of Rome produceth pag. 188 S. Ciprian in these wordes Nay Ciprian saith The vnity of Bishopes is broken when euen runne from theire owne to the Bishope of Rome which wordes if they had bene true being much materiall caused me diligently to peruse the Epistle quoted but indede agreable to my expectation I found none such and therefore truly deemed them to be framed in the fournace of M. Whytes forgeries And though in the Epistle cyted S. Ciprian reprehēdeth certaine heritikes who being iudicially cōuicted in Africk sayled to Rome with the marchandise of their lyes ◠endeuoring by their subtill and cunning rashnes to break the concord of Bishopes yet was he so farr from disprouing of any lawfull Appeale to Rome as that in the same place he auoucheth Rome to be the Chaire of Peter and principall Church from whence preistly vnity aryseth yea he scorned the said heritykes as not knowing◠the Romanes to be those vnto whom vntruth could haue no accesse and withall further affirming that the truth should sayle after them to Rome which with proofe of the thing certaine should cōuince their lying tongues All which doth plainely make knowen S. Ciprianes true conceipt of Romes superiority and indeede doth strongly confirme our Catholick doctrine concerning Appeales For if those heritykes censured by the Bishopes of Africk to auoyde their present punishment appealed to Rome no doubt this argueth that Appeales to Rome were in vse as then and though the Appellantes were heritykes yet in that otherwise their Appeale had bene plainely vaine foolish and fruitlesse it manifestly supposeth the foresaid Authority of admitting Appeales to reside in the Bishope of Rome Further though S. Ciprian reprehended them being lawfully conuicted for their further Appealing and not submitting them selues to their immediate Pastors yet doth he no-where so much as insinuate vpon iust occasions the vnlawfulnes of Appeales but euen in this very place doth imply the contrary by his sending after the foresaid heritikes to the Romane Church to enforme her of the truth which if it had not bene in regard of her foresaid Superiority or Primacy had bene altogether neede-les peraduenture inconuenient And whereas M. Whyte a litle before cyteth these wordes of S. Ciprian vnlesse peraduenture a few desperate and gracelesse persons think the Authority of the Bishopes in Africk that iudged them to be lesse it is plaine by the text that he maketh not this comparison with the Bishop of Rome but with those hereticall Bishopes which were censured and condemned by the Bishopes of Africk To conclude when M. Whyte sheweth me in the Epistle cyted of S. Ciprian these wordes obiected the vnity of Bishopes is broken when men runne from their owne to the Bishope of Rome I will publikely declaime him the cuningest Optician or rather Magician that the whole ministery of England affordeth The 10 Paragraph The Rhemists abused concerning the Authority of the Church Againe pag. 119. our fraudulent Doctor laboureth much to induce his credulous Readers to beleue that we hold that the Church can at her pleasure make that Scripture which is not and vnmake that which once is scripture thereupon saying that the papists haue a principle among them that the Scripres receiue all their authority from the Church he seketh to proue it in the next lynes from a testimony of the Rhemistes gal 6. thus alledging them The Scriptures are not knowne to be true neither are Christians bound to receaue them without the attestation of the Church Here againe he curtayleth their sentence concealing such their wordes as do lymite the Churches authority therein and wherein they do acknowledg an infallible truth of the Scriptures before any approbation of the Church therefore you shall haue their wordes alledged at large The Scriptures say they which are indeede of the Holy Ghosts indyting being put into the Churches tryall are found proued and testifyed vnto the world to be such and not made true altered or amended by the same without which attestation of the Church the holy Scriptures in them selues were alwayes true before but not so knowne to be to all Christians nor they so bound to take them Here the Rhemistes onely say that the truth of the Scriptures can not be made knowne to vs without the attestation of the Church And that this is all which M. Whyte can collect from this testimony which we willingly graunt Yet where the Rhemistes in this very place do vse wordes of reuerence to the Scriptures embrace their infallibility as these The Scriptures are not made true altered or amended by the Church And againe without the attestation of the Church the holy Scriptures in themselues were alwayes true As also wheare it is set downe by them in the mergent euen in that place The Church maketh not canonicall Scripture but declareth that it is so These I say though parcels of the former sentence or merginall explications thereof the D. haith after his accustomed maner most calumniously ouerskipped Thus it will still be found that the sphere of this his learned Treatise what glorious motion soeuer it semeth hitherto to haue in the sight of his ignorant fauorites turneth vpon the poles of shame full corruptions lying deceiptes The 11. Paragraph Cardinall Cusanus corrupted concerning the same subiect Againe continuing his former proiect pag. 51. he bringeth in the Cardinall Cusanus saying Epist. 