at all and lying vpon the ground in steed of a bed 11 Abstinence from flesh wyne other dainty meates vpon deuotion 12 Keping set houres of prayer as in the morning at the Third the Sixt the Ninth Evensong and a Midnight 13 The difference of litle and greate sinnes 14 The vnlearned reading the Scriptures hauing a learned maÌ„ for their Maister 15 The learnedst confessing their doubtinge and ignorance in their explication of the Scriptures 16 Bishopes and Preistâ— a singing carying of Candles in the day tyme at the burials of the dead 17 Church seruice song vsed in the Hebrew Greeke Latin and Syrian languageâ— And for the Conclusion as including many thinges in one remember S. Ieromes prayer made to S. Paula after her death Vale o Paula Cultoris tui vltâ—â—am senectuâ—â—â— orationibus iuua fides opera tua Christo te sociant praesens facilius quod postulas impâ—trabis And now let any man iudge whether S. Ierome was a papist as also what wisdome learning or honesty M. Whyte sheweth in objecting that which but truly seene and considered doth manifestly confound and condemne himselfe The 2. Paragraph S. Cyrill of Alexandria abused for the same purpose It was the reproch saith Whyte pag. 22 that Iulian the Tpostatalaide on Christians that their women were medlers with the Scriptures and from him the papistes haue borrowed it for which he cyteth Cyril Alex. Iul. l. 6 If our Minister had cyted Iulian reprehending the auncient Christians of his tyme for not Adoring Iubiter adoring the Crosse and making the signe thereof in their forheades and vpon houses the lawfulnes and profit wherof S. Cyrill defendeth he might haue truly shewed what him self other heritikes had borrowed from Iulian in impugning the worship of the Crosse and signing therwith but in that which he obiecteth in the behalf of women medling with Scriptures him selfe borroweth from Iulian the libertie of lyinge for Iulian onely reprehendeth Christ and his Apostles for that for that they propouÌ„ded the heaueÌ„ly preaching vnto all calling vnto their doctrine men and women of baifer sorte which S Cyrill defendeth shewing thereby the benignity of our Sauiour but as for mention of the Scriptures or women medling therewith he haith no word at all our black-whyte haith only inuented it to proue him self a true Apostata Chapter 3. Concerning the Church the Pope The 1. Paragraph Vincentius Liâ—inensis wilfully corrupted in proofe that the true Church may erre WE will now take into our consideration his corrupt proceding concerning the supposed generall erring of the whole Church not remembring that in regard of Christes solicitude care affection to his Spouse it is said Cant. 1. My welbeloued is a cluster of Cypre vnto me in the vyneyardes of Engaddi That the vniuersall Church may erre he laboreth to euict from the testimony of old Vincentius Lirinensis whom our minister pag. 83. maketh thus to speake Aduers proph nouit ca. 4. Not onely some portion of the Church but the whole Church it selfe is blotted with some new contagion Obserue the true wordes of this Father and then you can not but admyre to fynd such Blacknes in Whyte and such perfidiousnes in him who styleth him self a minister of Gods word for thus the wordes doe lye in latin Quod si nouella aliqua contagio non iam portiunculam tantum sed toram pariter ecclesiam commaculare conetur What is to be done if some contagion shall endeuour to blot not any one parte but the whole Church then saith he further must a maÌ„ be carefull to cleeue to antiquity Now here our D. abuseth his reader in two sortes one way in concealing the word Conetur and so commaculare conetur he translateth is blotted and consequently making Vincentius to confesse for our minister most impudently saith that the whole Church is actually blotted with some contagion of heresy whereas at the most he saith that heresy may endeuour to blott the whole Church But who knoweth not that euery thing which is endeuored to be effected is not actually effected Another way in deliuering these wordes in a Categoricall and absolute Ennuntiation which are Hypotheticall or spoken merely of a supposal as appeareth by the first wordes Quid si which M. Whyte thought good not to translate The difference of which two kind of propositions is very markable as euery yong Sophister knoweth as for example if a man do say what if diuers of Suffolk do report that M. Whyte is extremely geuen to his bely to Epicurisme and to say Diuers of Suffolke reporte that M. Whyte is extremely geuen to his bely and to Eicurisme where we see the first is merely of a doubtfull surmise and supposition the second is a peremptory and absolute proposition that they do so reporteâ— the truth or falshode whereof notwithstanding any intelligence whatsoeuer I here quietly passe ouer The 2. Paragraph The Rhemistes corrupted for the Churches inuisibility Now to the next point which consisteth in the mantayning of a Mathematicall aety inuisible Church for the vphoulding whereof among others he strengthneth his cause with the supposed confession of the Rhemistes thus bringing the whole Colledg of Rhemes vpon the stage to speake in the dialect of protestantes and so sorteably thereto he styleth that page 88. and some other pages in this maner The Papists also say the Church it inuisible The words wherwith he chargeth theÌ„ in this point are these vpon the 2. Thes. ca. 2. It is very lyke be it spoken vnder the correction of Gods Church and all learned Catholickes that this great defection or reuolt shall not be onely from the Romane Empyre but especially from the Romane Church and withall from most pointes of Christian Religion for that neare to the tyme of Antichrist and the consummation of the worlde there is lyke to be a great reuolt of Kingdomes People and Prouinces from the externall open obedience and communion thereof For the few dayes of Antichrists reigne the externall state of the Romane Church and the publick entercourse of the faithfull with the same may cease Here good Reader let me entreate thee to arest stay thyne eye and iudgment a whyle to obserue what strange corruptions he is forced to practise before he 〈◊〉 make an Israelite to speake a Babilonians language This place as you fynd it here vrged beareth a faire show to proue by the Rhemistes confession that the Church may somtymes be inuisible and yet in this very place being truly set downe in their owne wordes they doe affirme that the Church shall at no tyme be inuisible Theire true wordes are these It is very lyke be it spoken vnder correction of Gods Church and all learned Catholickes that this great defection and reuolt shall not be onely from the Romane Empyre but especially from the Romane Church and withall from most pointes of Christian religion not that the Catholick Christians either in the tyme of Antichrist
or before shall refuse to obey the same but for that neare to the tyme of Antichrist and consummation of the worlde there is lyke to be a greate reuolt of Kingdomes people and Prouinces from the open externall obedience communion thereof c. when for the few dayes of Antichristes reigne the externall state of the Romane Church and publick entercourse of the faithfull with the same way cease yet the due honour and obedience of Christians towardes it and Communion in heart with it and practise thereof in secret and open confession thereof if occasion requyre shall not cease no more then it doth now in the Christians of Cyprus and other places where open entercourse is forbidden Here now the parcels of this testimony which are purposly omitted do show that the Rhemistes do euen peremptorily affirme that gods Church shall neuer no not in the tyme of Antichristes greatest persecutions be latent and inuisible Thus doth our M. you see vpon a sudaine breake of with the Rhemistes in alledging their wordes yet after some lyne or two curteously ioyneth with them againe and then after that once more vnkindly leaues them to them selues all this in one poore testimony And here good reader thou art to take notice of an other sleight of our minister touching this particuler place For whereas he in the first Edition of his booke which I here folow setteth downe the Rhemistes wordes as thou seest aboue in no sorte intimating that any one word of their said testimony is pretermitted he in some other of his Editions as it should seme being aduertised that this his egregious corruption was espyed by his aduersaries thought therefore in some sort to salue the matter haith at the last wordes where he breaketh of from the rest of the whole sentence added a virgula or lyne as this ingeniously forsoth to acknowledge that he omitteth some part of the sentence But this I say auaileth him nothing for first it doth not warrant his sincerity in his first Edition Againe though in alledging of a testimony we are not bound to set down euery word thereof yet as I haue before premonished that which is omitted ought to be impertinent to the mayne point for which the testimony is produced But subtily to pretermit with an c. or some such like marck that which punctually doth touch or explicate the true sence of the sentence alledged that directly contrary to that construction there pretended as here it falleth out it is no lesse then most impious corrupting and corrading of other mens writinges And therfore I say M. Whyte is nothing aduantaged hereby but doth for the tyme plaster one euill with an other euill but no meruell for it is a high mistery amongst heritikes to support deceipt with deceipt till at the length all do tumble downe with it owne weight and so erit nouissimus error petor priori Mat. 7. Thr 3 Paragraph S. Augustine corrupted concerning the same subiect of the Churches inuisibility In lyke sort pag. 103. he alledgeth S. Augustine de bap con Don. li. 6. ca. 4. thus to say The Church may be so obscured that the members thereof shall not know one an other S. Augustines wordes are these none other Idem spiritus Sanctus ea dimitit qui datus est omnibus sanctis sibi Charitate cohaerentibus siue se nouerint corporaliter siue non nouerint The same holy Ghost which it geuen to all the Sainctes or holy men agreing together in Charity whether they know one an other or not remitteth the sinnes But what is this to the inuisibility of the Church or by what Sintax or Grammar can M. W. translate thus the former latin lynes Finally by what sublimation or art can he extract such a refyned sence from the bare minerals of the former wordes Neither can he slubber the mater ouer in saying that he here gathereth onely some necessary Illation prouing the Churches latency for the sentence alledged by him is set downe in a different letter of caracter froÌ„ his owne and he there perticularly geueth them as the very wordes Now S. Augustine in that place doth not so much as glance at the Churches visibility or inuisibility but there showing how sinnes are remitted as effectually by the bad preistes as the vertuous proueth it by Anology of reason to wit that the power of the holy Ghost may aswell be geuen to a wicked Preist as to a good and vertuous as it is geuen alyke to all the godly though they know not one an other But M. Whyte fynding that parcell of the seÌ„tence sine nouerint se corporaliter siue non nouerint to be ment of the faithfull and vertuous thought presently that he lighted vpon a bootie and so hoping thereby to entrappe the incautelous reader was the more easely induced to create the world of this his deprauation out of a mere nothing of a sound of wordes And thus farre of his corruptions touching the Churches inuisibility from the mantayning whereof we Catholickes do so far disclame as that euen in the most tempesteous and raging tymes of persecution that either haue or shall happen we acknowledg innumerable members thereof to be euer visible and in faith permanent and vnmoueable for we reade that the beames of the house of Christ his Spouse are Cedars the rafiens are of firre Can. â— The 4. Paragraph Doctor Stapleton abused in behalfe of the Protestantes markes of the Church The next corruption which I here will shew shall be concerning the markes of the Church whearâ— he to proue that we absolutely embrace the markes thereof deliuered by the Protestantes to wit the proaching of the word as acknowledging it to be a more infallible marke to euery Christian then our Catholicke markes are Antiquity Succession Vniuersality c. all which notes he after endeuoreth to confute To this end I say pag. 105. he produceth Doctor Stapleton thus wryting princip doctrinal li 1. ca. 22. The preaching of the Gospell is the proper and a very cleare note of the Catholick Church so it be done by lawfull Ministers Mark heare how he declareth this authors meaning by concealing the wordes in him that there are immediatly subioyned for thus that Catholick Doctor Praedicationem Euangelii We graunt that the preaching of the Gospell by lawfull Ministers is a very cleare and proper note of the Catholick Church Hâ—c est enim ordinaria c for by this is that ordinary and perpetuall Succession of Bishops Preistes and Pastors dâ—ryued in a continued order euen from the Apostles them selues to vs. From which latter part of the sentence purposly omitted by M. W. it is euident that D. Stapleton doth allow the preaching of the Gospell by lawfull pastors so far forth onely to be a note of the Church as it is included in the Catholick note of Succession and in no other sence which point is made more cleare besides his mayne drift in that Chapter diuers others of
