynt of Catholick Religion so also in this of Adoration we altogether do conspire and agree with the venerable Fathers of Gods Church And therefore as Aristotle and other auncient Philosophers did teach that this our inferiour world was ioyned to the Superiour and Celestiall world that by the helpe of this coniunction we might more perfectly participate of the influences and vertues of those heauenly bodies So we may say that these our latter tymes through a continuall and vninterrupted current of beleeuing God and practising the same poyntes of Faith with the Auncient Doctors are indissolubly and nearely tyed to those primitiue dayes so as nothing is found in those reuerent dayes instituted either by Christ or his Apostles which by this meanes is not securely deryued to the Catholick Church of these moderne tymes The 29. Vntruth Against the Succession of Catholick Pastors Page 412. After the D. haith Trasonically boasted of the succession of the protestantes in his owne Church he procedeth further affirming that Succession of the pastors and Bishops in the Church of Rome haith bene interrupted And answearably hereto in the Table in the end of his booke at the word Succession with reference to this place he thus saith The Romane Church haith no true outward Succession Where you see by his owne wordes that the question here intended by this minister is not of succession of doctrine by which sleight and euasion diuers of our aduersaries vse to decline the testimonies of the auncient Fathers alledged by vs for strengthning the argument drawne from Succession but onely of externall succession of Bishops and Pastors which the minister falsly challenging heretofore to his owne church doth now as falsly take away from ours How maliceous a lye this is shall appeare from the mouthes of his owne brethren And â—iâ—st we finde that the Centuristes do very diligently and elaboratly set downe the succession particulerly of the Bishops of Rome in the 10. Chapiter of euery Century And this Methode they precisely obserue in all ages of the Church euen from S. Peter to their owne tyme entituling the said Chapiter de Episcopis
and doctrine do euen breath onely pryde contumacy sensuality Sardanapalisme and luxury Here now M. Whyte I haue thought good in the enumeration of your lyes to end with Luther as originally from him you first did suck your lyinge doctrine Onely I will conclude with this that since you are entred with our vulgar multitude who cheifly rest vpon the outward graine and appearance of thinges into the number and catologue of our new Euangelicall Prophets I would wish such your folowers to entertaine an impartiall vew and consideration of this and other your forgeries and sleightes which if they do doubtlesse they shall in the ende fynde and acknowledg that you are guided therein euen by that ghostly enemy of mannes soule who once said Egrediar ero spiritus mendaex in ore omnium Prophetarum eiuâ— I will go forth and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his Prophets WHYTE DYED BLACK THE THIRD PART Contayning diuers impertinences or absurd Illations or reasoninges drawne from Maister Whyte his alledged Authorities The 1. Paragraph Werein are discouered strange Illations or arguinges in proofe that the Scriptures are the sole rule of Faith against Traditions HAuing in the two precedent partes set downe many corruptions and lyes practised by M. Whyte it now followeth according to my former intended Methode that I also display diuers of his impertinent and absurde inferences and argumentes for these three pointes to wit corrupting lying idly or absurdly disputing are the three seuerall threedes whereof the whole worke of his Treatise is wouen In all which though different in them selues he still retayneth one and the same intention of deceipt like the loade-stone which though often changeth his place yet neuer changeth it center Now touchinge those his impertinences and loose illations the Reader is to conceaue that they consist in his alledging of such testimonies both of Scriptures Fathers and Catholick writers as being truly set downe do not neuerthâ—lâ—sse impugne that point of our Catholick doctrine against which they were by him so vrged Which course of writing whether it may be ascrybed to our Doctors ignorance want of learning or rather which is more probable to his malice against the Catholick Faith and desire to deceaue the simple and vnlearned or lastly to the beggery of his cause being deuoide of better arguments I leaue to him self to decide But howsoeuer it is here I am to aduertise the Reader that in perusing of such authorities produced by M. Whyte he would euer recurr to the true state of the question and particulerly that he would apply the said sentences to that verie point or touch wherein the life of the question consisteth and then he shall find how rouingly wandringly they are directed still glauncing by vpon some ignorant or wilfull mistaking or other neuer reaching the mark intended And so he may apply the wordes of Tertulian though in a different sense to the loose writinges of M. Whyte and such others Quemcunque conceperint ventum argumentationis scorpii isti quocunque se acumine impegerint vna tam linea ista to wit the lyne drawne from our vnderstanding to the mayne point in controuersy And here M. Whyte can not say in excuse of him self that such testimonies of this nature are produced by him onely to proue so much and no more as the wordes in their litterall and acknowledged sense do immediatly import Which euasion is insufficient for two respects First because the proofâ— of that which