3. pa. 3. When the Church changeth her Iudgment God also changeth his This he vrgeth to make vs mantayne that God doth so subiect his iudgment to the church that supposing for it is a mere supposall the church should alter or change any essentiall or fundamentall poynte of faith whatsoeuer by interpreting the Scripture otherwyse then before it did for M. Whyte setteth this sentence downe without any restraint so conformably thereto styleth the page The sence of Scripture changed with the tyme that then god also doth chāg his mynde therein so warrantiug the truth of this new stamped article But let vs see how the wordes do lye in Cusanus thus they are Sicut quondam coniugium praeferebatur Castitati c. As in former tymes meaninge in the firster ages of the world matrimony was preferred by the Church before Chastity so was it preferred euen by God But after the Iudgment of the Church being changed therein meaning after the world was fully peopled gods Iudgment it changed also If therefore the Church doth Iudg any act to be of great merite in reguard of the present circumstances and in an other tyme after shall Iudg an other act to be of greater valew c. it is euident that the greatnes of the merite doth much depende vpon the Iudgment of the Church Thus what is here spoken onely of the diuersity of merit of one and the same action according to the different circumstances of tyme or place M. Whyte will needes extend besides the intention of the Author to the chang of any dogmaticall point how great soeuer of
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
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
that M. Whyte can not reply in answear hereto that because there are some other protestantes that do mantaine the said positions with him against his former learned brethren that therefore such his positions are freed from all imputation of vntruth and consequently him self of lying This his answeare is most insufficient First because some of his vntruthes do rest in affirming that not any one Father or any one protestant taught such or such a poynt or doctrine against which generall assertion including all Fathers and protâ—stantes if I can produce but any one Father or protestant as indeede I can for the most part produce many it is enough to conuince him of lying Secondly in that all Maister W. vntruthes do make head against the Catholick Faith and strengthen the protestantes religion in which respect they may be presumed to be the more wilfull it can not therefore with any shew of reason be otherwise conceaued that such learned protestants for the most part mantaining against the Catholicks the poynt or conclusion of faith out of which such assertions do ryse and therefore are not become parties against M. Whyte therein would euer defend against the Doctor the contrary assertions much weakning their owne cause thereby were it not that the euidency of the truth on the Catholick side doth force them thereunto And therefore it followeth euen in reason that the voluntary acknowledgment of any such one learned protestant ought to ouer balance weigh downe euen scoares of others not confessing so much so true is the saying of Irenen li. 4. ca. 14. Illa est vera sine contradiction probatio quae etiam ab aduersariis ipsis signa â—â—stiâ—iâ—atioAâ—â—s prosâ—rt But to make this poynt more perspicuous to the reader by example our minister in one place which hereafter shall be alledged anouchâ—th that the doctrine of Transubstantiation was neuer heard of before the Councell of Lateran for here he speaketh not of the definition of that Article but of the doctrine onely To conuince this as a most notorious vntruth I produce not Catholick authorities for they would seme to the readers eye ouer partiall but because all perfect differences are made vpon vnequall standinges I insist in dyuers learned protestantes otherwyse our professed enemies who do not beleue our Catholick doctrine herein as true neuerthelesse do confesse that such such Fathers liuing in the primitiue Church and therefore many ages before the foresaide Councell did teach the said doctrine of Transubstantiation Now here I say M. Whyte is not excused from lying in that he is able to bring forth other particuler protestantes teaching with him the said innouation of Transubstantiation euen at the same tyme and not before in reguard of his former learned brethren confessing the further antiquity thereof to the much disabling of their owne cause Now what can our Doctor obiect