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
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
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
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
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
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
not Israell which are of Israell himselfe being one of those which will not cease to peruert the way of our Lord. A TABLE OF THE CONTENTES The first Part. Chapiter 1. Conteyning Corruptions concerning woorkes and Iustification The First Paragraph Premenitions geuen to M. whyte if he entend to reply vpon this present Treatise 2 The Rhemistes Corrupted concerning merite of workes 3 Cardinall Bellarmine Corrupted concerning iustification 4 Bellarmine againe abused against merite of workes 5 S. Thomas Corrupted against iustification by workes 6 S. Augustine Corrupted against iustification Chapiter .2 Concerning the reading of the Scriptures The first Paragraph S. Ierome Corrupted concerning the reading of the Scriptures by the vulgare people 2 S. Cirill of Alexandria abused for the same purpose Chapiter .3 Concerning the Church and the Pope The first Paragraph Vincentius Lirinensis Corrupted in proofe that the Church may erre 2 The Rhemistes Corrupted for the Churches inuisibility 3 S. Augustine Corrupted concerning the same subiect 4 Doctor Stapleton abused in behalfe of the protestantes markes of the Church 5 S. Gregory de valentia Corrupted concerning the same 6 Bellarmine egregiously Corrupted for the same 7 S. Thomas fouly corrupted concerning the Popes authority 8 Doctor Sapleton corrupted concerning the same subiect 9 S. Ciprian corrupted against appeales to Rome 10 The Rhemistes abused concerning the authority of the Church 11 Cardinall Cusanus corrupted concerning the same 12 The canon lawe corrupted concerning the Pope 13 Bellarmine corrupted against the Popes authority Chapiter 4. wherin are discouered sundry corruptions concerning the sacred Scriptures and Traditions The first Paragraph Bellarmine corrupted in behalfe of the Scripture prouing it selfe to be the word of god 2 Bellarmine corrupted in proofe that the Scriptures are the onely rule of faith 3 Eckius abused concerning the Authority of the Church and Traditions 4 Canus corrupted concerning Traditions Chapter .5 Concerning Faith and Heresy The 1 Paragraph Bellarmine corrupted against the necessity of true Faith 2 Bellarmine againe corrupted against the knowledg of the misteries of our faith and in preferring of ignorance 3 Nauar corrupted concerning the sinne committed by the Laity in disputing of matters of faith Chapter 6. Concerning mariage of Preistes Fasting and Miracles The 1 Paragraph Sinesius impudently abused concerning his owne mariage 2 Paphnutius abused concerning the mariage of preistes 3 S. Angustine corrupted against fasting Baronius notoriously corrupted in proofe that heritikes can worke true miracles Chapter .7 Concerning the Sacramentes of the Eucharist and Pâ—nance The 1. Paragraph Bellarmine corrupted against Transubstantiation 2 The. M. of the Sentences corrupted against confession to a Preist 3 Bellarmine corrupted against Satisfaction 4 S. Thomas corrupted concerning the remission of veniall sinnes Chapter 8. Concerning the Author of sinne and Reprobation The 1. Paragraph Bellarmine egregiously falsified in proofe that god is the Author of sinne 2 S. Augustine abused concerning reprobation Chapter 9. Concerning the honour to be geuen to Sainctes and their Images The 1 Paragraph S. Epiphanius corrupted in dishonour of the B. Virgin Mary 2 S. Gregory notoriously corrupted against the worshiping of Images 3 The Councell of Eliberis corrupted against Images The second part Containing sundry notorious vntruthes or lyes proued to be such by the confession of learned protestantes And first is preuented a weake euasion which may be vsed by M. Whyte against this second part The 1. vntruth That protestantes embrace that kind of tryall which is by antiquity 2 Against Traditions 3 In proofe of the protestants Church to haue continued in all ages 4 In proofe of the vnity of faith and doctrine amongst protestantes 5 In proofe of the immutability of the present English Religion 6 In proofe of the Romane Churches mutability in matters of faith 7 In proofe of the protestantes concord in matters of Religion 8 Against the vnity of Catholickes in matters of faith 9 Against the Popes primacy 10 That Gregory the great detested the Popes primacy 11 In proofe that Catholickes are more viceous then protestantes 12 Against auriculer confession 13 Against Fasting 14 In proofe that Montanus the herityke was the first