the said booke being to coÌ„fute the Protestants notes by the said Doctors wordes also concealed by M. Whyte which doe immediatly precede the sentence vrged by him For there speaking of the preaching of the Gospell and of the ministration of the Sacraments he saith Adâ—menta ornamenta These are furthere â—â—â—es ornaments of the true Church non ipsius nota insignia but not markes or signes therof Here you see how Ieweshsly M. Whyte haith circumcysed this poore Authority in paring away both the first and latter part thereof But seing his inexcusable faultines not onely in this place but in most of his deprauationes is to set downe one part of a testimony and fraudulently to hyde an other part let him remember the greouous punishment inflicted by the Apostle vpon Ananias for bringing halfe and concealing the other halfe Act. 5 The 5. Paragraph Gregory Valentia corrupted in behalf of the Protestantes markes of the Church In proofe of the Protestantes markes of the Church to wit Truth of doctrine and administration of the Sacraments M. Whyte pag. 137. alledgeth Valentia Com. Theol. Tom. 3. disp 1.9.1 punct 7. parag 18. saying Among whomsoeuer the truth of Doctrine and Sacraments are houlden thereby it is knowne the Church is there But for the true displaying of this baise iugling minister I will set downe the wordes at large as that learned Author deliuered them him self Nos autem fatemur saith he neque veritate dâ—ctrinae neque legitimo sacramentorum vsu Ecclesiam Christi carere posse apud quos haec omninó sint salua exiis constare veram EcclesiaÌ„ Sed negamus tamen veritatem doctrinae legitimum sacramentorum vsum idoneas notas esse discernendae Ecclesiae ' But we confesse that the Church of Christ can neither wante truth of doctrine nor lawfull vse of Sacramentes and amongst whom these are altogether saife or sincere of them to consist the true Church But yet we deny the truth of doctrine and lawfull vse of Sacramentes to be fit markes of discerning the Church Here M. Doctor first I must admire the profundity of your indgment producing by an vnknown kind of pollicy a most famous learned man contradicting him self in one and the same sentence yea not onely contradictinge the tytle of his disputation which is the Marckes of the Church which the sectaries assigne are euidently confuted but euen the many and different profes which for sixe pages he continueth against the said markes assigned by protestantes But because this so great an ouersight is more then probable let vs examine brefely your demeanour towardes him You alledg in a different letter as though they were the Authors expresse wordes these folowing Among whomsoeuer the truth of doctrine and Sacraments are houlden thereby it is knowne the Church is there Him self sayeth Apud quos haec omuino sint salna ex iis constare veram Ecclesiam Amongst whom these are altogether sincere of them to consist the true Church That which Valentia speaketh of the persons of whom the Church consisteth your worship pleaseth to apply to the markes by which it is to be knowne as though there weare no difference betwixt the members of the Church the externall badges tokens whereby the said church is discerned But peraduâ—nture you will pretend for your excuse the alledging in the mergeÌ„t of your boke these latin wordes ex us constare veram Ecclesiâ—m But the truth is this doth rather plead you guilty of grosse ignorance in not knowing how to translate aright or as I rather think of laboured and affected malice who hauing sene and perused the place would so desperatly produce it against the manifeste sence of the wordes and the direct intention of the Author And though the word constare doth not onely signify to consist or stande but som-tymes likewise to be manifest or knowne yet in the place cyted neither the wordes precedent nor subsequent nor the scope or â—rift of the Author will permitt it yea they all conuince and conclude the contrary But if it were lawfull for me M. Whyte in wordes Amphibologicall which haue a double sence without all respect either to the subiect or matter treated the intention of the speaker or other circumstance to translate or apply the worde onely for myne owne aduauntage I would easely defend against your learneâ—st Doctor-ship sundâ—y of the celestiall signes to be liuing and sensible creatures and so much more to be esteeâ—ed tâ—en your self for I would likewise vpon the same â—round defend your self to be no substance but a mere accident Into such grosse absurdities doth your beggerly heresâ—e euer plunge you The 6 Paragraph Bellarmine egregiously corrupted against the Markes of the Church M. Whyte desiring to extenuate the worth and to obscure the splendor of those glorious markes which the Catholick Church as so many cleare rayes moste plentifully affordeth produceth pag. 137. Cardinal Bellarmine as saying They make it not euidently true that is the Church but euidently probable Here M. D. as it semes wanted lantorne and candle light but most certainely he wanted either honesty or knowledg or both in best confirmation whereof I will onely set downe the wordes of Bellarmine him selfe de notes eccl lib. 4. ca. 3. Est autem initio obseruandum Ecclesiam Catholicam esse c. It is in the beginning to be obserued that the Catholick Church is a Soon which on euery side powreth out the clearest beames of light so that by them she may most easely be knowne For she haith many Markes or testimonies and signes which discerneth her from all false religions of Paganes Iewes Heritykes And they do not make it euidently true that she is the true Church of God but yea they make it euidently `credible for that is said euidently true that is seene either in it self or in it principles that is said euidently credible which is not seene either in it selfe or in it principles yet which haith so many and so graue Testimonies as that euery wyse man deseruedly ought to beleue it Here the minister all excuses set apart must nedes confesse that he haith falsly corrupted the text of Bellarmine changing this parcell euidently credible into euidently probable betwene which two there is no lesse difference then betwixt him self and an honest man which is not small For example if but one hundreth of learned and sincere writers should confesse that D. Whyte had corrupted thâ—â— bookes in sundry places this confession would make it euidently credible that D. Whyte were an impostor or deceauer a mercionary minister and the lyke but if onely two or three should auouch it as many of equall authority deny it then it were but euidently probable If the matter were brought to this issue him self would plainely see the greateste difference betwixt these two And I dare bouldly say that with lesser labour I will â—â—panell an hundreth who will all geue their verdictes against his soulest forgeries then
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
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
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
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
forged a place and an other thing if the printer onely haith mistaken the quotation the latter may be but the former is not as I will be ready to satisfy any that will charge me with it Thus he But how mantaineth he the point or what satisfaction geueth he if in answere to the corruptions and deprauations wherewith he is heare charged he reply that in good sooth so it is that he did not read the testimonies of the Authoures them selues but onely tooke them vpon the credit and affiance of such of his owne brother-hood as he thought would not haue deceiued him A graue sufficient answeare And heare I am to preadmonishe M. Whyte that I doe expect in his answeare if he doe intende sincerely and truly to free him selfe from these imputations to answeare all the corruptions and deprauations by them selues as heare they are gathered and so the lyes and falshoodes seuerally by them selues as as also the impertinences in like sort and not promiscuously to iumble and shuffle them together now seeking to salue a corruption next a lye and so by affecting an obscurity in methode to bleare the eye of the reader that he shall not discerne what corruptions in his reply he omitteth and what he maketh shew to iustify wherefore I say if he make choice of this obscure course after this premonition he but bewrayes his owne guiltinesse And though I can not by the lawes of writing impose a methode vpon my aduersaries pen yet seing the reason why M. Whyte should affect an other course then I heare wish him is seene aforehand and so him self hereby aduertised thereof to be onely by answearing so confusedly to delude and wrong his reader therefore euen for his owne honour and credit sake he can not refuse this desyred methode which heare I requyre especially seing it is wished onely for manifestation of the truth as being in it selfe most obuious facile perspicuous Thus much I haue thought good for his greater caution to instruct the reader with afore-hand and therefore now I will remitt him to the ensuing deprauations still wishing him to haue his eye whensoeuer M. Whyte shall vouchsaife to make answeare hereto intent and fixed vpon the corruption obiected neither suffer him to turne the question as before I touched from the corruption to the sence meaning of the Authour a sleight vpon the lyke occasion vsed by Plessis against the Bishoppe of Fureux so to entertaine the reader with long discourses thereby to diuert his myud from the point in question but let the reader alwayes remember that the question heare for the most part immediatly is whether such a sentence or testimony is truly and faithfully alledged as it is to be found in the Authour him selfe without any addition or concealement of wordes in M. White his behalfe and so breefely whether M. Whyte corrupteth the place or not still obseruing that whatsoeuer M. Whyte saith if it do not conclude that the testimony is in noe sort altered and changed from the wordes of the Authour him selfe is in respecte of the point here handled but idly extrauagantly impertinently spoken Paragr 2. The Rhemistes corrupted concerning merite of workes BVT now at the last to come to M. Whytes deprauations the which for more perspicuity I will range to certaine heades the first whereof shall be such as concerne the doctrine of workes and iustification And to begin with one which as it conteyneth in it self many foule and strang corruptions so the iniury thereby offered is not to one but to many and those men for their learning and vertue of worthiest memory to wit the english Doctors of Rhemes who if we may beleue M. Whyte pag. 238. feare not to affirme that our workes of their very nature deserue eternall lyfe the reward whereof is a thing equally iustly answearing to the tyme and weight of the worke rather then a free guift so that God should be vniust if he gaue it not And for this he quoteth in his mergent Rhem. Annot. vpon 1. Cor. 3. 8. Hebr. 6. 10. But for the plainest and most certaine discouery of this brasen faced minister I will set downe the true wordes of the Rhemistes who commenting vpon those of S. Paule 1. Cor. 3. 8 And euery one shall receaue his owne reward according to his owne labour wryte as foloweth A most plaine text to proue that men by their laboures by the diuersities thereof shall be diuersly rewarded in heauen and therefore that by their workes proceding of GRACE they deserue or merit heauen Here before I procede any further I must charge M. Doctor with a dooble corruption first for omitting the word Grace the true wordes being workes proceding of Grace do deserue or merit heauen secondly which maketh it more inexcusable and damnable for inserting in steed of the word Grace the word Nature the which was not so much as dreamed of by the Rhemistes or by any Catholick Author yea to defend that workes of their owne nature do merite were to renew the heresy long since condemned in the Pelagians by the Romane Church But to goe forward the Rhemistes in this ministers mouth affirme that the reward is a thing equally iustly answearing to the tyme and weight of the worke rather then a free guifte But in their owne wordes they auouch the contrary And indeede say they this word Reward which in our english tongue may signify a voluntary or bountifull guift doth not so well expresse the nature of the latin word or the greeke which are rather the very stipend that the hyred workman or iournay mā couenanteth to haue of him whose worke he doth and is a thing equally and iustly answearing to the tyme and weight of his trauels and workes in which sence the Scripture saith The worke-man is worthy of his hyre rather then a free guift though because faithfull men must acknowledg that their merites be the guiftes and graces of god they rather vse the word Reward then hyre stipend or repayment c. Now all that from hence can be gathered are two thinges first that the Rhemists affirme that the word Reward in latin and greeke doth rather signify a stipend or hyre then a free guift Secondly that because faithfull men must acknowledg that their merites be the guiftes and graces of god they rather vse the word Reward then hyre But now all this whyle I can not fynde this sentence cyted by M. Wh. that the reward of workes is a thing equally iustly answearing to the tyme and weight of the worke rather then a free guift Indeede I fynd most of the wordes but many of them in seuerall lynes and vttered vpon seuerall occasions all which to ioyne and chaine together in one continued lyne or sentence and thereby to make the Authour speake contrary to him selfe is a thing easy to performe but the performance is wicked shamelesse and execrable And geue but this libertie of omitting inserting