litterally plainely they signify is not in controuersy betwene the protestantes and vs and therefore the iustifiing of so much being not denied by any learned Catholick is needelesly vndertaken Secondly in that M. Whyte doth most labouriously painefully and purposly alledg the said testimonies to conuince and impugne some one Catholick poynt or other taught by vs and denyed by the protestantes and this his drift and scope is manifested either by his answearable entituling of the leaues wherein such authorities are found or els by his owne wordes precedent or subsequent to the said sentences But to detayne the Reader no longer from these his allegations The first point of this kynde which presenteth it self is as touching the Rule of Faith reiecting of all Apostolicall Traditions For pag. 13. we thus read digres 3. Wherein by the Scriptures Fathers Reasons and papistes owne confessions it is shewed that the Scripture is the rule of Faith As likewise he entituleth that leafe and some others following in this manner The Scripture onely is tho iudg rule of Faith And so answearably hereto pag. 17. beating the former tytle he thus saith Shall the Libertynes be recalled from their blind reuelations to their writen text and shall not the papistes be reuoked from their vncertaine Traditions to the same rule But that we may the better behould how valiantly our minister impugneth all Traditions by erectinge the Scripture as sole rule of Faith we are here to call vnto mind what the Catholick Church teacheth in this poynt It then teacheth that the word of God is to limit and confine our Faith and that nothing is to be accompted as matter of faith which receaueth not it proofe from thence Hereupon it teacheth further that this word is either writen which is commonly called the Scripture or els deliuered by Christ his Church and this comprehendeth Traditions Both these we beleue to be of infallible authority since the true and inward reason why the word of God is the word of God is not because it is writen rather then deliuered by speach for this is merely extrinsicall to the point but because the said word proceded from them who were infallibly and immediatly directed therein by the assistance of the holy Ghost This supposed let vs see how M. Whyte proueth that the writen word is onely the rule of Faith and consequeÌ„tly that there are no Traditions of the Church which may also in part be a rule thereof First then our Doctor vrgeth to this end seuerall places of Scripture as among others that of Salomon The scripture will make a man vnderstand righteousnes and iudgment and equity euery good path Againe that of Esay We must repaire to the Law to the testimony if any speake not according to that word there is no light in him Also out of Malachy Remember the Law of Moyses my seruant which I commaunded him in Horeb for all Israell with the statutes Iudgmentes In lyke sort he alledgeth that Abraham answearing the rich glutton said that his brethren had Moyses and the Prophets Now that the Reader may see how well these texts are to the point controuerted I will set some of them downe in forme of Argument and so apply them to M. Whytes purpose As first thus Salomon said of the Scriptures of the old Testament The Scripture will make a man vnderstand righteousnes and Iudgment and equity and euery good path Ergo now
what end he mustereth all these sentences of Scripture god him self knoweth for neither do they derogate any thing froÌ„ the Churches Authority since indeede they do not concerne it neither do they ascribe any more to Christ then all Catholickes doe acknowledg and beleue But it semeth M. Whyte thought it good pollicy thus to lead serth in triumph whole squadrons of textes and other humaine testimonies that so they might seeme powerfull and terrible how weake soeuer otherwise through his misapplications they were against the Churches Authority the eye of the vnlearned But to end this Paragraph here the Reader may see in how many impertinent allegatioÌ„s M. Whyte haith insisted euen within the reading of two leaues together and all implicitly directed to charg the Catholickes with their disualuing the Scriptures through their acknowledging the Churches lawfull authority as if to contemne the church of God were an argument with him the more to admire the word of god Thus he semeth to pertake though in a different example â— with a certaine man recorded by Sulpitius with whom euery one studious of vertue or abstinence was suspected with the heresy of the Priscilianistes The 3. Paragraph Wherein are examined some of M. Whytes preofes against the Churches visibility An other passage whereupon our minister spendeth his frothy and immateriall proofes is touching the inuisiblenes of the Church first bearing the Reader in hand that by inuisibility he meaneth not an vtter extinction or disparition of the true Church and faith yet after in effect he recalleth the same and thus writeth pag. 87. When we say the Church is inuisible we meane that all the externall gouernment thereof may come to decay in that the locall and personall succession of pastors may be interrupted the discipline hindred the preachers scattered and all the outward exercise and gouernment of religion suspended whereby it shall come to passe that in all the world you can not see any one particuler Church professing the true faith whereunto you may saâ—fly ioyne your self by reason persecution and heresyes shall haue ouerflowed all Churches as Noes flood did the world c. Thus you see how liberally and fully he here deliuereth though in the beginning of that Chapter he speaketh