Religionâ— and this he doth by nakedly setting downe one lyne which is the middest of the periode but subtily according to his maner omitting both the wordes precedent wherein the instance is geuen and whereunto the sence of the former sentence is peculierly tyed as also the wordes subsequeÌ„t contayning the reason thereof But it semeth he haith vowed with him self neuer to alledg any one testimony ingeniously and plainely seing his true quotations iâ— any such be may for their quantity be engrauen within a ring whereas his wilfull deprauations doe stretch beyond all reasonable dimension The 12 Paragraph The Canon Law corrupted concerning the Pope In nothing more doth M. Whyte manifest or continue his implacable hatred or his dexterity in falsification then against the Church and Pope of Rome amongest many take this example folowing pag. 433. I am affrayd saih he I haue bene to bold in medling with these matters for the Church of Rome haith a Law within her self that it is and then foloweth in a different letter as though they were the wordes of the Canon law sacriledg to reason about the Popes doinges whose murders are excused lyke Sampsons and theftes lyke the Hebrues Adultries lyke Iacobs But here I must charg you with much fowle demeanour for first you affirme that the wordes cyted are a Law of the Romane Church whereas they are onely taken out of the glosse or comment which is a thing much different and of incomparable lesse authority then the Law it self Secondly whereas in the Law it is disputed what censure is to be geuen when the case is doubtfull whether the Pope haith sinned or noe as by committing adultry or murder to which it is answeared that in that case it is to be presumed in the Popes behalf yea saith the glosser in this case sacrilegii instar esset disputare de facto suo Vel dic quod facta Papae accusantur vt homicidia Samsonis surta Hehraeorum adulterium Iacob It were lyke Sacriledg in that doubtfull case to dispute of his fact Or say that the deedes of the Pope are accused as the murders of Samson the thefts of the Hehrues the Adultery of Iacob What is here spoken in defence of the pope which euery Christian ought not to performe in defence of his neighbour to wit in a case doubtfull to think and speake the best Are not those factes of Samson the Hebrues and Iacob piously censured by the learnedst Doctors But with what front do you auouch so absolutely and in generall that according to the law of the Romane Church it is sacriledg to reason about the Popes doinges whereas the glosser saith onely In dubiis c. when the case is doubtfull of the Popes fact instar sacrilegii c. It were lyke Sacriledg to dispute of his fact Will you of doubtfull premisses inferre an absolute conclusion Would you take it kindly if in a case admitting it but doubtfull whether a certaine minister had beene drunke should absolutely affirme that the protestants Church haith a Law within her self that it is Sacriledg to reason about ministers doinges whose drunkenes is excused as Noes c. The 13. Paragraph Bellarmine corrupted against theâ— Popes Authority As the former deprauations were practised in ouermuch aduauncing and extolling the Authority of the Church and Pope so here on the contrary part he falsly alledgeth Bellarmine extenuating and lesning the said power For thus entytling the page 167. The papistes them selues refuse the Popes Iudgment he laboureth to make good this assertion from the confession of Bellarmine who de Rom. Pon. lib. 4. ca. 7. speaking of S. Ciprian withstanding Pope Stephen touchinge rebaptisation writeth as M. Whyte saith that after the Popes definitioÌ„ it was free for Ciprian to think otherwise our minister intimating hereby to the Reader that Bellarmine mantayneth that it is lawfull to beleue contrary to that which is once defyned as a matter of faith by the Pope Here againe he bestowes on his Reader a broken sentence leauing of in the middest thereby to auoyde the setting downe of what is most materiall for Bellarmines wordes are these Fuit enimpost Pontificis definitionem c. It was lawfull after the definition of the Pope to think otherwyse as Augustine affirmeth beoause the Pope noluit rem ipsam de fide facere sine generaliconcilio would not make it as a matter of Faith without a generall Councell but onely in the meane tyme willed the auncient custome to be obserued And then after Stephanus noÌ„ defiuiuis rem illam tanquam de fide P. Stephen did not defyne the matter as a poynt of Faith yet he commaunded earnestly that heritykes should not be rebaptysed See here now the integrity of our minister who purpoâ—ly concealeth that part of the sentence which isexpresly contrary to that sence in the which he alledgeth the former wordes thereof For Bellarmine vnderstandeth by the wordes post definitionem after it was commanded that rebaptisation should not be vsed and not after it was sententially defined as an article of faith as M. Wayte