religiously obserued since such not ouer partially resting in their owne natiue iudgmentes to what way soeuer they be inclyning do most diligently follow the supreme resolution current of the Church in part resembling herein the inferiour orbes which with greater speede sedulity and expedition performe the reuolutions of the highest Spheare wherunto they are subiect then they do accomplish their owne naturall perticuler motions The 9. Vntruth Against the Popes Primacy Page 185. The Doctor wryteth in his digression thus The Primitiue Church did not acknowledg the Popes Primacy Here I see that M Whyte will euer be M. Whyte I meane that he will euer be lyke to him self first in coyning and after mantayning most impudent vntruthes Now as touching the discouery of this his false position since to go through all the centuries of the primitiue Church would be needlesly laboursome I think it good to restraine my self onely to the fourth century or age after Christ an age wherein Constantine the first Christian Emprour liued and which for that respect not vndeseruedly seemes to be most entertayned and approued by the graue iudgment of the Kinges Maiesty Now for the greater clearing of this poynt it will be needefull to obserue what authority the Popes did exercyse by the acknowledgment of our learned aduersaries since the authority and soueraignty ouer all other Churches and Prelates is that which doth as it were organize and perfect the Popes Primacy Now then answearable hereto Cartwright wryteth that Iulius Bishop of Rome at the Councell of Antioch ouerreached in clayming the hearing of causes that did not appertaine vnto him Now this Iulius liued in the sourth age Againe the said Cartwright saith of S. Damasus who was Pope in this age that he spake in the dragons voyce when he shameth not to wryte that the Bishop of Romes sentence Was aboue all other to be attended for in a Synode So far was this sectaries censure different from the iudgment of S. Ierome deliuered of the same Pope in these wordes Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens beatitudini tuae id est Cathedrae Petri communione consocior super illam Petram Ecclesiam edificatam scio quicunque extra hanc domum Aguxm commederit prophanus est c. quicunque tecum non colligit spargit In lyke sort touching appeales to Rome an essentiall poynt of Ecclesiasticall Supremacy we finde that the Centurists do acknowledg that Theodoret a Greeke Father and one of this fourth age being deposed by the Councell of Ephesus did accordingly make his appeale to Pope Leo and thereupon was by him restored to his Bishoprick And to conclude the Centuristes do no lesse acknowledg that Chrisostom did appeale to Innocentius who decreed Theophilus Chrisostomes enemy to be deposed excommunicated Thus we fynd how dissonant this our ministers assertion touching the Primacy is to the practise of the Primitiue Church euen in the iudgment of those who are designed enemies to the said Primacy as might well be exemplifyed throughout all the Centuristes and ages of those tymes seing all reuerent antiquity no lesse then the Catholickes of these dayes was fully perswaded that S. Peter and his successors were euer to be accompted the visible Baseis or foundations of gods Church and all other Bishops but Columnâ—s And as this foundation immediatly supportes these pillers so these pillers the rest of this spirituall edifice and structure The 10. Vntruth That Gregory the great detested the Popes Primacy Page 193. M. Whyte descendeth to the example of S. Gregory the great and first Pope of that name in whose wryting he hopeth to fynd great sttrength for the impugning of the Popes soueraignty and among other thinges the D. saith Gregory had no such iurisdiction as now the Pope vsurpeth but detested it not only in Iohn of Constantinople but also in him self c. Where now the Reader may be instructed that the reason why this Gregory is by some supposed to disauow the doctrine of the primacy is in that he reiecteth in Iohn of Constantinople the title of vniuersall Bishop as sacrilegious which his saying was grounded onely in taking the name of vniuersall Bishop to exclude the true being of all other Bishops as it is confessed by Andreas Brictius But now that S. Gregory did both claime and practise the Primacy is acknowledged by our aduersaries for the Centuristes write of him that he said The Romane Sea appoynteth her watch ouer the whole world and that he taught that the Apostolick Sea is the head of all Churches that Constantinople it self is subiect to the Apostolick Sea Furthermore S. Gregory is charged by the Centuristes that he chalenged to him self power to commaund Archbishops To ordaine or depose Bishops at his pleasure that he tooke vpon him right to cyte Archbishops to declare their cause before him when they were accused That actually Gregory did vndertake