more mincingly thereof Now if the discipline may be hindred the preachers scattered c. then shall not the word be preached nor the Sacramentes ministred which are at least by our aduersaries principles inseperable markes of the true Church and consequently they being taken away the Church for the tyme must be vtterly extinct This being the true meaning of M. Whyte he vndertaketh to proue that the Catholickes do generally teach the like inuisibility of Gods Church and therefore he thus styleth those leaues The papistes say the Church is inuisible which inuisibility to be taught by the Catholickes that he may proue he haileth in all sayinges of any one Catholick Doctor or other which shew only that the Church of God is more coÌ„spicuous at one time then an other which we all grauÌ„t yet from thence it can not be enforced that therefore by the Catholick doctrine it may be somtimes so latent as that it can not be knowne where it is But to fortify this his false assertion he alledgeth Pererius in these wordes In the ryme of Antiehrist there shall be no Sacrament in publick places neither shall â—ay publick honour be geuen it but priuatly and priuily shall it be kept and honoured In the same manner he vrgeth Ouandus that the masse in the time of Antichrist shall be celebrated but in very few places so that it shall seeme to be ceased Now to omitt that if the masse shall be celebrated in few places then must it be in some places if in some places then is the Church visible euen in those places what illation is this The Eucharist or the masse shall not be publickly honoured or celebrated in Antichrists tyme but onely in priuate or in secret therefore then the Church shall be inuisible and unknowne The silynes of which argument is controuled euen by the wofull experience of our owne country at this present where the world seeth that the Masse and other Catholick Sacramentes are exercysed onely in priuate howses and not in publick Churches yet who will from hence conclude that the Catholick Church here in England is latent and inuisible since the immoueable constancy and perseuerance of English Catholickes haith made them knowne and remarkable to all the partes of Christendome He next alledgeth diuers Catholickes ioyntly teaching that in the tyme of Antichrist The Sacrifice of the Eucharist shall be taken away which point being graunted yet proueth not that the true faith of Christ shall so fall away that none can then be named who shall professe the same For seing that the celebrating of the Eucharist is an externall worshippe of god which though it be suspended for the time yet it is not necessarily accompanied with an inuisibility of the Church and a vanishing away of the true Faith of Christ euen in reguard of the persons who should performe the same For this point is likwise made manifest by the imprisoÌ„ed Preistes here in England whose publick exercise of their Religion though it be prohibited and restrained yet are they well knowne to the state by professing them selues in these times of pressures through a true heroicall and spirituall fortitude members of the Catholick Church Next to the former testimonies he marshalleth Gregory De Valentia thus writing When we say the Church is alwaies conspicuous this must not be taken as if we thought it might at euery season be discerned alike easily For we know that it is som-times tossed with the waues of erroures schismes and persecutions that to such as are vnskilfull and do not discreetly euough weygh the circumstances of tymes and thinges it shall be very hard to be knowne c. Therefore we deny not but that it will be harder to discerne the Church at some tymes then at other some yet this we auouch that it alwaies migt be discerned by such as could wisly esteeme thinges Thus this Catholick Author wirh whom D. Stapleton is alledged by M. Whyte to conspire herein Now what doth this testimony make against vs since it chiefly proueth that the splendour of Gods Church is more radiant and shyning at one tyme then at an other which we willingly graunt but it is impertinently vrged to proue that it should be absolutly eclipsed the point that ought to be euicted nay it clearly conuinceth the contrary For first the former wordes say that the Church is alwaies conspicuous Secondly that the Church is alwaies discerned by those who wysely esteeme of thinges therefore to such it is alwaies visible And thus doth M. Whytes owne testimony recoyle with great force vpon him self After our Doctor haith ended with Catholick moderne wrvters he beginneth to proue the inuisibility of the Church from the authority of
Tenure by the which we make claime to our eternall and celestiall enheritance In like sort they willingly confesse that Scripture is Scripture and the word of God before it receaue any approbation from the Church as also that this or that is the true sense of any particuler text of the Scripture before the Church do confirme the same Notwithstanding seing the true sense of the Scripture is as it were the very Soule which informeth the body of the letter and that the Scripture is to be vnderstoode by the Reader with that spirit with the which it was written to wit with the spirit of the holy Ghost Therefore we do hold that so far as concerneth our taking of notice that this or that is the Scripture of Gods word or that this is the true sense of such a passage thereof intended by the holy Ghost we are to recurre to the authority of the Church which we beleue to be directed and guided therein by the same holy Ghost according as the Scripture it self in seuerall places assureth vs. But now let