that brought in the lawes of Fasting 15 In proofe that they make not God the Author of sinne 16 In proofe that S. Bernard was noe papist 17 Against the miracles wrought by S. Bernarde and S. Francis 18 In proofe of the protestantes Churches euer visibility 19 In defence of Preistes mariage 20 Against Images 21 Against Transubstantiation 22 Against the conuersion of England by S. Augustine the Monke 23 Concerning the Conuersion of Countries 24 Against the Popes Authority in calling of Councels 25 Against merite of woorkes 26 Against the Sacrifice of the Masse 27 Concerning wafer cakes 28 Against the Adoration of the B. Sacrament 29 Against the succession of Catholick Pastors 30 In defence of Martin Luthers lyfe and manners The Third Part. Contayning diuers impertinences or absurd Illations or reasoninges The 1. Paragraph Wherein are discouered strange Illations or arguinges in proofe that the Scriptures are the sole rule of faith and against Traditions 2 Wherein are discussed certaine arguments drawne from Scriptures Fathers in proofe that the sacred Scriptures the true sense thereof are made sufficiently knowne vnto vs without any probation or explication of the Church 3 Wherein are examined some of M. Whites profes against the visibility of the Church 4 Wherein are discussed certaine proofes of M. Whytes in behalf of the protestantes markes of the Church 5 Wherein are examined strange kindes of Argunges against the Authority of the Church Faultes escaped in the printing In the preface to the Vniuersity of Cambridge Pag. 1 lin 10. for iudiceous reade iudicious Ibid. lin 11. for grearly read greatly Ibid. pag. 4. lin 27. for Iugements read Iudgements Ibid. pag. 5. lin 22. for inuisibilites Inuisibilistes Preface to the Reader Pag. 2. lin 4. leaue out said worke Pag. 4. lin 15. for â—nlour read colour Chapter 1. Pag. 4. lin 25. for Iustifieth read insisteth in Pag. 5. lin 25. for preadmonish read premonish Pag. 18. lin 21 for great read greatest Pag. 27. lin 9. for Quod read Quid. Pag. 31. lin 23. for Anologie read Analogie Pag. 47. lin 4. betwixt druncke and should insorte one Pag. 52. lin 16. 17. leaue out these wordes All which your omissions are impaled and marked in the said english authority Pag. 52. lin 20. for Emprour read Emperour Pag. 53 lin 14. for disopting read dissorting Pag. 53. lin 23. for perusing read pursuing Pag. 64. lin 14. leaue out the word is Pag. 77. lin 10. for Chapiter read Chapter Pag. 87. lin 24. for maliuolent read maleuolent Pag. 138. lin 27. next after the word Masse insert affirmeth Pag. 159. lin 10. betwixt authority the insert in Pag. 73. lin 30. for fully read fouly Pag. 87. lin 33. for paralayes read parallels Pag. 92. lin 4. for differences read discoueries Pag. 97. lin 28. for musk read musick Pag. 114. lin
continentur nihil est notins nihil certius vt stultissimum esse necesse sit qui illis fidem esse habendam neget There is nothing more knowen nothing more certaine then the holy Scriptures which are contayned in the wrytiâ—ges of the Prophets Apostles in so much that it were a most foolishe thing for any man to deny them Here first to make Bellarmine insinuate that he houldeth the authority of the Church in any thing to be doubtfull and vncertaine our minister of his owne brayne haith added these wordes other meanes may deceane me whereas there is not a fillable thereof in Bellarmine Secondly this place as we see is produced by him against the authority of the Church whereas indeede it is directed against the Swink feldians who denying the Scriptures relyed vpon their priuate illuminations as hereafter shall appeare by displaying a strang corruption and wresting of Bellarmines saying practised by M. Whyte in pag. 17. at the letter q. of which place of Bellarmine this here alledged is a parcell Thus our minister extremely strayneth euery Authority that he setteth downe till at the length it burst out into an open and inexcusable corruption The 2 Paragraph Bellarmine corrupted in proofe that the Scriptures are the onely rule of Faith Againe pag 17. to proue that all poyntes in controuersy must definitiuely be determined by the writen word alone without any respect to the Churches Authority in the explication thereof he marcheth owte once againe making Bellarmine his buckler thereupon alledgeth these wordes of his The rule of Faith must be certaine and knowen for if it be not certaine it is no rule at all If it be not knowen it is no rule to vs but but nothing is more certaine nothing better knowen then the sacred Scriptures contayned in the writinges of the Prophets and Apostles wherefore the sacred Scripture is the rule of Faith most certaine and most saife