semeth to force Now Catholickes do graunt that it is lawfull to hould or beleue contrary to the practise of what the Pope commandeth so that we doâ— according to his commandement and as long as the matter it self is not definitiuely decreed by the Pope for a dogmaticall poynt of our beleefe thus much thereof from whence we may discerne the Ministers inueterate hatred against the head of Gods Church who aÌ„swerably thereto speaking of the words of our Sauiour Pasce oues meas thus styleth some of his pages in his Lucian and scornfull phraze Feede my sheepe is not poping But howsoeuer to feede in this place be to pope it I am sure most egregiously and impudently to corrupt Authors is to Whyte it Chapter 4. Wherein are discouered sundry corruptions concerning the sacred Scriptures and Traditions The 1. Paragraph Bellarmine corrupted in behalf of the Scripture prouing it self to be the word of God THE next poynt we are to come to are such his corruptions wherein he pretendeth that the Catholickes doe acknowledge all sufficiency of Scripture both for the interpreting of it self without any needefull explication of the Church thereof as also for it fulnesse in contayning expresly all thinges necessary to mans saluation excluding thereby all Apostolicall Traditions whatsoeuer And first pag. 59. shewing that the Scripture is knowen to be the word of God without the attestation of the Church which as he houldeth may be deceatfull he alledgeth Bellarmine de verb. des li. 2. ca. 2. thus confessing other meanes may deceaue me but nothing is more knowen nothing more certayne then the Scriptures that it were the greatest madnes in the world not to beleue them c. See how loth our minister is to cease to be him self I meane to cease his notorious corrupting for the wordes of Bellarmine are these Sacris Scripturis quae Prophetieis Apostolicis literis
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
sence which hitherto I can not find yet it is no small dishonesty in M. Whyte thus vnkindly to match and ioyne together such disopting sentences without the parents consent Againe what a strange construction or translation is this Scriptura non est authentica sine authoritate Ecclesiae The Scripture receaueth all the authority it haith from the Church and from Tradition If this liberty be Iustifiable what errour so grosse may not easely be iustifyed against all Scripture thongh neuer so plentifull though neuer so manifest The 4. Paragraph Canus corrupted concerning Traditions Againe perusing his former proiect he pag. 2. fortifyeth him self with a wrest d authority of Canus whom li. 3. ca. 3. he bringeth in thus teaching There is more strength to confute heritykes in Traditions then in the Scripture yea all disputations with them must be determined by Traditions Here againe the proteruity of our Doctor more and more discouereth it self For thus Canus speaketh Non modo aduersum haereticos c. Not onely against heritykes Tradition is of more force then Scripture but also omnis fermè disputatio almost all disputation with them is to be reduced to Traditions receaued from our Auncestors For seing both Catholickes heritikes doe alledg Scripture for them selues the difference betwene them is in the sence and interpretation thereof Now which is the true and lawfull sence of it can not otherwise certainly be knowen then by the traditioÌ„ of the Church Here now our ministers sleight is three-fould for first Canus borroweth this saying from Tertulian of whom twenty lynes before this place Canus thus us writeth Tertulianus monet vt aduersus hareticos magis Traditionibus quam Scripturis disseramus Scripturae enim varios sensus trâ—huntur Traditiones non item TertuliaÌ„ counseleth vs that we hould dispute against heritikes rather with Tradition then with Scripture since the Scriptures are drawen into seuerall constructions whereas Traditions are not so Thus it appeareth that the opinion is Tertulians and borrowed onely from him by Canus yet M. Whyte thought it more conuenient to deliuer it as proceding onely from Canus so concealing Tertulian as vnwilling to haue it graced and countenanced with the Authority of so auncient a Doctor The second deceipt here lyeth in not translating but concealing the reasoÌ„ of Canus his IudgmeÌ„t therein though it be expressed by Canus in the wordes immediatly folowing the place alledged which shew that the cause why we are to dispute with heritykes with Traditions rather then with Scriptures is not as our minister falsly pretendeth our distrust in the Scripture or want thereof to proue our Catholick Faith but as Canus saith because the true sence of it is cheifely to be taken from Tradition warranted by the Church Thirdly and lastly he abuseth his Reader in concealing the aduerbe ferme in those words aboue omâ—is ferme disputatio almost all disputation whereas he translateth all disputations Thus Canus by vsing the worde fermè exempteth some points from being