vs come to the proues and testimonies produced by M. Whyte to conuince that the Scripture so far forth as we are to take acknowledgment thereof for this onely is here the point of the doubt as I shewed aboue needeth not for warranting to vs that it is the word of God or for explicating the true sense thereof and Authority or approbation of the Church And first he bringeth to this end diuers texts of Scripture contayning the worth and dignity of it self as when it is tearmed an Immor all seede The demonstration of the Spiâ—it power that it is Liuely powerfull that it maketh our bearâ—â—â— to burne within vs. that It geueth a greater testimony to Christ then Iohn Baptist could geue that A voice from heauen is not so sure as it that It is the spirit which beareth witnes to the truth thereof that If we receaue the witnes of men the witnes of God is greater Lastly he alledgeth those wordes of Christ. They which will not beleue Moyses wrytinges will not beleue him Now let vs see how towardly our Minister can conclude from these textes against our former doctrine The scripture is an immortall seede and it is liuely and powerfull Therefore it ought to receaue no authority touching the manifesting of it true sense to vs from Gods Church which is guided with the holy Ghost Againe It is the demonstration of the Spirit and power and it maketh our harts to burne within vs Therefore it ought to receaue no authority c. If we receaue the witnes of men the witnes of god is greater and he that beleueth not Moyses writings will not beleue Christ Therefore the Scripture ought to receaue no authority c What inferences are these Or who would think that a learned minister of gods word the via lactea a Doctor made onely for desert before his due ordinary tyme Finally that M. Whyte since this very name is supposed to comprehend woorth enough should thus exorbitantly and extrauagantly inferre and conclude contrary to all precepts of art Logicall rules But to passe on the more in his iudgment to depresse the Authority of the Church he bringeth in D. Stapleton though most impertinently alledged saying The Authority of the Church is but a thing created distinct from the first verity which position we willingly admitt who acknowledg the Church to be a thing different from god who is the first truth though guided by his Spirit Againe he produceth to the like effect S. Ambrose who thus writeth Let God him self teach me themâ— steries of heauen not man who knoweth not him self Whom may I beleue in the thinges of god better then god him self which sentence also we embrace yet do affirme that god teacheth vs more securely by the authority of the Church directed by his assistance and consequently not by the authority of man then by the mediation of each mannes priuate and vncertaine spirit Also Salutanus is brought by him saying All that men say needes reasons and witnesses but Gods word is witnes to it self bicause it followeth necessarily that whatsoeuer the incorrupt truth speaketh must needes be an incorrupt witnes of it self As if what the Church assisted by the holy Ghost said were the saying onely of man or as if the question were here whether Gods word be Gods word before it be defined by the Church which no man denyeth and not whether the members of the Church which indeede is the point here issuable is to accept of Gods word as his word by the Authority of his said Church In like sort pag. 53. to the former scope he produceth S. Augustine thus writing to the Manaches You see this is your endevourâ— to take away from vs the Authorityes of the Scriptures and that euery ones mind might be his Author what to allow and what to disalow in euery text and so he is not for his faith made subiect to the Scripture but maketh the Scripture subiect to him self c. Which wordes how they can touch the Catholickes I see not seing they seeke not to take away the Authority of the Scriptures which they willingly reuerence neither teach they that euery ones mind ought to be an authour what to allow or what to disalow in the exposition of any text for they rely herein vpon the iudgment of Gods vniuersall Church the former being indeede rather peculiar to the sectaries of this age in reguard of their priuate interpreting spirit And presently after he also cyteth S. Augustine againe in the former booke Why dost thou not rather submits thy self to Euangelicall Authority so steedfast so stable so renowned and by certaine succession commended from the Apostles to our tymes that thou maist beleue that thou maist behould that thou maist learne all those thinges which hinder thee from doing it through thine owne vaine peruerse opinion How can these wordes be tentred shamed to vs Catholickes Or how can it be tearmed a mannes owne vaine and peruerse opinion by receauing Euangelicall Authority as it is manifested to vs not by our owne imaginations but by the censure of the Church of God which is styled by the Apostle Columna firmamentum veritatis Thus we see how wandringly M. Whyte discourseth matching and coopling together through his malice and ignorance in arguing adulterate aud bastard conclusions with legitimate premisses And after the like manner euen in the first leafe here alledged though somwhat before these last testimonies he vrgeth certaine textes of Scripture intended of Christ as The Scriptures are written that we may beleue in him Againe He that beleueth in him haith a witnes in him selfe Thirdly We are all built vpon the foundation of the Apostles Prophets Christ him self being the head corner stone in whom all the building is coopled together by the spirit Now to