to excommunicate such and such Bishops That in their Prouinces he placed his Legates to know and determine the causes of such as appealed to Rome Finally to omitt many other poyntes recorded by them that he vsurped power of appointing Synodes in their prouinces Here now I referr this point to the indifferent Reader whether he wil beleue M. Whyte denying to the benefyte of his cause the Primacy of S. Gregory of the Centuristes being diuers learned protestantes all confessing the same though to their owne preiudice The 11. Vntruth In proofe that Catholickes are more viceous then protestantes Page 209. For the extenuating and lesning of the sinfull liues of the protestants the Doctor much extolleth their imputatiue and supposed vertues and as much depresseth the liues of all Catholickes in generall and thus he entitleth that leafe The protestants people as holy as the papistes In lyke sort from page 213. to 218. he spendeth him self in gathering together whatsoeuer Catholick writers haue spoken touching the liues of some loose liuers thus scornfully entytling the leaues The holines of the Church of Rome deciphered most of which sayinges being found in sermons or exhortations and in heate of amplification deliuered generally as the custome is and this without any reference or comparison to the lyues of the protestantes can not iustly be extended to all Catholickes nomore then the reprehensions of the Prophets in the ould testament spoken without any restraint could be truly applyed to all the Iewes Wherefore for the further vpbrayding of this our ministers lye which is wouen vpon the threede of malice and for the more punctuall conuincing him of falshood I will proue from the Protestantes owne confessions that the lyues of Catholickes are generally more vertuous then those of the protestantes in which kind of proofe from the lyke acknowledgment of vs Catholickes in fauour of the protestantes the D. haith not brought so much as one lyne To this purpose then is not Luther forced thus to write to the eternall shame of
that Church which in doctrine and faith conspired with the protestantes Church Thus you see M. W. that not I but such as in other poyntes of Nouelisme do interleague with you geue you the lye therein and thus is falshood truly controuled euen by the Patrones of falshood The 24. Vntruth Against the Popes authority in calling of Councells Page 375. He in charging the Pope with innouation of his iurisdiction thus saith The beginning of the Popes Supremacy ouer Councells was of late since the Councells of Constance and Basill decreed within this hundreth yeres in the Councell of Lateran by a few Italian Bishops wheras in the auncieÌ„t Church it was otherwise In this poynt for the more compendiousnes thereof I will insist onely in the fourth and fifth Century after Christ both being within the circuite of the primitiue Church First then we fynd that D Whitaker confesseth an Ecclesiasticall Canon to be in the fourth Century that Noe Councell should be celebrated without the Bishop of Rome He also further acknowledgeth that Pope Iulius made challenge therby meaning by the benefite of the said Canon to assemble a Councell And where Bellarmine insisting in the president of Iulius and other Bishops vrging this Canon Danaeus a learned protestant thus onely replyeth Nullius est moments c. The example is of noe force since it is proued from the Testimony of the Bishop of Rome who is a party in his owne cause Thus confessing the poynt it self outfaced by the minister but denying onely the lawfulnes thereof Now in the fyfth age we fynde that the Magdeburgians do thus plainely Censure the Popes of that tyme. Generalia Concilia c. The bishops of Rome haue challenged to them selues power of celebrating Councells as appeareth out of the 93. Epistle 7. chapter of Leo. And yet further the said Centuristes do say Ac Synodos c. They haue reiected such Councells as vnlawfull which were not called together by their Authority And thus farr of this poynt where you see that our minister saying that no Bishop of Rome challenged authority of assembling of Councells or being aboue them but within this hundreth yeares last is contradicted by the former learned protestantes who confesse that the Bishop of Rome practised it eleuen or twelue hundreth ages I pray you whether of these is more likly to lye The 25. Vntruth Against merite of woorkes Page 378. For the more disauthorising of the doctrine of merit of workes our minister thus outlasheth The doctrine touching the merit of workes was begoâ— lately by the schoolemen For the triall of this poynt some of the Fathers of the primitiue Church confessed euen by the protestants to teach this our Catholic Faith shall becom the wittnesses bewene the D. and me First then the Magdeburgians do thus write of one Father Chrisastome handleth impurely the doctrine of