herein not their ignorance for they are the most accomplished protestantes for their literature that euer liued not their partiality in the cause for they here speake against them selues and do conspyre in the fnndamentall and primitiue point of faith therein with M. Whyte him self Onely therefore it is to be said that these protestantes thâ—s confessing to their owne preiudice are more ingenious vpright and lesse impudent in their wrytinges and M. Whyte and his compartners are of a canterized and seâ—red conscience not caring euen against their owne knowledg by their shameles mantayning of lyes to suppresse Gods truth and Religion Now this Basis and groundwork being immoueaable and this firmly laid let vs proceede to these his vntruthes The 1. Vntruth The first vntruth that Protestantes embrace that kinde of tryall which is by antiquity Therefore first in his preface to the Reader pag. penul thus you see the very front of his book is no lesse subiect to lying then before as I haue shewed it was to corrupting our minister still forgeating that a great sore in the body is more tollerable then a moale in the face there speaking of the Fathers of the primitiue tymes and of their IudgmeÌ„ts in matters of Faith betwene the protestantes vs thus writeth We are so well assured meaning of the resolution of the Fathers that we embrace that kind of tryall which is by antiquity and dayly fynde our aduersaries to be gauled thereby A most vast vntruth and acknowledged to be such euen by the most iudiceous protestantes For we fynde that wheareas M. Iewell with the lyke hipocrisy did appeale to the auncient Fathers at Paules Crosse euen his owne brethren did rebuke him greatly for those his inconsiderate speaches in so much that D. Humfrey the half-arch of the English Church in his dayes affirmeth that to vse his owne wordes M. Iewell gaue the papists therein too large a scope that he was iniurious to him selfe and after a manner spoyled him self and his Church To the lyke ende D. Whitaker but with extraordinary scurrility wryteth that The popish Religion is but a patched couerlet of the Fathers errours sowed together From whence it followeth that D. Whytaker would be loth inappealably to stand to their determinations Finally Luther him self the first mouer of our new Gospels Spheare so farr disclaymeth from the Fathers Iudgmentes as that he thus insolently traduceth them The Fathers of so many ages speaking of primitiue tymes haue bene blynd and most ignorant in the Scriptures they haue erred all their lyfe tyme vnlesse they were amended before their deathes they were neither Sainctes nor perteyning to the Church Thus Luther Here now is euident the vntruth of M. Whyte appealing to the Fathers since we fynd that the most learned members of his owne Church do reiect them with all contempt charging them with slat papistry which they would neuer haue done if they could haue vsed any other conuenient euasion Be affrayd M. Whyte of Gods iust reuenge for this your mantayning of euill by euill for thus you here do first by impugning the true faith of Christ then for your better warranting thereof in traducing the auncient and holy Fathers as enemies to the said Faith And remember the sentence Metum auget qui scelere scelus obruit The second vntruth Against Traditions But to procede to other vntruthes pag. 2. our M. Whyte laboureth to proue that the protestantes Church receaueth not nâ—cessarily any one Tradition and answearably thereto in his first Table before his booke he thus wryteth No part of our faith standeth vpon Tradition Now here his owne brethren will charge him with falshood For seing M. Whyte must and doth acknowledg that to beleue that such bookes as the wrytinges of the four Euangelistes the Actes of the Apostles the Epistles of S. Paule c. are the sacred word of god is a mayne article of both his and our Faith The falshood of his former Assertion is euidently euicted from the wordes of learned protestantes who teach that not from our pryuate spirit or scripture
he sheweth that the diuisions among them are either falsly layd to their charge through ignorance fury of their enemies c. or els they are not iars of the Church but the defectes of some few therein whereof the Church is not guilty or lastly not dissertions in thiâ—ges of faith but stryfe about Ceremonies c. Thus doth the D. Apologize for his discording brethren Now to conuince this the Reader shall heare what some of their owne brethren do acknowledge therein First then Doctor Willet rehearsing seuerall opinions of Hooker and D. Couell of which Willet presuming that they can not stand with true protestancy thus wryteth From this fountaine haue sprong forth these and such other whirle-pointes and bubles of new doctryne as that Christ is not originally God That Scriptures are not meanes concerning God of all that profitably we know c. That mannes will is apt naturally without Grace to take any perticuler obiect