and God haith taught by corporall letters which we might see read what he would haue vs beleue concerning him Obserue here the refractory and incorrigible frowardnes of our minister and how artificiall and exact he sheweth him self in his art of corrupting For Bellarmine in this Chapter as is aboue touched writeth against the Swinkfeldians who denyed the Scripture to be the worde of God and rested onely vpon their priuate and hiddeÌ„ reuelations and answearably hereto the Tytle of this Chapter is Libris qui Canonicâ— appellaâ—tur verbum dei contineri That the word of God is contayned in those bookes which are called Canonicall Now the wordes at large are thus in Bellarmine Regula fides certa notaque c. The Rule of faith ought to be certaine and knowen for if it be not knowen it can be no Rule to vs and if it be not certaine it can be no Rule at all But the reuelation of the priuate spirit although in it self it might be certayne yet to vs it can no way be certaine except haply it be warraÌ„ted with diuyne testimonies to wit true miracles And then some sixe lynes after At sacris Scripturis c. But nothing is more knowen nothing more certaine then the sacred Scriptures which are contayned in the bookes of the Prophets Apostles And some fourtie or fiftie lynes after Quare cum sacra Scriptura Regula crodendi c. Wherefore seing the holy Scripture is a most certaine and a most secure rule of beleefe doubtlesse he can not be wyse who neglecting the same committeth him self to the iudgment of the priuate spirit which is often deceiptfull but euer vncertayne And againe some twenty lynes after Non igitur omnes vulgó c. Teerefore God teacheth not all men by internall inspirations what he wonld haue the faithfull to beleue of him or what they are to doe but it is his pleasure to instruct vs by corporall letters which we might see and reade Here now I referre this point to the most earneste protestant in England if he be Candid and ingenious with what face M. Whyte could alledg Bellarmine in this place to proue from him that the Scripture onely is the Iudg Rule of Faith for so doth the minister entytle that page thereby to make Bellarmine to reiect all Authority of the Church in exposition thereof all Apostolicall Traditions where we see vpon what different occasion from that he writeth in this Chapter against the Swinkfeldians Now here let vs note the particuler sleightes vsed in this corruption First M. Whyte you tye together without any c. or other word or note signifying the contrary seuerall sentences of Bellarmine for your greater aduantage as though one did immediatly folow the other though they lye in Bellarmine distinct by interposition of many lynes Secondly you haue concealed three seuerall parcels of different sentences expressing Bel. true mynde herein and all these parcels are euen partes and therefore the fowler fault of the sentences alledged by you Your concealemeÌ„ts are these Porro priuati Spiritus reuelatio et si in se certa sit nobis tamen nota nullo modo potest nisi forte diuinis testimoniis id est veris miraculis confirmetur And againe Sanus profecto non erit qui ea neglecta vz. the Scripture spiritus interui saepe fallacis semper incerti iudicio se coÌ„miserit And finally Non igitur omnes vulgoó per internum afflatum Deus docet All which your omissions are impaled and marked in the said english authority O how happy M. Whyte were you if you neuer had bene scholler since the tyme will come that you shall say with the Romane Emprour after he had subscribed to an vniust cause Vtinam literas nescirem For good thinges as learning are most perniceous to him who declyneth the true vse of them as you doe And in this respect you are to remember that the Arcke which was a blessing to the Israelites was yet a curse and hurt to the Philistians that abused it The 3. Paragraph Eckius fouly abused concerning the Authority of the Church and Traditions As heretofore he laboured to ouerthrow the doctrine of traditions from the corrupted testimonies of Catholicks and auncient Fathers so heare he endeuoreth from their lyke abused testimonies to intimate that we ascribe to them a greater perfection then we doe And to this end pag. 145. thereby the rather to cast vpon vs an vnworthy aspersion of vnderualewing the Scriptures he bringeth in Eckius in Enchirid. ca. 1. saying The Scripture receaueth all the authority it haith from the Church and from Tradition The wordes of this Author are these Scriptura non est authentica sine authoritate Ecclesiae whereby we see the wordes and from Tradition are falsly inserted by our deprauing minister making vs thereby to geue with we doe not a greater prerogatiue to Tradition then to Scripture And though perhaps he could light vpon those wordes and from Tradition in some other place or Chapter in Ecckius though in a different