Iustification and attributeth merite to workes Luther calleth Ierome Ambrose and Augvstine Iusticiarios Iustice-workers of the ould Papacy Finally D. Humfrey ascendeth euen to Ireneus Clemens and others pronouncing of them that then hauy in their writinges the merite of workes And thus farr of this poynt Wherefore our ministers ouersight was most grosse in diuulging such a notorious vntruth contrary to the expresse Iudgment of his owne most learned brethren The 26. Vntruth Against the Sacrifice of the Masse Page 378. The minister endeuoring calumniously to dishonour the most healthfull and incruent Sacrifice of the Masse writeth that the Masse began not all at once but by degrees Now here to instruct the Doctors ignorance or at least to detect his malice I am to lay downe the Iudgmente of the Catholick Church teaching what is maÌ„tayned to be essentiall to the Sacrifice of the Masse and what but accidentall The true nature then and essence of this Sacrifice we hould to consist in the oblation of the most sacred body and blood of Christ and consummation thereof what praiers or ceremonies do either precede or follow the wordes of the institution are no essentiall part of the Masse if they were all omitted in the celebration thereof yet were the Sacrifice of it true and perfect And therefore we willingly confesse without any preiudice to our cause that most of the said prayers or Ceremonies were added by seuerall Popes at different tymes yet from our acknowledgment thereof it in no sort followeth that the Masse came in by degrees since we all teach that they are neither the Masse nor any essentiall parte of it Now wheareas the minister by subtilty and by falsly suggesting to the Reader that the Masse came in at seuerall tymes would haue it to be vnderstoode for our greater disaduauntage of the essence and nature of the Masse it self I will lay downe the Iudgment of the Primitiue Church herein vnanimously teaching euen by the confession of the most iudiceous protestantes the true and vnbloudly Sacrifice oblation of Christes body and bloud to be performed in the celebration of the Eucharist so shall the Reader be instructed in the antiqnity of that which is essentially the masse and withall in reguard of the ministers calumnious dealing herein he shall haue iust reason to say Astonishment and meruelous thinges are done in the land the prophets prophesied a lye And here for greater compendiousnes I will forbeare to set downe the Protestantes confessions of particuler Fathers teaching the doctrine of the Masse and will restraine my self onely to such their sayinges whereof some do belong to the primitiue Church in generall and others to the first age or Century thereof And first we fâ—nd Caluin to wryte of them in generall Veteres excusandi non sunt c The auncient Fathers are not to be excused seing it is euident that they turned from the true and genuine Institution of Christ. For whereas the lordes supper it celebrated to this end that we should communicate with the Sacrifice of Christ the Fathers not being contente therewith haue added thereunto an oblation And to the lyke purpose he saith in his Institutions Veteres quoque illos video c I do see that those Auntient Fathers did detort the memory thereof meaning of the Eucharist otherwise then was agreeing to the Institution of Christ for their Lordes Supper doth make shew and representation of I can not tell what reiterated and renewed Sacrifice They haue more nearely imitated the Iudaicall manner of Sacrificing then either Christ did ordaine or the nature of the Gospell did suffer Tnus Caluin Add hereunto for the greater Antiquity of the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Masse that the protestantes them selues do confesse the faith thereof to be vniuersall euen in the first age or Century after Christ. For we fynde that Hospmian a famous protestant doth thus write I am tum primo c. Euen in the first age the Apostles being yet liuing the deuill did deceaue men more about this Sacrament then about Baptisme
coopling to the Atheist which your self M. Wayte haue heare assumed and practised and you shall finde strange positions well manteined by him For example the Psalmiâ—t speaking of your self and other such like saith Tâ—s foole haith said in his heart there is no god Now kindly allow him to blott out the word foole as you more theÌ„ folishly did the woord Grace to insert in steed thereof the wordes wyse man as you according to the wisdome of the world inserted the word Nature and then obserue how easely he will defende from the scriptures that there is no god seing according to your scriptures The wyse man said in his heart there is no god But to conclude this knowingly and deliberately to corrupt to the dishonour of your owne Catholick Religion and to the ruyne of your owne other ignorant soules is to me an argument most