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
Religionâ— and this he doth by nakedly setting downe one lyne which is the middest of the periode but subtily according to his maner omitting both the wordes precedent wherein the instance is geuen and whereunto the sence of the former sentence is peculierly tyed as also the wordes subsequeÌ„t contayning the reason thereof But it semeth he haith vowed with him self neuer to alledg any one testimony ingeniously and plainely seing his true quotations iâ— any such be may for their quantity be engrauen within a ring whereas his wilfull deprauations doe stretch beyond all reasonable dimension The 12 Paragraph The Canon Law corrupted concerning the Pope In nothing more doth M. Whyte manifest or continue his implacable hatred or his dexterity in falsification then against the Church and Pope of Rome amongest many take this example folowing pag. 433. I am affrayd saih he I haue bene to bold in medling with these matters for the Church of Rome haith a Law within her self that it is and then foloweth in a different letter as though they were the wordes of the Canon law sacriledg to reason about the Popes doinges whose murders are excused lyke Sampsons and theftes lyke the Hebrues Adultries lyke Iacobs But here I must charg you with much fowle demeanour for first you affirme that the wordes cyted are a Law of the Romane Church whereas they are onely taken out of the glosse or comment which is a thing much different and of incomparable lesse authority then the Law it self Secondly whereas in the Law it is disputed what censure is to be geuen when the case is doubtfull whether the Pope haith sinned or noe as by committing adultry or murder to which it is answeared that in that case it is to be presumed in the Popes behalf yea saith the glosser in this case sacrilegii instar esset disputare de facto suo Vel dic quod facta Papae accusantur vt homicidia Samsonis surta Hehraeorum adulterium Iacob It were lyke Sacriledg in that doubtfull case to dispute of his fact Or say that the deedes of the Pope are accused as the murders of Samson the thefts of the Hehrues the Adultery of Iacob What is here spoken in defence of the pope which euery Christian ought not to performe in defence of his neighbour to wit in a case doubtfull to think and speake the best Are not those factes of Samson the Hebrues and Iacob piously censured by the learnedst Doctors But with what front do you auouch so absolutely and in generall that according to the law of the Romane Church it is sacriledg to reason about the Popes doinges whereas the glosser saith onely In dubiis c. when the case is doubtfull of the Popes fact instar sacrilegii c. It were lyke Sacriledg to dispute of his fact Will you of doubtfull premisses inferre an absolute conclusion Would you take it kindly if in a case admitting it but doubtfull whether a certaine minister had beene drunke should absolutely affirme that the protestants Church haith a Law within her self that it is Sacriledg to reason about ministers doinges whose drunkenes is excused as Noes c. The 13. Paragraph Bellarmine corrupted against theâ— Popes Authority As the former deprauations were practised in ouermuch aduauncing and extolling the Authority of the Church and Pope so here on the contrary part he falsly alledgeth Bellarmine extenuating and lesning the said power For thus entytling the page 167. The papistes them selues refuse the Popes Iudgment he laboureth to make good this assertion from the confession of Bellarmine who de Rom. Pon. lib. 4. ca. 7. speaking of S. Ciprian withstanding Pope Stephen touchinge rebaptisation writeth as M. Whyte saith that after the Popes definitioÌ„ it was free for Ciprian to think otherwise our minister intimating hereby to the Reader that Bellarmine mantayneth that it is lawfull to beleue contrary to that which is once defyned as a matter of faith by the Pope Here againe he bestowes on his Reader a broken sentence leauing of in the middest thereby to auoyde the setting downe of what is most materiall for Bellarmines wordes are these Fuit enimpost Pontificis definitionem c. It was lawfull after the definition of the Pope to think otherwyse as Augustine affirmeth beoause the Pope noluit rem ipsam de fide facere sine generaliconcilio would not make it as a matter of Faith without a generall Councell but onely in the meane tyme willed the auncient custome to be obserued And then after Stephanus noÌ„ defiuiuis rem illam tanquam de fide P. Stephen did not defyne the matter as a poynt of Faith yet he commaunded earnestly that heritykes should not be rebaptysed See here now the integrity of our minister who purpoâ—ly concealeth that part of the sentence which isexpresly contrary to that sence in the which he alledgeth the former wordes thereof For Bellarmine vnderstandeth by the wordes post definitionem after it was commanded that rebaptisation should not be vsed and not after it was sententially defined as an article of faith as M. Wayte semeth to force Now Catholickes do graunt that it is lawfull to hould or beleue contrary to the practise of what the Pope commandeth so that we doâ— according to his commandement and as long as the matter it self is not definitiuely decreed by the Pope for a dogmaticall poynt of our beleefe thus much thereof from whence we may discerne the Ministers inueterate hatred against the head of Gods Church who aÌ„swerably thereto speaking of the words of our Sauiour Pasce oues meas thus styleth some of his pages in his Lucian and scornfull phraze Feede my sheepe is not poping But howsoeuer to feede in this place be to pope it I am sure most egregiously and impudently to corrupt Authors is to Whyte it Chapter 4. Wherein are discouered sundry corruptions concerning the sacred Scriptures and Traditions The 1. Paragraph Bellarmine corrupted in behalf of the Scripture prouing it self to be the word of God THE next poynt we are to come to are such his corruptions wherein he pretendeth that the Catholickes doe acknowledge all sufficiency of Scripture both for the interpreting of it self without any needefull explication of the Church thereof as also for it fulnesse in contayning expresly all thinges necessary to mans saluation excluding thereby all Apostolicall Traditions whatsoeuer And first pag. 59. shewing that the Scripture is knowen to be the word of God without the attestation of the Church which as he houldeth may be deceatfull he alledgeth Bellarmine de verb. des li. 2. ca. 2. thus confessing other meanes may deceaue me but nothing is more knowen nothing more certayne then the Scriptures that it were the greatest madnes in the world not to beleue them c. See how loth our minister is to cease to be him self I meane to cease his notorious corrupting for the wordes of Bellarmine are these Sacris Scripturis quae Prophetieis Apostolicis literis
there Sozomen doth thus wryte Veterem Ecâ—lesiu â—â—aeditionem esse vt qu Casâ—ties gradum sacerdo â—â—em consâ—euti fuisseur postea minime vxores duderenâ— qui autem post nuptias adteum or dinem vocati essent hit ab vxoribus quas habebaâ—â— minime separarentur â—ta quidem liceâ— Coniuglie pâ—rs fâ—ant Paphnutius It is an ancient Tradition of the Church what such as be vnmaried when they enter the degree of preisthood should not after taâ—â—e to them selues any wyues But those who being afore maried and after arcealled to that order should not be therefore seperated froÌ„ theire wyues and this Paphnutius though him self vnmaried perswaded the Councell vnto and thus far Sozomen of this poynt Now I referre to the iudtecous reader how worthily and sincerely M. Whyte halth quoted Paphnutius out of Sozomen for interpreting of S. Paules wordes in defence of Preistes mariage in generall without any distinction of tymes whereas in deede Sozomen Paphnutius and the Councell of Nyce did absolutely forbid mariage of the Cleargy after their ordination of preisthood directly opposite against the most generall practise of our english ministers who for the most part first seeke after a steeple and then a woman and thus with them a fat benefyce and a sister in the Lord for heresy euer lyes groueling in sensuality are become in our new euangelicall philosophy the terminus ad quem whereunto all other their motions doe finally propend and are directed The 3. Paragraph S. Augustine corrupted against fasting The Doctor through his great auersion which he haith of fasting and of forbidden meates for certaine dayes pag. 307. wryteth that the auncient Monkes made no distinction of meates alledgeth in the margent for proofe thereof S. Augustine de mor. Eccl. li. 1. ca. 33. Now you shall see how truly he auoucheth the Father herein for in that very Chapiter not to insist of his speaking of the Monkes fasting in those wordes Ieiunia prorsut incredibilia multâ—s exercere didâ—ci I haue learned that many Monkes did practise eueÌ„ incredible fastes he thus wryteth touching forbearaÌ„ce of the eating of flesh multi non vescuntur carnibus c. Many Monkes do not feede vpon flesh though they are not perswaded superstitiously that flesh is an vncleane meate after againe Continent se illi qui possunt quâ—â—tamen sunt innumerabiles a carnibus a vino c. Such Monks as in body are hable who yet are innumerable do abstaine from flesh and from wyne Here it is euident what the custome of the ancient Monkes was in those tymes how different from the practise of the new gospellers since infinite of them eating fish neuer tasted of flesh whereas to the contrary I dare auouch in the behalf of this my sanctifyed minister that euen out of conscience he forbeares to feede of superstitious fish But indeede M. Whyte doth well to shew himself so resolute an aduocate as afore of venety in the mariage of Preisles so now of Epicurisme since he well knoweth that there is a secret reference and mutuall dependency betwene these two most spirituall and ghostly Characters of our late stamped gospell a poynte so cleare that euen the Poets do tell vs that Venus was euer much befrended by Ceres and Bacchus The 4. Paragraph Baronius notoriously corrupted in proofe that heritykes can worke true miracles To depryue the Catholick Church of her glory of most certaine and vndoubted miracles wherewith god haith seuerall tymes sealed vp the truth of the faith professed by her Doctors our minister laboureth to proue from the confession of Catholickes that woorking of true miracles are also common to heritikes therefore no peculiar note of the true Church or Faith Now to this end pag. 301. he alledgeth Baronius Annal. An. 68. nu 22. touching the miracles of Simon Magus Simon made Images to walk would lye in the fyre without hurt flye in the ayre make bread of stones he could open doares fast shut vnloose boundes of Iron c. But doth out M. here leaue his accustomed trade of corrupting think you No for he paireth the testimony round aboute for euen both immediatly before and immediatly after the Authority alledged he concealeth Baronius his owne wordes wherein he acknowledgeth that these were no miracles by impostures and sleightes onely For thus he wryteth before Quaenam autem hat fuerâ—t â—â—m reue◠á non essent tament ab hominibus videri videbantur referam c. I will relate what prestigies or steightes those of Simons were seeing indeed they were not true yet semed to be in the sight of men and the mentioneth those reckned by M. Whyte And after Baro. haith nuÌ„bred the said supposed miracles he thus instantly concludeth Hueusque de Simonis imposturis quibus haec per imaginem osteâ—debat visum cum nulla veritaâ—e consisterent Thus farr of the impostures of Simon which appeared but in show and in the eye seing indeede they were not truly performed Now I appeale to the iudiceous Reader with what â—andor and sincerity M. Whyte could produce part of the sentence of Baronius omitting both the beginning and endinge â—â— euict that true and vndoubted miracles are incident also to heritykes and consequently are no competent marke of the true Faith or Church Chapiter 7. Concerning the Sacramentes of the Euchaâ—lâ— and Pennance The 1. Paragraph â—â—â—armine corrupted against Transubstantiation OVR Doctor pag. 24. haith a soule deprauation touching the doctrine of TransubstantiatioÌ„ alledging Bellarmine saving de Euch. lib 2. ca. 2.3 That it may iustly be doubted whether the text be cleaâ—e enough â—o infeâ— Transubstaâ—tiatioâ— seing men sharpe learned such as Scotus was haâ—e thought the contrary The Reader shall see the whole periode of Bellarmine at large and so may discerne how strongly both he Scotus impugne transubstantiatioÌ„ as they are here by our M. traduced to doe Thus then Scotus dicit â—on exâ—are c. Scotus saith that there is no place of Scripture so expresse which fiâ—e Ecclesiae declaratiore without the â—â—claration or interpretation of the Church can euidently force transubstantiation And this is not altogether in probable for although the text of Scripture which aboue we haue alledged sâ—me so cleare 〈◊〉 that it is able to conuince hominem â—on proâ—eruâ—â— a man not obstinate neuerthelesse whether it do so or no iâ— may iâ—â—lâ— be doubted of seing that learned and sharp men such as Scotus was haue thought the contrary But Scotus â—ddâ—â—h that sâ—â—g the Catholick Church haith expounded the said text of Scripture in a generall Councell therefore saith he from the said Scripture so declared by the Chuâ—ch transuâ—stâ—â—tiation is manifestly proued Thus farâ— Bellarmine Now I doe aâ—ke that if we consider the whole coÌ„texture of this passage together whether according to the mynds of Bellarmine Scotus it maketh against transubstantiation or no I say it euen fortifyeth the Doctrine thereof For Bellarmine first