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
he sheweth that the diuisions among them are either falsly layd to their charge through ignorance fury of their enemies c. or els they are not iars of the Church but the defectes of some few therein whereof the Church is not guilty or lastly not dissertions in thiâ—ges of faith but stryfe about Ceremonies c. Thus doth the D. Apologize for his discording brethren Now to conuince this the Reader shall heare what some of their owne brethren do acknowledge therein First then Doctor Willet rehearsing seuerall opinions of Hooker and D. Couell of which Willet presuming that they can not stand with true protestancy thus wryteth From this fountaine haue sprong forth these and such other whirle-pointes and bubles of new doctryne as that Christ is not originally God That Scriptures are not meanes concerning God of all that profitably we know c. That mannes will is apt naturally without Grace to take any perticuler obiect whatsoeuer presented vnto it and so consequently beleue that mennes naeturall workes or to do that Which nature telleth us without grace must needes be acceptable to God c. Thus haue some bene bould to teach and wryte as some Scismatikes meaning the puritanes haue disturbed the peace of the Church one way in externall matters concerning discipline these haue troubled the Church an other way in opposing them selues by new quirkes and deuyces to the soundnes of doctrine amongst protestantes But if the position here ment be against the foundnes of doctrine then can it not be restrained onely to ceremonies Doctor Whitaker speaking of the contentions among the protestantes saith Nostrae contentiones si quae sint sunt piae et modestae et propter fidem religionem c. Our contentions if there be any are pious and modest and for religion From which wordes if followeth that they are not personall or onely about ceremonies as M. Whyte pretendeth Now if we further take a vew of the intemperate speaches geuen by Luther against the Zuinglians it may satisfy any one that the differences were not in small points of gouernment or ceremonies Thus theÌ„ Luther speaketh We censure in earnest the Zninglians all the Sacramentaries for heritykes and alienated from the Church of God And in an other place Cursed be the Charity and concord of Sacramentaries for euer and euer to all eternity As also in the 3. place I hauing now one of my feete in the graue will carry this testimony and glory to the tribunall of God that I will with all my heart condemne aud eschew Carolostadius Zuinglius Oecolampadius and their schollers nor will haue with any of them familiarity either by letters or writinges c. And thus farr of this point From all which may be inferred that dissentions among the protestantes are not merely personall or but pointes adiaphorous indifferent being as it were but peccant humors and not true or formed diseases in their church but they do concerne most profound doubtes of their religion since otherwaies they would neuer anathematize or condemne one an other with such acerbity of wordes Which irreuocable contentions among the protestaÌ„ts being most preiudiceous to them selues is aduantageous to vs for bellum haereticorum est pax Ecclesiae The warr of heritykes is the peace of Gods Church none otherwise then the reciprocall stryfe and reluctation of the 4. humors kepes the whole body in a peaceable healthfull state The 8. Vntruth Against the vnity of Catholickes in matters of Faith Page 153. The Doctor seing his owne sinagogue torne in sonder with diuisions and contentions howsoeuer he slubered the matter ouer before with his faire pretence of concord and well knowing how preiudiciall the want of vnity is to the true Religion of Christ. For God is not a God of dissention but of peace doth maliceously endeuour to cast the lyke aspersion vpon our Catholick Church in these wordes These which know Rome and papistry are sufficiently satisfyed in this matter to wit that the papistes liue not in that vnity which is pretended theÌ„ p. 156. he telleth of what kynd these disagreementes are saying The contentions of our aduersaries touch the faith And pag. 159 he concludeth in these wordes Thus are the papistes deuyded about the principall articles of their faith Vpon which subiect he then after with much earnestnes vainely and idly spendeth dyuers leaues bringing therein euen obtorto cullo whatsoeuer he haith read or heard touching the least disagreement among the Catholickes which labour of his will serue no