decyded onely by traditions whereas by our ministers translation not any one is excepted Thus haue we seene how our Doctor by his fowle collusions haith laboured seuerall wayes to depresse and obscure the worthines of gods Catholick Church as by making her become somtimes inuisible by falsly ascribing to her and her head in the catholickes name an vsurping soueraignty thereby to make her due Authority the more contemned to conclude by depryuing her of all Apostolicall Traditions and of all preheminency in explayning and expounding the Scriptures whereas she especially now in the tyme of the Gospell euer sendeth from her self most glorious beames and splendor of truth and perpetuitie according to that of the princely psalmist In sole pos uit Tabernaculum suum for indeede she is that Soon which contrary to our inuisibilistes for these sixteene hundreth yeres did neuer once set vnder the horizon of an vniuersall latency that Soon which neuer expatiates beyond the tropickes of Gods Traditionary or writen word that Soon which with it defyning and infallible authority in explicating the true sense of Gods word dissipates and dissolues all cloudes of errour exhaled through the weake influence of the reuealing spirit finally that Soon whose concentrous vniformity could yet neuer broke any Phaniomena or apparances of innouation and nouelty whereas all other sectes professing the name of Christians are in regard of it but as Planetary and wandring starrs producing many Anomalous irregularities of vncertainty dissention and confusion Chapiter 5. Concerning Faith heresy The 1. Paragraph Bellarmine verrupted against the necessity of true Faith BVT to returne to our Doctor from Traditions we will descend to such other his deprauations as concerne Faith in generall as pag. 212. suggesting that we exact not besides other vertues any true or inward Faith to denominate or make one a perfect member of Gods Church but onely an outward show hereof he introduceth Bellarmine thus speaking de Eccl. mil. lib. 3. ca. 2. Noe inward vertue is required to make one a part of the true Church but onely the externall profession of Faith And then M. Whyte ryoteth in great profusion of wordes that vpon this grounde in the papistes Iudgment all holines of lyfe and conuersation is superfluous and needelesse But let vs recurre to Bellarmines wordes them selues Not credimus in Ecclesia inueniri c. We doe beleue that in the Church are found all vertues at Faith Hope Charity the rest ver vr aliquis aliquo modo dicâ— possiâ— pars verae Ecclesiae c. That any one may be called in some sort or manner a part of that true Church whereof the Scripture speaketh we doe not think any inward vertue to be requyred but onely an externall profession of faith c. And in the folowing paragraph he saith that those who wanting all vertue haue onely an externall profession of Faith câ— are as it were de corpore but not de anima Ecclesiae of the body not of the soule of the Church c. He but sicut capilli an t mali humores in corpore humano So wrongfully here we see is Bellarmine traduced by our Doctor First in concealing the beginning of the sentence wherein he acknowledgeth all theologicall vertues euer to be found in Gods Church Secondly in suggesting to the Reader that Bellarmine requyreth no true inward vertues as necessary for a Christian soule but onely an externall faith this is a false and selanderous contumely for pulchra es decora â—â—lia Hierusalem Caâ— 6. And Bellarmine is so farre froÌ„ teaching that such doe take any benefite by this theire outward profession that he saith as we see they are but onely of the body of the Church not of the soule to which kynd of members internall vertues at least are necessary and that they are to be resembled to the lesse profitable and but excrementall partes of mans body as the hayres of the head the nayles and other such bad humors Thirdly
and doctrine do euen breath onely pryde contumacy sensuality Sardanapalisme and luxury Here now M. Whyte I haue thought good in the enumeration of your lyes to end with Luther as originally from him you first did suck your lyinge doctrine Onely I will conclude with this that since you are entred with our vulgar multitude who cheifly rest vpon the outward graine and appearance of thinges into the number and catologue of our new Euangelicall Prophets I would wish such your folowers to entertaine an impartiall vew and consideration of this and other your forgeries and sleightes which if they do doubtlesse they shall in the ende fynde and acknowledg that you are guided therein euen by that ghostly enemy of mannes soule who once said Egrediar ero spiritus mendaex in ore omnium Prophetarum eiuâ— I will go forth and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his Prophets WHYTE DYED BLACK THE THIRD PART Contayning diuers impertinences or absurd Illations or reasoninges drawne from Maister Whyte his alledged Authorities The 1. Paragraph