WHereas according to Catholick doctrine different degrees of honour are to be exhibited to god and his blessed Angels and Sainctes as to the first Adoration and to the other in a far lower degree not onely damned spirites but damnable beritykes their painefull schollers as enuious emulators of glorious Sainctes do euer labour by many subtiltyes to rob them quyte of all deserued veneration In which kynd M. Whyte willing to acte his part euen against the B. Virgin the Mother of God modele of all piety for better shadowing of his enuy pag. 344 he alledgeth Epiphanius c. her l. 3. haer 79. c. Collyridianos saying The Virgin Mary was a virgin and honorable but not geuen for vs to worship but her self worshipped him that tooke flesh of her But for the cleares reuealing of this illusion it is to be obserued that Epiphanius wryteth here purposly against certaine women who adoring a Chariot or foure squared seate and couering the same with linnen cloath did at one solemne tyme of the yeare bring forth bread and offer the same vp in the name of Mary which he proueth at large to be vnlawfull in that it was neuer permitted to women to offer vp sacrifice as also in that sacrfice is an honour onely peculiar to god yea he maketh an expresse difference betwene adoration and honour or woorship attributing the first onely to god and the second with vs Catholickes to the blessed Virgin and Sainctes which is further manifest euen by the wordes obiected being truly translated which are these Verily the body of Mary was holy but yet not God Verily the Virgin was a Virgin and honorable but not geuen vnto vs for adoration but her self adored him who was borne of her flesh As also Let Mary be honoured and the Father and Sōne and the holy Ghost adored Let no man adore Mary c. This mistery is due to God And againe Though Mary be must excellent and holy and honourable yet not for adoration And sundry other such lyke all which do euidently conuince that S. Epiphanius alloweth woorship and honour to be geuen to the B. Virgin but not adoration to wit with sacrifice which is an honour Peculiar onely to God The 2. Paragraph S. Gregory notoriously corrupted against the woorshiping of Images Speaking against Images pag. 152. he affirmeth that the Church of Rome forbade the woorship of them us appeareth saith he by the Epistle of Gregory to Serenus which he noteth in the margent to be Epist 109. li. 7. It is this ministers euill hap by most of his citatations to manifest to the world his foly and falshood For who not distracted would vrge that against his aduersary which impugneth him self and that in such a maner as will easely conuince him of fraude and wilfull malice For fiirst S. Gregory in the place cyted reproueth Serenus for breaking casting downe of Images which were set vp in Churches though the said Serenus did the same through zeale by reason of some who committed Idolatry thereby affirming further that therefore Pictures are vsed in Churches that those which know not letters at least should reade by seeing in the wales those thinges which they could not reade in bookes And then he concludeth Thy brotherhood therefore ought to haue preserued the pictures and to haue hindred the people from their adoration that so the ignorant might haue from whence to gather knowledg of the history and the people not sinne in adoration of the picture Here S. Gregory alloweth the vse of pictures in Churches shewing the commodity arrisinge thereby and withall reprehendeth Serenus though through zeale for breaking and casting them downe what may we thinke then he would haue said against Whyte and other his brethren who through heresy and malice prohibite all vse or place thereof in Churches if they had bene then extant and made knowen vnto him But though with Catholickes he allow the placing of them in Churches yet M. Whyte will vrge that he forbiddeth their woorship The woorship which he forbiddeth according to his owne wordes is adoration which word the Fathers frequently vse for that honour which is onely proper to God And that S. Gregory ment no other is manifest by an other Epistle writen to the said Serenus Ep. 9. l. 9. vpon the self same occasion where hauing repeated the forsaid vtility of pictures and adding that not without cause antiquity admitted Histories to be painted in the venerable places or Churches of Sainctes he directethe Serenus in him all pastors how to instruct the people in theire lawfull vse as shewing them by testimonies of sacred scriptures that nothing made with hand ought to be adored seing it is writen Luc. 4. The Lord thy god thou shalt adore c. As also By sight of the thing done or the history let them conceaue the feruour of compunction and let them be humbly prostrated in the adoration of the onely omnipotent holy Trinity By which it is most manifest that the woorship here forbidden by S. Gregory to Images is onely that adoration which is proper to god And that otherwise he thought Images duly to be worshipped appeareth by his 7. booke and 5. Epistle wheare wryting to Bishop Ianuarius concerning one Peter lately conuerted from Iudaisine to Christianity who violently had taken a Sinagoug from the Iewes and placed therein the Image of the Mother of God and our Lord and the venerable Crosse c. In redresse whereof he exhortethe the said Bishope that the Image and the Crosse taken away againe from thence with that veneration or reuerence which it meete to restore that which was violently taken away to wit the Sinagouge So that in steed of impugning due worship to Images these poyntes folowing may all heritikes learne of S. Gregory First that he proueth the vse thereof from antiquity Secondly that he alloweth the placing thereof in Churches and impugneth the breakers or pullers of them downe though their excuse or pretence be feare of Idolatry in the People Thirdly that the same in steed of hurt do much profit the ignorant that can not reade And lastly that in plaine tearmes he calleth the Crosse Crucem veneran dam Venerable And directeth that both the Image of our B. Lady and the Crosse should be remoued cum ea qua dignum est veneratione with that worship which is meete or they deserue So that I could wish our needy minister to be better aduysed hereafter in his citinge of S. Gregory against Catholick religion The 5 Paragraph The Councell of Eliberis corrupted against Images Here now I am come to the last corruption which I intende to display the which I haue purposly reserued therewith to close vp the taist of my Reader so notorious it is for the Authors depraued and so pregnant and dextrous in the conueyance As touching the first whearas euery one of the former deprauations those of the Rhemistes onely excepted resteth in abusing the authority of some one particuler man this stryketh at a whole
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
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
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
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
doth charge condemne the protestant for teaching that God is the author of sinne But as in the former vntruthes so particulerly in this we see how Antipodes-lyke oppositly our Doctor treadeth to the feete of his owne brethren The 16. Vntruth In proofe that S. Bernard was no papist Page 298. He is not affrayd to publish by his pen that Bernard was a papist in none of the principall poyntes of their religion And then he addeth He stoode against the pryde of the Pope c. Good Reader here is no lying for whosoeuer will but obserue what is confessed by the protestantes must acknowledg that impudency it self would be ashamed to haue mantained such a groundlesse vntruth For first it is graunted by Symond de Voyon a protestant that he was Abbot of Clareiuaux And Osiander saith of Bernard that Centum et quadraginta Monasteriorum author fuisse creditur He was thought to be the Author of a hundreth 40 Monasteries In lyke sort S. Bernard was so great a Patron of the Popes Primacy that the Centuristes wryte of him Coluit deum Maozim c. Bernard did worshipp euen to the last end of his lyfe the god Maozim he was a most eager defender of the seate of Antichrist Apoint so cleare that he is charged by D. Fulke and D. Whytaker for defending the Popes Ecclesiasticall Authority and yet if we beleeue M. Whyte he stoode against the pryde of the Pope so euident you see is this made by the free acknowledgment of the protestantes whose censures are passed vpon S. Bernardes Religion and faith in generall And therefore we may well inferr that if they had thought S. Bernard to haue bene but in part a catholick or as the terme is a papist and in other poyntes a protestant they would haue bene glad to haue chalenged him to them selues in the supposed pointes of his protestancy Thus M. Whyte we still obserue that the Reader is euer entertayned by you with nought but falshoods but no meruell for it is your owne position that a man can not hope to learne truth in the schoole of lyes The 17. Vntruth Against the miracles wrought by S. Bernard S. Francis Page 299 Talking of the miracles of the former S. Bernard of S. Francis and others he thus concludeth What is reported of Bernard and Francis c. are lyes and deuyses This is spoken to dishonour the Romane Faith diuers of whose professours through Gods omnipotency and for the manifestation and strengthning of his truth haue in all tymes bene able to exhibite diuers great miracles the remeÌ„brance of which prerogatiue resting onely in our Church is most displeasing to our minister in whose nyce nosethrilles nothing well sauoreth that tasteth of the praise of our Catholick Religion But now let vs see whether the miracles recordâ—d of the former Sainctes be lyes or no as the D. fondly suggesteth One most remarkable miracle of S. Bernard is recorded by Godfridus in the lyfe of S. Bernard It was wrought in proofe of certaine Catholick Articles denied in those dayes by the heritykes Apostolici or Henriciani as at this instant they are denyed by the protestantes The miracle was done in the Country of Tolousa in France and consisted in S. Bernardes blessing of certaine loaues of bread of which loaues for proofe of the truth of our Catholick doctrine then preached by S. Bernard whosoeuer being in any sort diseased of body should eate should be healed of their sicknes whereupon infinite people eating of the same were cured most miraculously of all kind of diseases This miracle was so illustrious and markable that Osiander one of the Century writers doth not say it is a lye and forged as M. Whyte doth but graunting the thing as true doth ascribe it to the power and working of the deuill as the wicked Iewes did the miracles of our blessed Sauiour vnto Belzabub In lyke sort Mathew Paris in his history which is printed by the protestantes at Tigur 1589. whose booke is by the said protestantes highly commended in their Preface annexed thereunto and who him self is reckoned for his defence of certaine poyntes of protestancy in the number of protestantes by Illiricus This man now most seriously recordeth that before S. Francis death there appeared certainâ— woundes in his handes and feete and his syde freshly bleeding such as were seene in our Sauiour when he suffered on the Crosse. The reason of which appearance was as S. Francis said to shew that he did truly preach the mistery of the Crosse and that in further demonstration of the same he tould them before that presently after death the former woundes should be healed coherent lyke to the rest of his flesh the which accordingly did fall forth And thus much but of these for breuity sake instanced in these two Sainctes from whence we may confidently affirme that it is a lye to say with M. Whyte that these Sainctes Mirakles are but lyes The 18. Vntruth In proofe of the protestantes Churches euer visibility Page 225. and 226. In defence of the continuance of his owne Church he thus saith The learned among vs confesse and proue against all that contradict it that euer since Christes tyme 〈…〉 there haith bene a company of men visibly professing the same faith that we do though the Church of Rome a generating into the seate of Antichrist persâ—cutâ—d them and so many tymes draue them â—wt of the sight of the world that to it they were not visible Thus he But before we conuince this I would demaunde where our ministers head peece was when he thus wrote since these few lynes do inuolue an irreconciliable contradiction A company of men visibly professing c. yet to the world not visible O strang neuer before heard of Inuisible-uisible aswell he might mantaine whyte remayning whyte to be black or the moone in her greatest eclipse to shyne as the Church euer to be visible and yet latent and latent to whoÌ„ to the world still good as if it were to be seene only by some who are out of the world But now to the falshood the lyke whereof he ventilated before and haith accordingly bene before refelled Yet because for the honour of his Church he insisteth much in the visibility and want of all interruption of his faith it will not be amisse to repell such an idle suggestion with the testimonies and acknowledgmentes of seuerall learned protestantes And first Napper wryteth that betwene the yere of Christ 300 and 1316. the Antichristian and Papisticall reigne began reigning vniuersally and without any debateable contradiction 1260 yeares gods true Church most certainly abyding latent and inuisible Sebastianus Francus a famous protestant in lyke sort saith For certaine through the worke of Antichrist the externall Church together with the faith and Sacramentes uanished away presently after the Apostles departure and that for these thousand four hundreth yeres the Church