whatsoeuer presented vnto it and so consequently beleue that mennes naeturall workes or to do that Which nature telleth us without grace must needes be acceptable to God c. Thus haue some bene bould to teach and wryte as some Scismatikes meaning the puritanes haue disturbed the peace of the Church one way in externall matters concerning discipline these haue troubled the Church an other way in opposing them selues by new quirkes and deuyces to the soundnes of doctrine amongst protestantes But if the position here ment be against the foundnes of doctrine then can it not be restrained onely to ceremonies Doctor Whitaker speaking of the contentions among the protestantes saith Nostrae contentiones si quae sint sunt piae et modestae et propter fidem religionem c. Our contentions if there be any are pious and modest and for religion From which wordes if followeth that they are not personall or onely about ceremonies as M. Whyte pretendeth Now if we further take a vew of the intemperate speaches geuen by Luther against the Zuinglians it may satisfy any one that the differences were not in small points of gouernment or ceremonies Thus theÌ„ Luther speaketh We censure in earnest the Zninglians all the Sacramentaries for heritykes and alienated from the Church of God And in an other place Cursed be the Charity and concord of Sacramentaries for euer and euer to all eternity As also in the 3. place I hauing now one of my feete in the graue will carry this testimony and glory to the tribunall of God that I will with all my heart condemne aud eschew Carolostadius Zuinglius Oecolampadius and their schollers nor will haue with any of them familiarity either by letters or writinges c. And thus farr of this point From all which may be inferred that dissentions among the protestantes are not merely personall or but pointes adiaphorous indifferent being as it were but peccant humors and not true or formed diseases in their church but they do concerne most profound doubtes of their religion since otherwaies they would neuer anathematize or condemne one an other with such acerbity of wordes Which irreuocable contentions among the protestaÌ„ts being most preiudiceous to them selues is aduantageous to vs for bellum haereticorum est pax Ecclesiae The warr of heritykes is the peace of Gods Church none otherwise then the reciprocall stryfe and reluctation of the 4. humors kepes the whole body in a peaceable healthfull state The 8. Vntruth Against the vnity of Catholickes in matters of Faith Page 153. The Doctor seing his owne sinagogue torne in sonder with diuisions and contentions howsoeuer he slubered the matter ouer before with his faire pretence of concord and well knowing how preiudiciall the want of vnity is to the true Religion of Christ. For God is not a God of dissention but of peace doth maliceously endeuour to cast the lyke aspersion vpon our Catholick Church in these wordes These which know Rome and papistry are sufficiently satisfyed in this matter to wit that the papistes liue not in that vnity which is pretended theÌ„ p. 156. he telleth of what kynd these disagreementes are saying The contentions of our aduersaries touch the faith And pag. 159 he concludeth in these wordes Thus are the papistes deuyded about the principall articles of their faith Vpon which subiect he then after with much earnestnes vainely and idly spendeth dyuers leaues bringing therein euen obtorto cullo whatsoeuer he haith read or heard touching the least disagreement among the Catholickes which labour of his will serue no doubt to a iudiceous eye lyke to the spyders web painfully wrought but to no purpose Wherefore I will breefly make plaine how free we are from all breach of faith euen by the acknowledgment of the protestantes them selues First then D. Whitaker wounding him self and his cause by his confession saith Nostrae contentiones si quae sint sunt piae et modestae propter fidem propter religionem c. Contentiones papistarum sunt friuolae futiles de figmentis et commentis sui cerebri Our contentions if there be any are godly and modest touching faith and religion wheras the contentions of the papistes are but tryflinge concerning the fictions of their owne brayne Thus graunting the dissentions of the protestantes more nearly to concerue faith and religion then the dissentions among the Catholickes do Doctor Fulke saith of our vnity in this sort As for the consent of the popish Church it proueth nothing but that the deuill then had all thinges at his will and might sleepe So acknowledging our vnity truly but falsly and absurdly ascrybing it to the deuill who is the designed enemy to vnity To be short Duditius a famous protestant and highly respected by Beza doth no lesse acknowledg the vnity of our Catholick Church for thus doth Beza relate Duditius his woordes Etsi inquis multa eaque horrenda propugnantur in Romana Ecclesia c. Although many dreadfull thinges are defended in the Romane Church which are