conuincing that you are one of those fooles who said in his heart there is noe god Paragr 3. Cardinall Bellarmine corrupted concerning Iustification IN the verie first page of his preface to the Reader so loth it semed he was to loose any tyme he sheweth vs an other trick somwhat like vnto the former Where by the way I must aduertise him that I hould him a man herein impolitick and incautelous that would not suffer the verie face or front of his Treatise to passe vnblemished since the first he rather should haue coueted to winne the eare of credulity with pleasing insinuations of truth and then the iudgment of his Reader being once possessed after to haue vented forth his more impure dâ—egs for we are taught Io. 2. that omnis homo primum bonum vinum apponit cum inebriati sunt tum id quod est deterius But to the deprauation pag. 1. of his preface M. Whyte falsly to intimate to his reader how much the Catholicks do disualew the passion of Christ thus wryteth The Church of Rome teacheth that iustâ—fication is wrought by the habite of our owne righteousnes not by Christes Thus you see how peremptorily he affirmeth without any reseruation that we reiect the righteousnes of Christ to concurre to our Iustification Now this he laboureth to proue from a testimony of Bellarmine de iustificat li. 2. ca. 2. which he thus setteth downe Our owne inherent iustice is the formall cause of absolute iustification not the iustice of Christ imputed vnto vs. That we may conceaue the true meaning of that learned Cardinall in this place I will set downe his owne wordes in latine who there discoursinge of the causes of our Iustification thus saith Ad quaestionem an vid. iustificamur propter meritum Filii dei an propter in châ—atam renouatioâ—em nostram Respondemus Si illud propter significet causam formalem nos iustificari propter noui tatem nobis inhaerentem non propter meritum Christi quod iuhaeâ—eâ—e non potest si veró significet causam meritoriam nos iustificari dicemus propter meritum Filii des non propter nouitatem in nobis haerentem That is In this question whether we be iustified propter meritum for the merit of the Sonne of God or for our owne renouation of lyfe I answeare If the word propter doe signify the formall cause then are we iustifyed through our owne newnesse of lyfe inherent in vs and not through the merites of Christ because they can not inhere in vs and these are the wordes alledged by M. Whyte but if the worde propter do here signify the meritorious cause then are we iustifyed propter meritum Filii deâ— through the merites of the Sonne of God not through any inherent newnes or iustice in vs And then presently concludeth ita iustificamur propter vâ—rumque c. So we are iustifyed by reason or through them both to wit through the merites of the Sonne of God meritorié meritoriously and through an inherent iustice in vs formaliter formally Thus Bellarmine Where you see the question is not as M. Whyte suggesteth whether Christes iustice doth concurre to mannes iustification which were a horrible blasphemy to deny but onely in what kynd of cause it concurreth the Catholickes teaching that it concurres as the meritorious cause not as the formall cause since if it did as the formall cause then euen according to philosophy it should really inhere in vs but so it doth not But now to obserue M. Whytes calumny fraude in alledging this testimony First he purposly concealeth the latter part of the sentence which sheweth how we ascribe our iustification to Christ as vnwilling that the reader should heare that in any sence we rely thereon Secondly that whereas this testimony of the Cardinales euen as it is set downe by M. Whyte him self excludeth onely Christes merites as the formall cause of our iustification and in none other sence yet our minister alledgeth it to proue that it is no cause thereof at all in this respect it is impertinently vrged for in his owne wordes immediatly before without any limitation of the cause he saith The Church of Rome teacheth that iustification of a sinner is done by the habite of our owne righteousnes not by Christes And then as I said alledgeth for proofe thereof such wordes of Bellarmine as excludeth onely the formall cause thereof But his sleight here was that perswading him self that the ignorant reader not knowing what the word formall cause is or how it is distinguished from other kinde of causes but thinking that it did signify any cause in generall should no sooner see the wordes of Bellarmine but then should instantly conclude with him self here Bellarmine the Church of Rome teacheth that mans iustification is in no sort or maner wrought by the iustice of Christ. And thus much of our Doctors deportement herein who through his subtill feaninge at his pleasure what we are supposed to mantaine doth in the meane tyme endanger and wrong the honour of the worthy