the word Gregory do set downe certaine erroures in their iudgmentes of S. Gregory in these wordes following Eiusdem error de bonit operibus de Confessione de Coniugio de Ecclesia de Sanctorum inuocatione de Inferno de Iustificatione de Libero arbitrio de Purgatorio de Paenitentia de Satisfactione And further in the said Century they charge him with Celebration of Masse Col. 369. with claime practise of supreme Iurisdiction ouer all Churches col 425. 426. c. with Relickes and sprinkling of holy water col 364. with Pilgrimage col 384. with Monachisme col 343. Finally to omit many other pointes with Chrisme oyle col 367. Now this being the confessed Faith of S. Gregory I think no reasonable maÌ„ will deny but that S. Augustine who was sent by him to conuert our Country was of the same Faith with S. Gregory In lyke sort D. Humfrey is most full in this point who thus writeth In Ecclesiam verò quid inuexerunt Gregorius Augustinus c. What brought Gregory Augustine into the Church They brought in the Archbishops vestmont for the solemne celebration of Masse they brought in Purgatory and oblation of the healthfull houst aâ—d Praiers for the dead c. they brought in Relickes Transubstantiation c. New consecration of Churches c. From all which pointes what other conclusion is gathered then that Indulgences Monachisme the Papacy and all the other chaos and heape of superstition was erected thereby And thus faâ—r of this testimony though heretofore vpon other occasion alledged Now here it being confessed both by the Centuristes and by this learned Doctor that S. Augustine did not onely conuert vs but also did teach vs all the former doctrines I would be resolued of M. whyte by what extenuation or figure in Rethorick he can style our instruction in the said maine articles of Catholick Religion the planting of certaine tryfling Ceremonies But I see he is most willing for his owne behalf to alleuiate and lessen the weight and consequence of our former conuersion The 23. Vntruth Concerning the Conuersion of Countries Page 357. Touching the conuersion of other heathen Countries to the Faith of Christ fore-tould so long since by the Prophets of God to be accomplished onely in the true Church of Christ the D. as being emulous of the Romane Catholick Church her honour therein flatly affirmeth of certaine Countries by him mentioned that they were conuerted by that Church which was of his owne faith and profession and not by the Church of vs Catholickes for thus he writeth Allowing all these Countries to haue bene conuerted by such as were members of the Church of Rome yet this was a thousand yeres agoe when that Church was the same that ours is and so the conuersions weare wrought by persons adhering to the protestantes faith This point is discouered to be false first by refuting the reason deliuered by the Doctor why the said Countries should be conuerted by the professors of the protestantes faith Secondly by the testimonies of the said protestantes flatly confessing that their Church as yet neuer conuerted any Country to Christianity As concerning the first poynt I say that the Church of Rome more then a thousand yeres agoe haith seaced supposing that before it was to be protestant and therefore her self professing the contrary faith as then could not conuert the said Countries to protestancy That the Church of Rome acknowledged not in these tymes the protestantes religion is most abundantly confessed by the protestantes them selues who do frequently teach that the true Church of God consequently in their supposales their owne Church haith bene latent and inuisible more then these laste thousand yeres during all which tyme the Antichristian and popish Religion as they terme it haith possessed all Christian Countries whatsoeuer The protestantes abundant confessions haue bene already made so euident in this point incidently in the discouery of some of M. W. vntruthes as that I presume an iteration of the same would be ouer fastidious aud wearisom to the Reader and therefore I will passe on to the other point consâ—sting in the confessions of the protestantes that their Church neuer yet conuerted any one Country to Christianity And first for confirmation hereof we fynde that Sebastian Castalie a learned Caluenist and highly praisep by D Humfray writing of the accomplishment of the prophesies of conuerting of kingdomes saith thus Equidem aâ—t haec futura fatendum est c. Truly we must confesse that these thinges shall be performed here after or haue been heretofore or God is to be accused of lying If any man answer that they haue bene performed I will demaund when If he say in the Apostles time I will aske how it falleth out that neither then the knowledg of God was altogether perfect and after in so short a time vanished away which was promised to be eternall and more aboundant then the floods of the sea And then there somwhat after the said protestant thus acknowledgeth The more I do examine the Scriptures the lesse I obserâ—e it the same performed howsoeuer the said Prophets be vndeâ—stoode To conclude this point the prophecies deliuered by Esay and others the Prophets for the spreading of Gods Châ—rch are so fart from being yet acomplished in the protestantes Church that diuers protestantes haue not onely acknowledged so much but by reason of the not performance thereof haue in the end become most wicked Apostataes mantaining that if the faith and Religion preached by Christ and his Apostles had bene true and his Church that Church which was figured out by the auncient Prophets that then should the said Prophesies touching the enlargment of the Church and the conuersion of nations haue had their successiue euent and infallible performance in the said Church which they affirme hitherto haâ—th not bene effected And vearably hereunto we find that the want of the performance to the said prophesies in the protestantes Church wrought so forcibly with Dauid George a HollaÌ„der once professor of the protestants faith religion in Basill to omitt the lyke examples of diuers others that in the end he taught most fearfull horrible blasphemy affirming Christ to haue bene a seducer his cheifest reason being in that the true Religion our Catholick Religion being by him supposed to be false and therefore the conuersions of Countries made to it not admitted to be intended by the Prophets according to the predictions should haue spred and disseminated it self before this tyme through the most Nations Countries of the world which poynt saith he hitherto is not accomplished Here now the iudiceous Reader may collect both from what haith bene acknowledged aboue as also from the present confession of the former Apostata being accompanied with such a dreadfull euent how vntrue the D. wordes were when he affirmed diuers Countries some thousand yeres since to haue bene conuerted from paganisme vnto Christianity by
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
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
Doctoribus Doctor Fulke doth in like manner ingeniously acknowledg the same in these wordes You can name the notable persons in all ages in their gouernment and ministery and especially the Succession of the Popes you can rehearse in order vpon your fingers Thus writeth he in his answear to A counterfait Catholick p. 27. And the lyke doth he write in his Reioynder to Bristoes reply p. 343. Thus do our aduersaries acknowledg in our behalfe touching Succession which Caluin flatly denyeth to be found in his owne Church who plainely teacheth that with them the true succession of ordination was broke of so daungerously wounding him self with that sentence of S. Augustine In Ecclesia gremio me iustiss mé tenet ab ipsa sede Petri c. vsque ad presentem Ep scopatum successio Sacerdotum To conclude the vninterrupted descent and current of Succession in the Catholick Church is infallibly euicted from our aduersaries acknowledgment of the continuall visiblenes thereof since the one doth reciprocally imply the other For if our Church was euer visible and the doctrine thereof neuer suffered any disparition or vanishing away then were the Bishops and Pastors in lyke sort euer visible since without Pastors to minister the word and Sacraments and to gouerne the flock the Church like a maistlesse shippe can not for any tyme subsâ—st or bee And thus far of this point Wherein our minister by denying Succession to be in our Church and falsly ascribing it to his owne new congregation doth thus in aduancing the one aboue the other make innouation to take the wall of true Antiquity heresy of true Religion The 30 Vntruth In defence of Martyn Luthers lyfe and manners From page 425. to 433. The D. becometh Luthers Encomiast and much laboureth to free his life and death from all obloquy and infamy often affirming that what soeuer touching his lyfe may seeme worthy of reprehension is onely forged by his aduersaries meaning the Catholickes and therefore in his table in the end of his booke at the word Luther he thus saith Luthers lyfe iustifyed against the maliceous reportes of the papists Now to conuince this shamelesse vntruth I will forbearing herein the credible reportes of Catholickes alledg onely the confession of Luther him self deliuered in his owne wordes or els the testimonies of learned protestantes so shall we see that our minister here perfectly acted his part in bouldly mantayning against such euident testimonies that what may seeme to detract from Luthers honesty and integrity are but the fictions of his enemies And here for greater compendiousnes I will insiste onely in two pointes first in displaying in part his Sensuality Secondly his Pryde And first touching his sayinges of lust and incontinency he thus admonisheth Si non vult vxor aut non possit veniat ancilla If the wyfe will not or can not let the maid come Againe he thus writeth As it is not in my power that I should be no man so it is not in my power that I should be without a woman And there after It is not in our power either that it should be stayed or omitted but it is as necessary as that I should be a man and more necessary then to eat drink purge make cleane the nose c. And yet more fully he speaketh of his owne incontinency in these wordes I am almost mad through the rage of lust and desire of women As also he thus further confesseth I am burned with the great flame of my vntamed flesh I who ought to be feruent in spirit am feruent in the flesh in lust slouth c. Eight dayes are now past wherein I neither write pray nor study being uexed partly with temptation of the flesh partly with other trouble This point is so euident that Benedict Morgenstern a protestant writer saith of the Caluenistes when they intend at any tyme to geue assent or prouocation to nature Non verentur inter se dicere hodie Lutheranicè vinemus They were not afraid to say among them selues to day we will liue after the manner of Luther Thus vsing the name of Luther the more fully to expresse the libidenous lyfe and custome of Luther Now to all these confessions of his owne other protestantes it can not be replyed that him self did write thus when he was a papist aud before his reuolt for of his lyfe during his stay in the papacy you shall heare his owne report that he honoured the Pope of mere conscience kept chastity pouerty and obedience and whatsoeuer saith he I did I did it with a single heart of good zeale and for the glory of god fearing greauously the last day and desireous to be saued from the bothom of my heart Thus he confesseth of the integrity of his mind and intention during the tyme of his continuing a catholick And thus much of his inclination to lust and wantonnes Now touching Luthers pryde forbearing his owne sayinges deliuered most insolently in contempt of the auncient Fathers and of King Henry the eight I will content my self with the testimonies onely of protestants who particulerly inueighed against him for his pryde Zuinglius in reguard of his insupportable pryde thus saith of him En vt totum c. Behould how Sathan laboureth wholly to possesse this man And OEcolampadius admonisheth Luther to beware lest being puffed vp by arogancy and pryde he be seduced by Sathan Answearably hereto Conradus Regius a learned and famous protestant thus writeth of him Deus propter peccatum superbiae c. God by reason of the sinne of pryde wherewith Luther was puffed vp as many of his owne writinges do witnes haith taken away his true spirit fâ—om him as he did from the Prophets 3. Reg. 22. and in place thereof haith geuen him a proud angry and lying spirit To conclude omitting diuers other learned protestantes testimonies the Diuines of Tigur being Caluenistes thus censure Luthers booke writen against the Sacramentaries and Zuinglians that it was Liber plenus demoniis plenus impudiciâ— dicteriis scatet tracundia et furore And thus we fynd in what height of spirit and elation of mind he did write against his owne brethren and how for the same he was rebuked by them Now hauing displaid in part Luthers deportment and this either from his owne mouth or from the confessions of his owne brethren I refer two thinges to the Readers consideration one whether our D. did auer an vntruth or no in iustifiing that whatsoeuer could be produced against Luthers life conuersation was malignantly forged onely by vs his enemies The second and that much more importing whether it standeth with probability of reason or the accustomed course of Gods proceding who euer electeth meanes sutable and proportionable to their eÌ„des to make choice for the restoring and replanting the truth of his Gospell and Religion supposing it was then decayed of a man whose course of lyfe writings