buylded vpon a weake and rotten foundation notwithstanding that Church is not deuyded with many dissentions for it haith the plausible shew of reuerent Antiquity ordinary sâ—ccession and perpetuall consent c. Thus Duditius related by Beza and not impugned herein by him Now here we are to note that the testimonies of these and other protestantes here omitted acknowledging our vnity and consent must necessarily be vnderstoode touching vnity in the misteries and other fundamentall poyntes of our Religion which is the thing onely that we are here to mantaine since if vnity alone about pointes of indifferency or of thinges not defyned should be ment by them then in reguard of many such disputable questions yet among the schole men the former iudgmentes of our aduersaries should be false and not iustifiable And thus much for this poynt from whence the Doctor may learne that among those which are true Catholickes vnity of doctrine is most
it with greater effects and frutes of vertue and the confessed better lyues euen of seculer Catholicks And so lewdly and lowdly did M. Whyte lye in whoÌ„ there is much Zuinglius when he affirmed that the protestantes were as holy as the papistes But I feare that through my earnestnes in displaying of the ministers vanity I haue bene ouer long in this poynt therfore I will descend to the next vntruth The 12. Vntruth Against auriculer Confession Page 227. discoursing of auriculer ConfessioÌ„ he saith that the Primitiue Church knew it not For the discouery of this falshood we fynd that the Centuristes do confessse that in the tymes of Ciprian and Tertulian priuate Confession was vsed euen of thoughtes and lesser sinnes And which is more they acknowledge that it was then Commaunded and thought necessary And D. Whytaker writeth that not onely Ciprian but almost all of the most holy Fathers of that tyme were in errour touching Confession and Satisfaction Thus we see how little bloud was in M. Whyte his cheekes when he was not ashamed to set downe this former bould assertion touching the doctrine of Confession But indeede it seemeth that our minister accompteth it onely a shame to feele in him self any touch of shame so far is he of in likelyhood from all hope of future amendement seeing on the contrary syde that saying for the most part is true Erubuit salua res est The 13. Vntruth Against Fasting Page 224. Our delicate minister as a professed enemy to all austerity of lyfe writeth thus against fasting All antiquity can witnes that in the primitiue Church Fasting was held an indifferent thing euery man was left to his owne mind therein This falshood is made discouerable by these acknowledgmentes following And first it is so certaine that AErius was condemned by Epiphanius haer 76. and by S. Augustine haer 53. for taking away all set dayes of fasting as that D. Fulke thus wryteth of this point I will not dissemble that which you think the greatest matter Aerius taught that fasting dayes are not to be obserued The same condemnation of Aerius by the former Fathers is acknowledged by doctor Whytaker By Pantaleon and Osiander But if Aerius was condemned by the former auncient Fathers for an heritike for denying certaine prescribed tymes of fasting it inauoydably followeth that fasting was not houlden as a thing indifferent in the primitiue Church This lye will appeare more euident if we instance it in the fast of Lent which fast was so farr from being accompted arbitrary or a thing indifferent in the primitiue Church as that Cartwright reproueth S. -Ambrose for saying It is sinne not to fast in Lent Thus you see how familierly this ministers pen drops lye after lye and such as the contrary assertion is mantayned for true euen by the most eminent protestantes The 14. Vntruth In proofe that Montanus the herityke was the first that brought in the lawes of Fasting Page 224. Our Doctor in further disgrace of fasting thus writeth Montanus a condemned herityke was the first that euer brought in the lawes of Fasting from whom the Papistes haue borowed them The 〈◊〉 misapplication of which is so forced and racked that no inferiour a protestant then Hooker him self confesseth ingeniously in these wordes that the Montaristes were condemned for bringing in sundry vnacâ—stomed dayes of fasting continued their fastes a great deale lâ—â—ger made them more rigorous c. Whereupon Tertulian mantayning Montanus wrote a booke of the new fast But what is this to vs Catholickes for we see that the errour of Montanus consisted formally not in absolutly bringing in of fasting but in varying from the former practised fastes of the whole Church Answearably hereunto the protestant wryter of Quaerimonia Ecclesiae reiectâ—th the former idle assertion in these wordes Eusebium inquiunt Montanum primas de iciuniis tulisse leges c. They say that Eusebius did vndoubtedly teach that Montanus first brougt in the lawes of fasting but they are sowly deceaued in this as in some other