and illustrious Cardinall till more full search and disquisition of the truth be made And thus our poetizing minister I meane our lyinge M. Whyte doth interest him self in the censure of the poet Ouid. li. 2. fast fraude perit virtus Heare now I end this deprauation assuring my reader that Bellarmine is so farre of from teaching that Christes iustice doth not necessarily concurre to our iustification that in the former alledged Chapter he thus writeth Iustitia homini a deo per Christi merâ—ta donata est c. That is Iustice is geuen by god to man through the merites of Christ. And then presently thus repiâ—hendeth Kemnitius for his deceipte vsed in this question Kemnitius fraudulenter egit c. kemnitius dealeth fraudulently herein in that to precure malice against vs he opposeth on the contrary side our late begon renouation or newnes of lyfe to the merites of the Sonne of God as if we prized more our owne change or newnes of lyfe though imperfect and late begon then the
him self a coople to answeare in his behalf But speake M. Whyte once in good sincerity why did you translate it euidently probable was it to make the Cardinall for his learning and sanctity most Illustrious to speake as ignorantly as a protestant minister Do not your so foule and frequent corrupting of his writinges make it more then probable yea euidently credible that no other meanes is left you to euade the force of his Argumentes Wel my wholesome aduyse is this if you presume to reade Bellarmine be lesse conuersant with Bacchus The 7. paragraph S. Thomas fouly corrupted concerning the popes authority M. Whyte is not ashamed to affirme that we take all authority and sufficiency from the Scripture geue it to the Church finally the Churches authority to the Pope and thereupon insinuateth that we houlde that the Pope at his pleasure is able euen to stampe or create a new faith or Crede neuer afore heard of To this end he alledgeth pag. 68. this saying out of S. Thomas 2. â—â— quest 1. ar 10. The making of a new Crede belongeth to the Pope as all other thinges doe which belong to the whole Church thus insimulating all Catholickes within this errour as houlding that the chang of the articles of our Crede resteth vpon the change of the Popes mynde therein For the fuller discouery of this diabolicall deprauation for I can terme it no better I will here set downe at large the wordes of S. Thomas Thus then he saith Ad solam authoritatem Summi Pontificis pertinet noua Editio Symbols c. A new Edition of the Crede belongeth to the Pope as all other thinges doe which concerne the whole Church And then some few lynes after foloweth which belyke the Doctors hand would haue aked to haue writen downe Haec noua Editio Symboli non quidem aliam fidem continet sed eandem magis expositam This new Edition of the Crede conteyneth not an other faith but the former more fully explicated Here our minister haith practised his profession of corrupting two wayes first in translating noua Editio Symboli The making of a new Crede whereas it should be The new Edition of the Crede thus causing the newnes to consist in the newnes of our beleefe or Crede and yet as you see in S. Thomas the worde new is ioyned onely with the Edition or explication of the Crede Secondly in retayning from the Reader those other latter wordes which doe expresse S. Thomas his meaning therein to wit that no new faith or Crede contrary to the first is decreed thereby but the former onely is more fully explicated the reason whereof he thus deliuereth euen in the same paragraph In doctrina Christi Apostoloris c. The truth of faith is sufficiently explicated in the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles but because wilfull men do peruert to their owne destruction the doctrine of the Apostles and Scriptures therefore it was necessary that there should be in processe of tyme an explication of faith against all ensuing erroures Here you haue manifested the true reason of S. Thomas his former wordes aud consequently here is discouered che vncharitable impudency of our minister to diuorce the said wordes from their legitimate and maine sence but it semeth that he professing him self a publick aduersary to the catholick Religion thinketh it iustifiable to impugne the same by any deceitfull or indirâ—ct stratagems whatsoeuer Dolus an virtus quis in hoste requirat Virg. The 8 Paragraph Doctor Stapleton corrupted concerning the same subiect In lyke sort to shew to his Reader what sâ—pposed transcendency of soueraignty and power the Catholickes geue to the Pope he pag. 68. thus writeth Stapleton Praefat. princip fidei doctrinal saith The foundation of our Religion is of necessity placed vpon the authority of this mans teaching meaning of the Pope in which we heare god hâ—m self speaking In all that Preface I assure thee good Reader there is no such saying at al and therefore