and doctrine do euen breath onely pryde contumacy sensuality Sardanapalisme and luxury Here now M. Whyte I haue thought good in the enumeration of your lyes to end with Luther as originally from him you first did suck your lyinge doctrine Onely I will conclude with this that since you are entred with our vulgar multitude who cheifly rest vpon the outward graine and appearance of thinges into the number and catologue of our new Euangelicall Prophets I would wish such your folowers to entertaine an impartiall vew and consideration of this and other your forgeries and sleightes which if they do doubtlesse they shall in the ende fynde and acknowledg that you are guided therein euen by that ghostly enemy of mannes soule who once said Egrediar ero spiritus mendaex in ore omnium Prophetarum eiuâ— I will go forth and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his Prophets WHYTE DYED BLACK THE THIRD PART Contayning diuers impertinences or absurd Illations or reasoninges drawne from Maister Whyte his alledged Authorities The 1. Paragraph Werein are discouered strange Illations or arguinges in proofe that the Scriptures are the sole rule of Faith against Traditions HAuing in the two precedent partes set downe many corruptions and lyes practised by M. Whyte it now followeth according to my former intended Methode that I also display diuers of his impertinent and absurde inferences and argumentes for these three pointes to wit corrupting lying idly or absurdly disputing are the three seuerall threedes whereof the whole worke of his Treatise is wouen In all which though different in them selues he still retayneth one and the same intention of deceipt like the loade-stone which though often changeth his place yet neuer changeth it center Now touchinge those his impertinences and loose illations the Reader is to conceaue that they consist in his alledging of such testimonies both of Scriptures Fathers and Catholick writers as being truly set downe do not neuerthâ—lâ—sse impugne that point of our Catholick doctrine against which they were by him so vrged Which course of writing whether it may be ascrybed to our Doctors ignorance want of learning or rather which is more probable to his malice against the Catholick Faith and desire to deceaue the simple and vnlearned or lastly to the beggery of his cause being deuoide of better arguments I leaue to him self to decide But howsoeuer it is here I am to aduertise the Reader that in perusing of such authorities produced by M. Whyte he would euer recurr to the true state of the question and particulerly that he would apply the said sentences to that verie point or touch wherein the life of the question consisteth and then he shall find how rouingly wandringly they are directed still glauncing by vpon some ignorant or wilfull mistaking or other neuer reaching the mark intended And so he may apply the wordes of Tertulian though in a different sense to the loose writinges of M. Whyte and such others Quemcunque conceperint ventum argumentationis scorpii isti quocunque se acumine impegerint vna tam linea ista to wit the lyne drawne from our vnderstanding to the mayne point in controuersy And here M. Whyte can not say in excuse of him self that such testimonies of this nature are produced by him onely to proue so much and no more as the wordes in their litterall and acknowledged sense do immediatly import Which euasion is insufficient for two respects First because the proofâ— of that which litterally plainely they signify is not in controuersy betwene the protestantes and vs and therefore the iustifiing of so much being not denied by any learned Catholick is needelesly vndertaken Secondly in that M. Whyte doth most labouriously painefully and purposly alledg the said testimonies to conuince and impugne some one Catholick poynt or other taught by vs and denyed by the protestantes and this his drift and scope is manifested either by his answearable entituling of the leaues wherein such authorities are found or els by his owne wordes precedent or subsequent to the said sentences But to detayne the Reader no longer from these his allegations The first point of this kynde which presenteth it self is as touching the Rule of Faith reiecting of all Apostolicall Traditions For pag. 13. we thus read digres 3. Wherein by the Scriptures Fathers Reasons and papistes owne confessions it is shewed that the Scripture is the rule of Faith As likewise he entituleth that leafe and some others following in this manner The Scripture onely is tho iudg rule of Faith And so answearably hereto pag. 17. beating the former tytle he thus saith Shall the Libertynes be recalled from their blind reuelations to their writen text and shall not the papistes be reuoked from their vncertaine Traditions to the same rule But that we may the better behould how valiantly our minister impugneth all Traditions by erectinge the Scripture as sole rule of Faith we are here to call vnto mind what the Catholick Church teacheth in this poynt It then teacheth that the word of God is to limit and confine our Faith and that nothing is to be accompted as matter of faith which receaueth not it proofe from thence Hereupon it teacheth further that this word is either writen which is commonly called the Scripture or els deliuered by Christ his Church and this comprehendeth Traditions Both these we beleue to be of infallible authority since the true and inward reason why the word of God is the word of God is not because it is writen rather then deliuered by speach for this is merely extrinsicall to the point but because the said word proceded from them who were infallibly and immediatly directed therein by the assistance of the holy Ghost This supposed let vs see how M. Whyte proueth that the writen word is onely the rule of Faith and consequeÌ„tly that there are no Traditions of the Church which may also in part be a rule thereof First then our Doctor vrgeth to this end seuerall places of Scripture as among others that of Salomon The scripture will make a man vnderstand righteousnes and iudgment and equity euery good path Againe that of Esay We must repaire to the Law to the testimony if any speake not according to that word there is no light in him Also out of Malachy Remember the Law of Moyses my seruant which I commaunded him in Horeb for all Israell with the statutes Iudgmentes In lyke sort he alledgeth that Abraham answearing the rich glutton said that his brethren had Moyses and the Prophets Now that the Reader may see how well these texts are to the point controuerted I will set some of them downe in forme of Argument and so apply them to M. Whytes purpose As first thus Salomon said of the Scriptures of the old Testament The Scripture will make a man vnderstand righteousnes and Iudgment and equity and euery good path Ergo now
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
the auncient Fathers and among others whom for breuity I pretermit he alledgeth S. Chrisostome and vshereth his authority with this preface And that Chrisostome thought the Church might be somtimes inuisible appeareth by the 49. homily vpon Mathew where he saith Since the tyme that heresy haith inuaded the Church it can no way be knowne which is the true Church of Christ but by the Scriptures onely in this confusion it can no wayes els be knowne From which wordes I do collect a continuall visiblenes of the Church for if the Scriptures be euer able to make the Church knowne then by them it is euer made visible and consequently since the scriptures haue euer hitherto bene preserued and through Gods good prouidence no doubt shall be euen to the end of the world the Church haith bene and shall be at all times made knowne and visible through the meanes of the Scripture And thus disputing onely ad hominem do I turne the point of M. Whytes reason vpon himself And this may suffice touching M. Whytes weake prouing of the latency of Christes Church where the Reader may behould a longe teame as it were of his lame feeble and impotent authorities one still following an other taken from the writinges of Catholick Doctors and the Fathers whereof some do neither fortify nor hurt his cause and others do proue euen contrary to that for which he alledgeth them In reguard of which his dull grosse and absurd kind of reasoning and arguing if it be true in Philosophy that the vnderstanding doth work better or worse as the spirits are more or lesse pure and that the spirits are become more or lesse pure according to the quality of the nutriment that the body taketh I must then conclude that when M. Whyte penned this his Treatise particulerly for his deare Countrymen of Lancashyre as himself saith it semeth he then remayning there did vse to feede much on his Lancashire dish the Goose. The 4. Paragraph Wherein are discussed certaine proofes of M. W. in behalf of the protestantes markes of the Church M. Whyte in page 104. and some few leaues after discoursing of the notes of the Church vndertaketh to proue that The true doctrine of faith and lawfull vse of the Sacramentes are the proper and infallible markes wherby it must be iudged which is the true Church In proofe hereof he produceth diuers passages of Scripture where our Sauiour said My sheepe here my voice And againe Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the middest of them In lyke sort those wordes of S. Mathew You shall know the false prophets by their frutes And finally that saying of S. Paule As many as walk according to this rule meaning according to the rule of a true Faith peace vpon them and mercy and vpon the Israell of God Againe those wordes of the Apostle touching the Church that It is the howshold of God built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets As also where it is said that the Scripture is a shyning light Now what Alcumist in the world can abstract out of any of these textes that sense or meaning which shall prooue that true doctrine is a sufficient mark to vs whereby we may infallibly discerne which is the true Church of God He may as easely draw fyre out of water or earth out of ayre betwene which there are no symbolizing qualities For let vs see how probably we can inferre what is intended out of the said Scriptures as thus Christ saith My shepe here my voice Therefore true doctrine is to vs a signe of the true Church Againe Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the middest of them Therfore we are to learne the true Church from the true doctrine Strangely inferred for how shall we know euer abstracting the Authority of the Church who are Christes sheepe or who are they which are gathered together in his name If it be replyed they are those who haue true doctrine then I demaund how can we be assured who haue true doctrine If it be answeared they haue true doctrine who heare the word truly preached enioy a perfect ministration of the Sacraments then I aske how shall I be acertained that such do heare the word truly preached and enioy a perfect ministration of the Sacramentes But here my answear is at a stand and flieth for sanctuary to his Apocalypticall and reuealing spirit Thus it is cleare in what circles mazes M. Whyte or any other walketh through the vaine suggestions and imaginations of a light vaperous giddy braine The like connexion with the former conclusion haue the other places of Scripture aboue cyted The which after he haith set downe then page 107. he descendeth to the Authorities of Fathers and Catholick Authors labouring though most weakly to hayle from their wordes his former Illation To this end he bringeth in S. Epiphanius saying of an heritike This man is found altogether different from the holy Scriptures c. If then he be dissenting from them he is altogether an alyen from the holy Catholick Church Here we graunt that in the true nature of faith who dissenteth from the Scriptures dissenteth from the Church but yet this proueth not that the doctrine of faith or administration of the Sacramentes may serue to vs as markes to demonstrate out the Church Againe he produceth M. Raynouldes affirming that 13 The true Church and the true faith are so knitt together that the one inferreth and concludeth the other for from the true Church is concluded the true faith and from the true faith the true Church All this is true yet it followeth not from hence that faith is more knowne to vs then the Church and couseqnently that it ought to serue to vs as a cleare and euident mark to point out aswell to the vnlearned as learned which is the true Church Adde hereto that these wordes euen in M. Whytes sense asmuch impugne him as vs for if they imply faith to be a marke of the Church they also reciprocally imply the Church to be a marke of the true Faith Finally to omitte many other testimonies of Catholickes produced to the lyke end whose particuler answeares do ryse from the circumstances of the places and thâ—refore here omitted he labouring to shew that Faith is knowne before the Church and consequently that it is a note thereof bringeth in Picus Mirandula thus speaking of the Scriptures They do not moue they do not perswade but they enforce vs they dryâ—e vs forward they violently constraine vs. Thou readest wordes rudely and homely but such as are quick liuely flaming shyning pearcing to the bottome of the spirit and by their admirable power transforming the whole man Now who can inferr out of these wordes that the Scripture is knowne to vs before the Church seeing indeede the priority of the one or the other is not so