pointes for Montanus abrogating the fasts of the Church brought in a new kind of fasting Thus we see by the former assertions that M. Whyte like a good felow and one that meanes to enioy his Christian liberty can not well relish the vnsauery doctrine of fasting as in some pages hereafter we shall synd that in lyke sort he reiecteth all voluntary chastity which two pointes as before I noted do entertaine the one the other for who knoweth not that Epicurisme is the oyle which norisheth the flame of lust The 15 Vntruth In proofe that they make not god the author of sinne Page 263. M. Whyte being desireous that his religion should decline all contumelious reproach and staine touching the author of sinne thus wryteth The doctrine of the protestantes doth not make God the author of sinne nor inferreth any absolute necessity constrayning vs that we can not do otherwise then we doe That the indifferent Reader may the better discouer whether these his wordes be false or true I will only set downe the sentences of the cheifest protestants and withall will deliuer the iudgmentes of other protestantes against the former defending of the said sentences Zuinglius saith that God moueth the theefe to kill And that the theefe killeth god procuring him And that the theefe is inforced to sinne Thus in the heritykes iudgment God who in euery leafe of his sacred woord denounceth his comminations against sinners doth incyte procure and force man to sinne Beza in lyke sort teacheth that God exciteth the wicked will of one theefe to kill an other guideth his hand and weapons iustly enforcing the will of the theefe Fynally Caluin writeth that In sinning the deuill is not author but rather an instrument thereof thus referring the author of sinne to God him self Now that these sayinges of the former protestants do if not actually immediatly and primariously yet at least potentially and necessarily include in theÌ„ selues that god is the author of sinne is graunted by other more modest protestant wryters who do altogether condemne the foresaid doctrine of Caluin Zuinglius and Beza Thus is the said doctrine condemned by Castalio who wrote a speciall treatise hereof against Caluin By Hooker in his Ecclesiast Pollicy lib 5. pag. 104. By D. Couell in his defence of M. Hooker pag 62. Yea in farther conuincing of M. Whytes former vntruth we fynd that Iacobus Andreas a Protestant in Epitom Coloq Montisbelgar pag. 47. thus plainely writeth Deus est Author peccati secundum Bezam Here now I referr the matter to the iudiceous Reader whether he will beleue M. Whytes former assertion as true politikly onely deliuered by him to salue the honour of his Church or the plaine contrary meaning of Caluin Zuinglius and Beza set downe in their owne sayinges so acknowledged by others of their owne Religion where we fynd that the protestant
haith bene no where externall and visible Now during all these ages when was M. W. company of men visibly professing the same faith that he doth Finally D. Fulke though not acknowledging so great an inuisibility yet wryteth that in the tyme of Boniface the third which was Anno 607. the Church was inuisible and fled into wildernesse there to remaine a long season To these testimonies we may adde the former heretofore alledged touching their Churches not being vpon the first reuolt of Luther From all which it is ineuitably concluded against this our Architect of lyes that the protestants imaginary Church consisting of aery supposales of certaine inuisibilistes had no subsisting or being in the world for these laste thousand yeres at the least before the Apostacy of that vnfortunate wicked Monke The 19 Vntruth In defence of Preistes mariage Page 343. The Doctor much Apologizing defending the mariage of the Cleargy affirmeth that the Church of Rome houldeth contrary herein to that which was taught in the Primitiue Church Now for the triall of this falshood let vs concurr to that which is confessed by our learned aduersaties concerning the same First then Cartwright confesseth of the first Councell of Nyce which was celebrated in the 3. Century or age after Christ that it taught that vnto those which were chosen into the ministery it was not lawfull to take a wyfe afterwardes only being maried before entrance into the ministery it was lawfull for them to vse the benefyte of the precedent mariage In lyke sort M. Iewell in the defence of the Apology page 195. after the editioÌ„ of Anno 1571. speaking of preistes mariages thus acknowledgeth Here I graunt M. Harding it lyke to find some good aduantage as hauing vndoubtedly a great number of holy Fathers on his side Lastly Chemniâ—ius graunteth that this doctryne that preistes can not mary is taught by Origen Ierome Ambrose Innocentius Ciritius Epiphanius Now here I referr to the iudgment of any indifferent reader whether we are to beleue these former learned protestantes ingeniously confessing the practise of this our Catholick doctrine