it is merely forged by our calumnious minister thereby first to suggest that we make the Pope the foundation of our faith which we asscribe to Christ Iesus onely Secondly that we beare the ignorant in hand that we accompt the Pope as an other God the nearest wordes in that Preface that can beare any resemblance at all to these I will here set downe Quae prima sunt fidei nostrae elementa c. Such pointes as are the first elements or principles of our faith and yet the baises or foundation thereof as the true Catholick and Apostolick Church of God the necessary and infallible power of the Church to teach and Iudg matters of faith the persons in whom this power remayneth the meanes which the said persons ought and are accustomed to vse in iudging and teaching the cheif heades or branches about which this power is exercysed as to determine some certaine and authenticall Canon of Scripture to geue the vndoubted and auâ—henticall interpretaâ—ion thereof and finally besydes the decreeing of the Canon of the Scripture to deliuer and command the vnwriten Articles of faith all these I say which are principia doctrinalia doctrinall principles of our faith and which do teach confirme and explaine the same the heritikes of our vnfortunate tyme haue most fowly denyed contaminated and depraued How many wheeles and deductions of inferences here neede we before we can draw out M. Whytes alledged sence and yet he deliuereth it in a different letter with the vshering wordes of Stapleton saith as though they were the very precise wordes of the said Authour or what is geuen more to the Pope then to the reste heare specifyed Yet our minister blushed not to particularyze what here is spoken in respect of the principles of faith in generall onely to the pope Againe his sleight further appeareth in taking the word foundation in an equiuocall and dooble sence for he will needes accept it to make the saying more odious for that which is an essentiall and primatiue foundation of faith which is Christ Iesus whereas D. Stapleton here meaneth according to the tytle of his booke Principia fidei doctrinalia onely Doctrinall principles or Secondary foundations which as him self saith fidem docent confirmant explicant doe teach confirme and explaine our faith Thus the further we dog him in his allegations the more we shall be assured that deprauing and strangely detorting the wrytinges of Catholick Doctors and the Fathers is among the rest those feble supportes whereupon his cause leaneth The 9 paragraph S. Ciprian strangely handled against Appeales to Rome It haith euer bene the course of former heritikes not onely with contumelies to disgrace the deserued renowne of the Popes and Church of Rome but also with their subtilty and corruption falsely to detracte from theire iust authority and prerogatiues In which kynd our minister to shew him self lawfully descended in proofe of his dislyke of Appeales from other Bishopes to the Bishopes
weightiest alterations of our publick English Lyturgy since the first entrance of protestancy into England And first it is euident that the Lyturgy of the Church of England in King Edwardes tyme at which tyme there was an euident bringing in of protestancy published by Crammer Peter Martir Bucer and approued by the authority of the Parleament kept almost all the prayers and ceremonies of the Masse the reall presence onely reiected with crossing of both their Sacramentes and the accustomed rites of Baptisme as a formall consecration of the water of Baptisme with the signe of the Crosse the vsing of Chrisme and the annoynting of the child Againe it retayned prayer for the dead and the offering of our prayers by the intercession of Angels But when Quen Elizabeth came to reigne the said Lyturgy was so altered as that it is needles to reste long in the discouery thereof for it tooke away prayer for the dead and prayer to Angels besides most of the former Ceremonies vsed in King Edwards time In lyke sort in the Communion booke of K. Edward we fynde confirmed baptisme by lay persons in tyme of necessity and grace geuen in that Sacrament the Confirmation of children and strength geuen thereby the Preist blessing the Bryde grome and the bryde euen with the signe of the Crosse. The Preistes absolution of the sick penitent by these wordes By the authority committed to me I absolue thee of all thy sinnes The speciall confession of the sick penitent and finally the annoynting of the sick Of all which particulers see the Communion booke of K. Edward printed in fol. by Edward whitchurch cum priuilegio ad imprimendum solum An. 1549. All which dyuers of them including poyntes of faith and doctrine are now vtterly left out in the Communion booke published in Q. Elizabeths tyme In so much as Parker an english protestaÌ„t thus writeth thereof The day starr was not risen so high in their dayes when as yet