much as intimated here at all And what praises are here ascribed to the Scriptures may truly belonge vnto them after we are assured of their being and expositions by the warrant of Gods Church Thus we fynde that the further we enter into our ministers booke the greater ouercharge of bootelesse and vnnecessary testimonies do euer present them selues to vs manifesting vnto the iudiceous and obseruant Reader that this worke though the first borne of his braine is abortiue imperfect and weake from all which stoare of impertinent proofes thus vauntingly by him alledged demonstratiuely forsooth to confirme what he still pretendeth to prooue We may euict one irrefragable demonstration ex posteriori to wit that M. Whyte is absolutly ignorant in the doctrine of demonstrations The 5. Paragraph Wherein are examined strange kindes of arguinges against the authority of the Church M. Whyte labouring to depresse the Churches auuhority and euer more and more venting out his venome and poysen against her in the some of that good spirit wherein he speaketh vndertaketh pag. 126. some others following to proue that the teaching of the Church is to be examined for so he entituleth those leaues As also he saith It is necessary for euery particuler man to examine and iudge of the thinges the Church teacheth him thus geuing the raynes to euery priuate and ignorant fellow vnder the tecture pretext of gods secret illuminations to iudg his owne iudg and so to call in question the reputation honour of her from whose chast loynes euen him self is at least originally descended But that we may better see how little conducing his testimonies alledged are to the purpose let vs first set downe what the Catholickes do freely graunt teach in this point They ioyntly teach that the bound of subiecting ones self to the Churches Authority is properly incumbent vpon Christians who are made members of the Church by baptisme and consequently do owe their obedience thereunto and not vpon infidels or Iewes who are not obliged to embrace Christian Religion except they see it confirmed by miracles or some other enforcing reasons of credibility Neuerthelesse though an heritike do sinne in doubting of the Churches Authority yet supposing that his doubt and sinne he doth not euill to examine the doctrine of the Church according to the Scriptures if so be he procedeth herein onely with a desyre of fynding the truth Now let vs see what Authorities M. Whyte alledgeth to proue his former positions First he vrgeth those wordes of the Apostle Try all thinges hould that which is good As also those of our Sau. If any man will do the will of God he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speake of my self And againe that of S. Iohn Derely beloued beleue not euery spirit but try the spirits whether they be of God In like sort those wordes of Christ. Beware of false prophets by their frutes you shall know them And finally besides the example of the men of Beraea searching the Scriptures he vrgeth that where the Apostle counseleth the Hebrewes that Through longe custome they should haue their wittes exercised both to discerne good and euill But for greater perspicuity let vs shape one or two of these textes to the true point here of the question Thus then Try all thinges and hould what is good therefore euery priuate man may vndertake to censure the whole Church of God Which wordes indeede do not presse the doubt seeing both those wordes and that place of S. Iohn c. 4. are directed properly to such onely to whom it belongeth to trye and examine both doctrine and spirits to wit not to euery particuler member of the Church but onely to the Bishops and Pastors thereof who are Speculatores domus Israel Againe if by this text euery priuate man may trye reiect or allow all thinges at his pleasure then may he reiect or allow as him self thinketh good the holy Scriptures for in the former wordes of the Apostle there is no limitation at all But to procede to an other text Beware of false prophets by their frutes you shall knowe them therefore euery priuate man is to examine the doctrine of all the Prophets and Pastors of the Church assembled together in a lawfull generall Councell Againe the men of Berea who were no Christians were allowed to trye the doctrine of S. Paule therefore euery Christian who by force of his second birth or regeneration is made a member and sonne of the Church may examine controule and reiect the publick faith of the said Church Doctor-lyke inferred as if there were no disparity herein betwene him who is not a Christian consequently acknowledgeth not any submission or reuerence to gods Church and an other who is a Christian and therefore in his baptisme doth implicitly resigne him self and his Iudgment to the Authority of the Church With the lyke want of connection or true referēce M. Whyte presseth to the same purpose the testimonies of certaine auncient Fathers whose drift in such their writinges was to wish men to examine by the Scriptures the doctrine of priuate and particuler men lest as the Apostle saith Circumferantur omni vento doctrinae all which he will needes extend to the discussing of the doctrine of the whole Church And thus particulerly he alledgeth that saying of S. Chrysostome Seeing we take the Scriptures which are so true and plaine it will be an easy matter for you to iudge And tell me hast thou any wit or iudgment For it is not a mannes part barely to receaue whatsoeuer he heareth Say not I am no scholler and can be no Iudg I can condemne no opinion for this is but a shift c. The scope onely of which place is as is said to refute the doctrine of euery new sectary euen from the Scriptures a course which we willingly admit and allow Thus you see how our minister is not ashamed to peruert and detort the graue Authotitie of this auncient Father But here the Reader is to vnderstand that M. W. his cheif proiect in this first part of his booke is to depresse with all contempt scorne the venerable authority of the Church For the more facilitating whereof he masketh this his intent vnder the shadow of ascribing all reuerence and honour to the Scriptures both for their sufficiency as contayning expresly all thinges necessary to saluation as also for their absolute Soueraignty and Prerogatiue in determininge inappealeably all controuersies of faith and religion whatsoeuer The which course is not embraced by him or any other sectary so much for any peculier honour they beare to the Scriptures But that by this sleight and euasion they may declyne the waight and force of all proofes authorities deduced either frō the vnanimous consent of Fathers from Oecumenicall and generall Councels or vnintermitted practise of the Church And so all doubtes of Faith being for their proofes
reduced onely to the written word their owne priuate spirit onely must finally decree how the said word is to be vnderstoode either for the impugning or defending of any such pointes controuerted The 6. Paragraph Wherein are examined sundry argumentes framed by M. W. against the vnity of Catholickes in matters of Religion Not many leafes after M. Whyte as well knowing the force of vnity in Faith since it is true that God Non est dissensionis Deus sed pacis goeth about to shew that the Catholickes enioy not any vnity and concord in their doctrine and therefore he thus stileth those leafes The pâ—pistes haue no vnity in doctrine And page .156 he further saith The papistes agree in nothing wherein they dissent from vs. If either M. W. or any other can proue so much I must graunt that he greatly aduauntageth his cause seeing those wordes of the Prophet Concurrere faciam Aegiptios contra Aegiptios are tipically vnderstoode of the intestine warres and dissentions mantained by the professors of false doctrine This his vaunt he beginneth to exemplify in diuers particulers in the proofe whereof the iudiceous Reader shall fynde that this our impartinent minister for so he may well be tearmed since he altogether insisteth in such vnnecessary and immateriall stuffe endeuoreth most calumniously to bleare the iudgmentes of the ignorant they not being able at the first sight to perceaue the very tuch of any doubt or question betwene the protestants and vs. Many authorities of Catholickes he produceth to this ende the sense and meaning of which he most strangely peruerteth from the true intention of the writer which receaue their full satisfaction from the circumstances of the place But now here I am according to my former prescribed methode to display the weaknes of such testimonies which being acknowledged in their true natiue sense and construction do nothing at all contradict the Catholick doctrine against which they are vrged and consequently do not conuince any wante of vnity in doctrine amonge the Catholickes First theÌ„ he alledgeth against prayer in an vnknowne tongue CoÌ„tarenus The prayers which men vnderstand not want the frute which they should reape if they vnderstoode them for they might both specially intend their myndes to god for the obtayning euen in speciall of that which with their mouthes they beg and also through their pyous sense of their praier then vttered they should be more edefyed They want therefore this frute Thus farre Contarenus Now here M. W. is to know that Contarenus doth not here absolutely condemne prayer in a strange tongue which is the lyfe of this controuersy betwene the protestantes and vs since they say it is merely vnlawfull and we hould it lawfull but onely seemes to preferre praier in a vulgar and knowne tongue before it which in reguard onely of the particuler frute aboue specifyed is in the iudgment of most if not all Catholickes more profitable then the other though the other haue certaine peculier helpes and aduantages to it self But what is this to the lawfulnes or vnlawfulnes of praying in a strange tongue or what kind of logick is this Prayer for some particuler reasons is better in a vulgar tongue then in a strang tongue therefore it is absolutely vnlawfull in a strange tongue In lyke sort touching latin seruice he bringeth in S. Thomas of Aquine Caietaine affirming that it were better for the edification of the Church if such Prayer were in a vulgar tongue What Catholick denyeth this if he haue onely respect to the edification instruction of the hearers and of nothing els But seing the publick Liturgies and prayers of the Church are principally directed to other endes then to the instruction of the standers by what doth this testimony force against the contrary practise of the Church therein Againe for the euacuating of the force and operation of confession of sinnes he bringeth in Caietane teaching that A man by contrition without any confession is made cleane a formall member of the Church which indeede is the generall doctrine of all Catholickes and therefore the receaued position with them in the schooles is that Attrition being a greeuing for our sinnes in a lower degree with Confession is answearable to Contrition without actuall Confession Yet here is to be noted that true Contrition which is a repenting for our sinnes in the highest degree onely for the loue of God can not be without Confession at least in voto and desire seing he can not be truly and perfectly penitent who neglecteth the ordinary meanes if opportunity serue for the obtayning of them appointed by God for the expiation of sinne Now who seeth not the independency of this inference Sinne is remitted by Contrition without Confession therefore Confession is absolutely to be taken away Most demonstratiuely concluded as if euery man had true and perfect Contrition or hauing it were infallibly assured thereof and yet this is M. Whytes trysting kinde of arguing In like sort touching Iustification by workes which according to our Catholick doctrine are to be done in state of grace and not by force of nature and deriue their worth not from the worker but both from the promise of God as also from the passion of our Sauiour in the blood whereof they receaue a new tincture the Doctor idly introduceth S. Thomas Aquinas thus teaching No workes either Ceremoniall or Morall are the cause why any man is iust before God c. And in an other place the same S. Thomas The Apostle sheweth Iustification to be wrought by faith onely there is in the woork of the Law no hope of iustification but by faith onely As if the question were whether Ceremoniall Iudaicall and Legall workes did iustify which all Catholickes deny and not workes now in the new Testament as is aboue explaned Finally as vnwilling to be ouer laboursome painfull in setting dowe more of M. Whytes trifling childish stuffe of this nature seeing in this sense that saying houldeth Absurdum est res fuâ—â—les nimis seriò redarguere I will therefore forbearing diuers others conclude with the testimony which against the merit of workes he vrgeth out of C. Bellarmine a place before alledged being a wilfull corruption in concealing the wordes immediatly following explayning the sense but here vrged as a mere impertinency though taking the wordes in that very sense wherin M. W. pretendeth his wordes are these In reguarde of the vncertainty of our owne righteousnes and because of the daunger of vaine-glory The saifest way is to put our confidence in the sole mercy of God Now wherein doth he impugne the Catholick doctrine of merit who teacheth for the greater humbling of our selues and by reason of our manifould sinnes committed against god and of our vncertainty of knowing whether the works done by vs be performed in such sort as they are truly pleasing to God that we should for greater security ascribe nothing to our selues but