in the primitiue Church to the preiudice and endangering of theire owne cause or M. Whyte denying the same for the better tecture and pretext of his owne sociable lyfe and his ministeriall copulation The 20 Vntruth Against Images page 344. Inueighing much against the religious vse of Images among other thinges he saith according to the tytle of that his digression that touching Images the Church of Rome houldeth contrary to that formerly was houlden And after alledgeth that the auncient Christians of the Primitiue Church had no Images But the contrary hereto is most true For first we finde that the Centuristes do wryte that Lactantius who lyued in the fourth Century or age affirmeth many superstitious thinges concerning the efficacy of Christes Image Doctor Fulke affirmeth that Paulinus a very auncient Author caused Images to be painted on Church wales In lyke sort touching the signe of the Crosse of which there is the same reason and ground the Centuristes teach that Ambrosius multa commâ—morat superstitiosâ— de cruce inuâ—nta The said Centuristes also affirme of the third age after Christ that Crucis Imaginem c. Tertulian is thought to affirme that Christians had the Image of the Crosse in the places of their publike meetinges as also priuatly in their owne houses So farâ— did M. W. erre from the truth in affirming that touching Images The Church of Rome bouldeth contrary to that which was formerly houlden But I see if it be proofe enough for M. Whyte onely to condemne the Church of Rome must not be innocent The 21. Vntruth Against Transubstantiation Page 346. The D. thus writeth Lastly I name Transubstantiation c. wherein it is plaine that they meaning the Catholickes haue altered the Faith of the auncient Fathers Here for the tryall hereof we are to appeale to the sayinges and confessions of his owne syde where we shall fynd that M. Whytes credit and estimation is particulerly in this as in the former most daungerously wonnded euen by the handes of his owne breethren For we fynd it confessed by the Centuristes that Chrisostomus transubstantiatiorem vid tur confirmare Chrisostem is thought to confirme transubstantiation In lyke sort by the Iudgment of other protestantes Theophilactus Dama ceâ—us plane inclinant ad transubstantiatiorem Theophilact D. mascen do euidently inclâ—ne to Transubstantiation Answearable hereto Occolampadius doth charge Damascen with the said doctrine Finally D. Hâ—mfrey writeth that Gregory the great brought in Transâ—bstantiation In Ecclsiam verò saith he speaking of our conuersion quid inuexerunt Gregorius et Augustinus Intâ—lâ—runt c. Transubstantiationem Now I would demaund of our minister with what countenance he can auâ—rre that in the doctrine of TraÌ„substantiation we haue altered the faith of the auncient fathers if he obserue what is taught to the contrary by his owne brethren who not beleuing the doctrine it self yet do confesse the great antiquity thereof May we thinke that M. W. was ignorant of these Fathers myndes therein If so then are his followers much deceaued in ouerualâ—ing his good partes and literature and withall the obscurity of his owne iudgment touching the said fathers in this poynt haith thus farr preuailed that it haith ministred fitâ— opportunity to the Reader to take notice how cleare perspicuous shyning our Catholick faith of Transubstantiation was euen in those primitiue tymes So the Opacity and darknes of the earth is occasionally the cause of the dayes light The 22. Vntruth Against the conuersion of England by S. Augustine the Monke Page 354. and 355. to depriue S. Augustine the Monke of the honour and reuerence due vnto him by vs English for our conuersion the M. thus wryteth Touching the conuersion of England by Augustine the Monk in which our aduersaries make so much a doe I answeare two thinges fiâ—st that supposing he dâ—d conuert it it was not to the present Romane faith c. Secondly I say he conuerted not our Country at all excepting the planning of some tryfling Ceremonies Here you see that the first poynt of this passagâ— to wit touching Augustines connâ—rsion and his faith is Hipotheticall and deliuered with som hesitation and doubting the other recalling the first Categoricall absolute and peremptory Now in my reprouall of this his falshood I will vnyte together the two former disioynted parcels and directly proue from our aduersaries penaes that S. Augustine did conuert our Country to the present Catholick Romane faith in the euicting whereof I will content my self with the confessions of the Centuristes and of D. Humfrey For if we peruse the history of those Censorions Magdeburgians who reproue and controule at their pleasure all the Fathers of all ages we shall fynd that these Centuristes acknowledging S. Augustines conuersion of vs in their Alphabeticall Table of the 6. Century at
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
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