Q. Elizabeth reformed the defects of K. Edwardes CommunioÌ„ booke Answearably hereto wryteth Cartwright saying The Church of England changed the booke of Common prayer twyce or thryce after it had receaued the knowledg of the Gospell Thus Cartwright in his 2. Reply par 1. pa. 41. who in that very booke laboureth yet for a fourth change And thus is M. Whyte not affrayd to suggest to the world euen in printe fonde man that could not be idle enough in pryuate talke such vnwarrantable vntruthes which course of his if it proceded from his owne inaduertency and ouersight as not hauing seene the Common prayer booke of K. Edward declaring the contrary then were it more pardonable but this I think him self out of his pryde and shew of much reading will not acknowledge therefore we may probably ascribe it to his mere wilfull forgery who to defend his owne heterogeneous and mongerell faith which mantayneth at different tymes different doctrines dare aduenture to broach falshoodes though neuer so eminent But let him remember that by so doing he with disauantage to his cause vainly spendeth his labour for Qui nititur mendaciâ—â— hic pascit ventos Who trusteth to lyes feedeth the wyndes The 6. Vntruth In proofe of the Romane Churches mutability in matters of Faith Page 150 he confidently auerreth that The Church of Rome is varied from her self in matters of Faith since she began to be the seate of Antichrist Thus charging our Church with great mutability of beleefe as before he laboured to grace and adorne his owne Sinagouge with all speceous constancy in the same Now for the better ouerthrowing of this vntruth it is necessary to recurr to those first supposed tymes of Antichristes being perusing the doctrine then taught to see if the Church of Rome haith made at this day any change thereof in any matters of Faith for euen so far doth the minister stretch out his lye First then the most receaued opinion of the protestantes touching Antichrist his coming for they are most various amonge them selues therein is that S. Gregory the great was the first Antichrist Now to obserue what his Religion was will be made euident by taking vew of the Religion which S. Augustine being a Monke of the Church of Rome and sent by this S. Gregory did here plant in England For the tryall of which poynt I will first produce D. Humfrey who thus writeth hereof In Ecclesiam verò c. What did Gregory Augustine bring into the Church c. A burden of Ceremonies c. They brought in the Pall for the Archbishop in celebrating of Masse and purgatory c. They brought in the oblation of the healthfull Hoast and prayer for the deade c. Relickes c. Transubstantiation c. A new consecration of Churches c. From all the which what other thing is gathered then that Indulgences Monachisme the Papacy and all the rest confusion of the Popes superstition was then erected all which thinges Augustine the greate Monk and taught by Gregory a Monk brought to vs English men Thus farr D. Humfrey In lyke sort the Triumuiri of Magdeburg whose censuring pennes haue controuled more ages then euer the Romanes Triumuiri gouerned Prouinces I meane the 3 Century wryters in the Index or Alphabeticall Table of the 6. Century after the first Edition thereof at the word Gregory do relate the particuler doctrine of S. Gregory as popish and erroneous For thus they here note with particuler references to the places of S. Gregories writinges prouing the same Eiusdem error c. The same Gregories errour of good workes of Confession of Wedlock of the Inuocation of Sainctes of hell of Iustification of Free will of purgatory of Penance of Satisfaction Now this former doctrine contayning the cheife pointes wherein we differ from the sectaries of this tyme being acknowledged to be the Faith of Gregory who is supposed to be the first Antichrist most articulatly at this day beleued of all Romane Catholickes I would aske M. Whyte with what forhead he can auouch his former wordes to wit that the Church of Rome is variâ—d from her self in matters of faith since she began to be the seate of Antichrist But all this ryseth from an inward repugning of the Min. against our Church in reguard of the vnchangeable certainty and constancy of faith professed by her whereas the want thereof in our aduersaries religion is most notorious as appeareth not onely from their seuerall confessions one euer impugning an other but also from their different translations of their Bybles still made to sort to the faith of their last Edition so as in respect of their wonderfull mutability and variance among them selues whereby indeede they indignify and wrong the nature of true faith we haue reason to demaund of any of the professors of what thinking he is rather then of what faith The 7. Vntruth In proofe of the protestantes concord in matters of Religion Page 139. To proue that protestantes haue true vnity