doubt to a iudiceous eye lyke to the spyders web painfully wrought but to no purpose Wherefore I will breefly make plaine how free we are from all breach of faith euen by the acknowledgment of the protestantes them selues First then D. Whitaker wounding him self and his cause by his confession saith Nostrae contentiones si quae sint sunt piae et modestae propter fidem propter religionem c. Contentiones papistarum sunt friuolae futiles de figmentis et commentis sui cerebri Our contentions if there be any are godly and modest touching faith and religion wheras the contentions of the papistes are but tryflinge concerning the fictions of their owne brayne Thus graunting the dissentions of the protestantes more nearly to concerue faith and religion then the dissentions among the Catholickes do Doctor Fulke saith of our vnity in this sort As for the consent of the popish Church it proueth nothing but that the deuill then had all thinges at his will and might sleepe So acknowledging our vnity truly but falsly and absurdly ascrybing it to the deuill who is the designed enemy to vnity To be short Duditius a famous protestant and highly respected by Beza doth no lesse acknowledg the vnity of our Catholick Church for thus doth Beza relate Duditius his woordes Etsi inquis multa eaque horrenda propugnantur in Romana Ecclesia c. Although many dreadfull thinges are defended in the Romane Church which are buylded vpon a weake and rotten foundation notwithstanding that Church is not deuyded with many dissentions for it haith the plausible shew of reuerent Antiquity ordinary sâ—ccession and perpetuall consent c. Thus Duditius related by Beza and not impugned herein by him Now here we are to note that the testimonies of these and other protestantes here omitted acknowledging our vnity and consent must necessarily be vnderstoode touching vnity in the misteries and other fundamentall poyntes of our Religion which is the thing onely that we are here to mantaine since if vnity alone about pointes of indifferency or of thinges not defyned should be ment by them then in reguard of many such disputable questions yet among the schole men the former iudgmentes of our aduersaries should be false and not iustifiable And thus much for this poynt from whence the Doctor may learne that among those which are true Catholickes vnity of doctrine is most
it with greater effects and frutes of vertue and the confessed better lyues euen of seculer Catholicks And so lewdly and lowdly did M. Whyte lye in whoÌ„ there is much Zuinglius when he affirmed that the protestantes were as holy as the papistes But I feare that through my earnestnes in displaying of the ministers vanity I haue bene ouer long in this poynt therfore I will descend to the next vntruth The 12. Vntruth Against auriculer Confession Page 227. discoursing of auriculer ConfessioÌ„ he saith that the Primitiue Church knew it not For the discouery of this falshood we fynd that the Centuristes do confessse that in the tymes of Ciprian and Tertulian priuate Confession was vsed euen of thoughtes and lesser sinnes And which is more they acknowledge that it was then Commaunded and thought necessary And D. Whytaker writeth that not onely Ciprian but almost all of the most holy Fathers of that tyme were in errour touching Confession and Satisfaction Thus we see how little bloud was in M. Whyte his cheekes when he was not ashamed to set downe this former bould assertion touching the doctrine of Confession But indeede it seemeth that our minister accompteth it onely a shame to feele in him self any touch of shame so far is he of in likelyhood from all hope of future amendement seeing on the contrary syde that saying for the most part is true Erubuit salua res est The 13. Vntruth Against Fasting Page 224. Our delicate minister as a professed enemy to all austerity of lyfe writeth thus against fasting All antiquity can witnes that in the primitiue Church Fasting was held an indifferent thing euery man was left to his owne mind therein This falshood is made discouerable by these acknowledgmentes following And first it is so certaine that AErius was condemned by Epiphanius haer 76. and by S. Augustine haer 53. for taking away all set dayes of fasting as that D. Fulke thus wryteth of this point I will not dissemble that which you think the greatest matter Aerius taught that fasting dayes are not to be obserued The same condemnation of Aerius by the former Fathers is acknowledged by doctor Whytaker By Pantaleon and Osiander But if Aerius was condemned by the former auncient Fathers for an heritike for denying certaine prescribed tymes of fasting it inauoydably followeth that fasting was not