onely like the Centurion should slie to the boundlesse and infinite mercy of his diuine Maiesty Wherefore M. W. can not dispute thus from the Cardinals wordes In reguard of the vncertainty of our owne righteousnes and because of the daunger of vaine glory the saifest way is to put our sole confidence in the sole mercy of God Therefore workes in generall do not merite or therefore workes done in true humility and proceding from one that is righteous donot merite For the doubt here which Bellarmine intimateth resteth not in the doctrine of merite but in the vncertainty of our doing of them to wit whether thâ—y are performed by vs in that state and with all those due circumstances as are requisite for them that they may merite But it seemeth that M. W. can not fall vpon any obscure sentences of Catholicks but instantly he striueth to turne them as if they were the sayinges of his owne brethren like the fyre which coueteth to conuert euery thing it toucheth into it self This done M. Whyte page 159. descendeth to shew the different opinions of Catholickes touching some pointes of the reall presence as first whether after the bread and wyne being changed by the words of Consecration into the body and bloud of Christ the accidences do remaine without a subiect or that they haue their inherence in the quantity or that the body of Christ sustaineth them or the lyke Secondly how the accidents remaining after consecration haue power to nourish to wit whether the thing nourished therewith procede from the quantity or that the substance of bread and wyne returneth againe and so it causeth the nutrition or that the accidences by Gods power are changed into the thing nourished or some such lyke manner Thus our minister goeth on discoursing very soberly how it appeareth from these and the like examples that the papistes agree not in their doctrine and further thus saith You may see by these few examples how the papistes are deuided about the principall articles of their faith c. But here the iudiceous Reader may see that touching the fust sort of Catholick testimonies aboue explayned we finde no difference of iudgment at all betwene the Catholickes by him alledged and other Catholickes And as concerning their seuerall opinions about those secondary questions of the blessed Sacrament they are onely pointes of indifferency and do not at all imply any disunion in matter of faith For touching the B. Sacrament that which is principally an Article of our faith is whether bread and wyne be really and truly changed by the wordes of consecration into the Body and bloud of Christ the which all Catholickes whatsoeuer do iointly and constantly beleue And as concerning those other doubtes resulting out of the former confessed Article and vrged here by M. Whyte they are onely indifferences and philosophicall questions disputed in the schooles and by seuerall men seuerally mantained without any breach of faith But here I should make bould on the contrary part to put M. M. Whyte in mynd touching the diuision in doctrine among the protestantes a point heretofore touched in this Treatise that they are such euen by the acknowledgment of them selues as do wound the soundnes of Christian faith I think the displaying thereof would be litle pleasing vnto him gratefull to his cause But for this present I will forbeare and will onely adde hereto for the greater disaduantage of our aduersaries that when a Catholick obstinatly and pertinaceously mantaineth any heresy for such accompted by the Church he ipso facto deuideth him self from the Church and so seaceth to be a member there of as seuerall tymes we graunt it hapneth But the case is otherwise among the protestants For albeit each of them doth defend his seuerall opinions in the weightiest pointes of faith yet they neuerthelesse accompt one an other as members of one and the same Church as we see by experience it faleth out not only betwene the Lutherans and the Caluenistes but also betwene our English protestantes and the puritanes who notwithstanding the great disparity of faith and doctrine amonge them do in their owne opinions make vp one and the same protestants Church and do still repute each other as faithfull brethren of the said Church and zealous professoures of the gospell Here now I will close vp this third and last part of this small Treatise wherein I trust I haue discouered M. Whytes disioynted and loose kynd of writing all which his reasoninges and authorities seruing onely as a taist to the Reader what more he may expect in this kind if the ministers whole booke should be iudicially perused are taken out deuiding his booke into three partes onely of the first part and fewer then twenty leafes of the said part affordeth them all Many other scores there are which are scattered here and there by one or two as incidentally he taketh occasion to write but all such I haue omitted and purposly made choice of such passages within the former small compasse of his booke as do minister seuerall and diuers testimonies of this nature of one and the same subiect It were ouer laboursome to examine his whole book in this sort since indede it is throughout euen loaded with an oâ—ercharg of the like bootelesse testimonies he still filling vp many blankes and spaces thereof with such idle impertineÌ„cies the which 〈…〉 may seeme to crosse our Catholick doctrine yet indeede the transparency of them is such as they cause not so much as any reflection in the eye and vnderstanding of the iudiceons but in reguard of their emptines and want of force they may be resembled to speake in S. Peters wordes 2. Pet. 2. to wells without water and cloudes carried about with tempestes THE Conclusion WOrthy and iudiceous Academians here now I am to geue a fâ—ll stop vnto my pen since I hope according to my vndertaken taske I haue discouered such stoare of impostures in this my aduersaries booke as that they may in reason be sufficient to disopinion you of his supposed worth and estimation He is I graunt your sonne in respect whereof I know you can not but with a motherly and compassionate eye behould his blemishes and inwardly lament to see your Whyte thus soyled Notwithstanding it resteth on your part euen for the saluing of your owne honoures to withdraw hereafter your fauoures from so vndeseruing a branch since pittie it is that learning ingenuity and integrity whereunto your selues deseruedly pretend should become a sanctuary to collusion falshood and impurity And now seeing here I haue vntwisted the cheife threedes whereupon the whole loome of his Treatise is wouen I doubt not but out of your owne cleare-eyd Iudgmentes you will immediatly looke vpon the same as it is in it self fraughted with such vnworthy stuffe and not as it haith receaued light and grace from the weake opinion of the ignorant and seduced multitude which I rather expect peculiarly at your handes since your selnes know
that in a true vew of any thing refracted beames neuer afford a perfecte sight And thus to your owne censure and chastisment I remitt M. Whyte whom not without iuste cause I may well range in the Catalogue of those of whom God by his Prophet saith Non misi eos ipsi prophetabant in nomine meo mandaciter Ier. 27. And next to come to thee good reader here thou seest what scarres do remaine vpon the face of this our ministers reputation him self first playing the corrupter then a lyer and then a tryfling writer But seeing thou art now partly instructed of the ministers foule deportment herein I appeale euen to thine owne conscience whether thou art inwardly perswaded that he haith any honesty any faith any Religion finally any feare of God who is not affraid thus shamelesly prophanely and heathnishly to handle the highest misteries of Christianity And if thou seest reason to be induced so to thinke what stupor and dulnes of vnderstanding yea what madnes then is it in thy self to aduenture thy soules euerlasting saluation or damnation vpon the bare affiance and credit of so persideous and corrupt a writer Therefore let this mans want of sincerity and true dealing awaken thy iudgment in the disquisition of gods infallible truth Make triall by thine owne particuler search whether these deceiptes wherewith I charge the Doctor be true or no and if thou findest that he standes guilty thereof then retyre back and instantly cast of both him and his doctrine assuring thy self that the cause which he iustifieth is wrong in that God who ones said Ambulans in via immaculata hiâ— mihi ministrabat will not suffer his sacred will to be reuealed by such impostors and deceiuers Let not the already conceaued opinion of his learning ouer-sway thy Iudgment but rather say with thy self that faith must needes be erroneous which can not sufficiently be maÌ„tained by learning except withall it be mantained with lying seeing truth nedeth not the support of falshood Be assured that though for the tyme M. W. or any other of our aduersaries seeâ—e to make good their cause by their much writing whereby in a vulgare eye they vent out good stoare of litterature and reading yet after such their workes are diligently perused and answeared by laying open their falshoodes corruptions and such other collusions the Catholick cause as experience haith taught is greatly aduauntaged thereby them selues by this meanes running into greater disâ—stimation and contempt euen of their owne followers Such is the sweetnes of gods prouidence that the Israelites of the Catholick Church are euer in the ende deliuered from the handes of the Egiptians and see their enemies drowned in the red sea of shame and confusion Non commouebitur in aâ—ernum qui habitat in Ierusalem But now lastly M. Whyte to come more nearly to your self with whom I must in a word or two take leaue Tell me euen betwene god and your owne conscience if as yet you retaine any touch of conscience did you not write this your booke with a fearefull trembling hande in remembring that as god according to his Iustice doth euer punish all kinde of sinnes so particulerly he poureth out his vyols of wrath and indignation in greater aboundance vpon those who seduce the ignorant by such deceauable meanes How many poore soules shall ryse against you at the most dreadfull day who shall continew in eternall torments for being misled by this your most poysenous corrupt and lying writinges Are not your owne personall sinnes sufficient to draw on your perdition but you must be loaded with the euerlasting ouerthrow of diuers others soules to further the same If seuere punishmentes be to be inflicted vpon them who will expunge or deface any one publick record of ciuill and temporall matters what confusion then are they to vndergoe who not once not twice but many scoares of tymes haue wickedly corraded corrupted and belyed of which your selfe is found most guilty the auncient monumentes of the primitiue Fathers and the writinges of other most learned Doctors wherein next to the holy Scriptures is contained the spirituall tenure of our Christian faith and by the producing whereof we make good our tytle to the rich inheritance of mannes saluation Reflect vpon your owne case you euen you who remaines in the gaull of biâ—ternes in the bond of iniquity Your state yet is remediable since so longe as you haue tyme of repentance so longe your sicknes is not vnto death Wherefore make vse of that short remnant and suffer not earthly considerations of preferment ambition and the like any longer to interpose them selues betwene your sight and the truth I shall be glad as the light appeared to Adam to bewray his sinne and shame if this my discouery may be of force to dispell that spirituall darknesse of your malice against the Catholick Church so repentingly acknowledging your inexcusable faultines in your former worke Be not agreued at these my sharpe admonitions since the more seuere the more medicinable but remember that the sight of Toby was restored by the bitter gaule of the fishe I can not but bewaile your incorrigiblenes if this my councell proceding onely from Charity shall be so farre from winning you to a better course that as in some natures it hapneth it may be found to raise your malice hereafter against Gods Church to a higheâ— strayne like vnto some medicines which as the Phisitions say if they do not purge the humour intended them selues doe turne into the said humour But to conclude M. Whyte howsoeuer you entertaine my wordes fare well feare hell feare damnation and do not thus precipitately and desperatly runne vpon the dinte of gods most dreadfull comminations threates him self thundring Eritmanus mea super Pâ—ophetas c Mâ—handes shall be vpoÌ„ the Prophets that see vâ—ne thinges and diuine a lye in the Councell of my people they shall not be in the Scripture of the house of Israell they shall not be written neither shall they enter into the Lande of Israell And you shall know that I am the Lord God for that they haue deceaued my people saying Peace there is no peace Laus Deo B. Virgini Mariae c 1 Cor. 4. d Iac. 3. e 〈…〉 us 〈◊〉 nâ—l 〈◊〉 par 1 〈◊〉 74. â—â—â—eil in his â— sence of the Adology f Luth. tom 2. wittenb anno 1551 lib. de seâ—u ar bitr pag. 454 Beza in his preface vpon the new Testament dedicated to the Prince of Condy anno 1587. Doctor Humfrey li. de vita Iewelli g Esa. 2.60 Micheas 4. psalm 19. Math. 18. h Hiero. Epist ad Pammach i Doâ—tâ—r Humfrey in Iesuiâ— part 2. rat 3 pag. 240. Athanatius li. de decret nicen Sinod August lib. 3 de baptismo contra Donatum ca. 2. k Hebru 4. Roman 10. Iohn 10. l Doctor Couell in his defence of Hooker pag. 86. n 1 Cor. 12. Doctor Sarauia contra resp