houlden as a thing indifferent in the primitiue Church This lye will appeare more euident if we instance it in the fast of Lent which fast was so farr from being accompted arbitrary or a thing indifferent in the primitiue Church as that Cartwright reproueth S. -Ambrose for saying It is sinne not to fast in Lent Thus you see how familierly this ministers pen drops lye after lye and such as the contrary assertion is mantayned for true euen by the most eminent protestantes The 14. Vntruth In proofe that Montanus the herityke was the first that brought in the lawes of Fasting Page 224. Our Doctor in further disgrace of fasting thus writeth Montanus a condemned herityke was the first that euer brought in the lawes of Fasting from whom the Papistes haue borowed them The 〈◊〉 misapplication of which is so forced and racked that no inferiour a protestant then Hooker him self confesseth ingeniously in these wordes that the Montaristes were condemned for bringing in sundry vnacâ—stomed dayes of fasting continued their fastes a great deale lâ—â—ger made them more rigorous c. Whereupon Tertulian mantayning Montanus wrote a booke of the new fast But what is this to vs Catholickes for we see that the errour of Montanus consisted formally not in absolutly bringing in of fasting but in varying from the former practised fastes of the whole Church Answearably hereunto the protestant wryter of Quaerimonia Ecclesiae reiectâ—th the former idle assertion in these wordes Eusebium inquiunt Montanum primas de iciuniis tulisse leges c. They say that Eusebius did vndoubtedly teach that Montanus first brougt in the lawes of fasting but they are sowly deceaued in this as in some other pointes for Montanus abrogating the fasts of the Church brought in a new kind of fasting Thus we see by the former assertions that M. Whyte like a good felow and one that meanes to enioy his Christian liberty can not well relish the vnsauery doctrine of fasting as in some pages hereafter we shall synd that in lyke sort he reiecteth all voluntary chastity which two pointes as before I noted do entertaine the one the other for who knoweth not that Epicurisme is the oyle which norisheth the flame of lust The 15 Vntruth In proofe that they make not god the author of sinne Page 263. M. Whyte being desireous that his religion should decline all contumelious reproach and staine touching the author of sinne thus wryteth The doctrine of the protestantes doth not make God the author of sinne nor inferreth any absolute necessity constrayning vs that we can not do otherwise then we doe That the indifferent Reader may the better discouer whether these his wordes be false or true I will only set downe the sentences of the cheifest protestants and withall will deliuer the iudgmentes of other protestantes against the former defending of the said sentences Zuinglius saith that God moueth the theefe to kill And that the theefe killeth god procuring him And that the theefe is inforced to sinne Thus in the heritykes iudgment God who in euery leafe of his sacred woord denounceth his comminations against sinners doth incyte procure and force man to sinne Beza in lyke sort teacheth that God exciteth the wicked will of one theefe to kill an other guideth his hand and weapons iustly enforcing the will of the theefe Fynally Caluin writeth that In sinning the deuill is not author but rather an instrument thereof thus referring the author of sinne to God him self Now that these sayinges of the former protestants do if not actually immediatly and primariously yet at least potentially and necessarily include in theÌ„ selues that god is the author of sinne is graunted by other more modest protestant wryters who do altogether condemne the foresaid doctrine of Caluin Zuinglius and Beza Thus is the said doctrine condemned by Castalio who wrote a speciall treatise hereof against Caluin By Hooker in his Ecclesiast Pollicy lib 5. pag. 104. By D. Couell in his defence of M. Hooker pag 62. Yea in farther conuincing of M. Whytes former vntruth we fynd that Iacobus Andreas a Protestant in Epitom Coloq Montisbelgar pag. 47. thus plainely writeth Deus est Author peccati secundum Bezam Here now I referr the matter to the iudiceous Reader whether he will beleue M. Whytes former assertion as true politikly onely deliuered by him to salue the honour of his Church or the plaine contrary meaning of Caluin Zuinglius and Beza set downe in their owne sayinges so acknowledged by others of their owne Religion where we fynd that the protestant
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
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
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