Werein are discouered strange Illations or arguinges in proofe that the Scriptures are the sole rule of Faith against Traditions HAuing in the two precedent partes set downe many corruptions and lyes practised by M. Whyte it now followeth according to my former intended Methode that I also display diuers of his impertinent and absurde inferences and argumentes for these three pointes to wit corrupting lying idly or absurdly disputing are the three seuerall threedes whereof the whole worke of his Treatise is wouen In all which though different in them selues he still retayneth one and the same intention of deceipt like the loade-stone which though often changeth his place yet neuer changeth it center Now touchinge those his impertinences and loose illations the Reader is to conceaue that they consist in his alledging of such testimonies both of Scriptures Fathers and Catholick writers as being truly set downe do not neuerthâ—lâ—sse impugne that point of our Catholick doctrine against which they were by him so vrged Which course of writing whether it may be ascrybed to our Doctors ignorance want of learning or rather which is more probable to his malice against the Catholick Faith and desire to deceaue the simple and vnlearned or lastly to the beggery of his cause being deuoide of better arguments I leaue to him self to decide But howsoeuer it is here I am to aduertise the Reader that in perusing of such authorities produced by M. Whyte he would euer recurr to the true state of the question and particulerly that he would apply the said sentences to that verie point or touch wherein the life of the question consisteth and then he shall find how rouingly wandringly they are directed still glauncing by vpon some ignorant or wilfull mistaking or other neuer reaching the mark intended And so he may apply the wordes of Tertulian though in a different sense to the loose writinges of M. Whyte and such others Quemcunque conceperint ventum argumentationis scorpii isti quocunque se acumine impegerint vna tam linea ista to wit the lyne drawne from our vnderstanding to the mayne point in controuersy And here M. Whyte can not say in excuse of him self that such testimonies of this nature are produced by him onely to proue so much and no more as the wordes in their litterall and acknowledged sense do immediatly import Which euasion is insufficient for two respects First because the proofâ— of that which litterally plainely they signify is not in controuersy betwene the protestantes and vs and therefore the iustifiing of so much being not denied by any learned Catholick is needelesly vndertaken Secondly in that M. Whyte doth most labouriously painefully and purposly alledg the said testimonies to conuince and impugne some one Catholick poynt or other taught by vs and denyed by the protestantes and this his drift and scope is manifested either by his answearable entituling of the leaues wherein such authorities are found or els by his owne wordes precedent or subsequent to the said sentences But to detayne the Reader no longer from these his allegations The first point of this kynde which presenteth it self is as touching the Rule of Faith reiecting of all Apostolicall Traditions For pag. 13. we thus read digres 3. Wherein by the Scriptures Fathers Reasons and papistes owne confessions it is shewed that the Scripture is the rule of Faith As likewise he entituleth that leafe and some others following in this manner The Scripture onely is tho iudg rule of Faith And so answearably hereto pag. 17. beating the former tytle he thus saith Shall the Libertynes be recalled from their blind reuelations to their writen text and shall not the papistes be reuoked from their vncertaine Traditions to the same rule But that we may the better behould how valiantly our minister impugneth all Traditions by erectinge the Scripture as sole rule of Faith we are here to call vnto mind what the Catholick Church teacheth in this poynt It then teacheth that the word of God is to limit and confine our Faith and that nothing is to be accompted as matter of faith which receaueth not it proofe from thence Hereupon it teacheth further that this word is either writen which is commonly called the Scripture or els deliuered by Christ his Church and this comprehendeth Traditions Both these we beleue to be of infallible authority since the true and inward reason why the word of God is the word of God is not because it is writen rather then deliuered by speach for this is merely extrinsicall to the point but because the said word proceded from them who were infallibly and immediatly directed therein by the assistance of the holy Ghost This supposed let vs see how M. Whyte proueth that the writen word is onely the rule of Faith and consequeÌ„tly that there are no Traditions of the Church which may also in part be a rule thereof First then our Doctor vrgeth to this end seuerall places of Scripture as among others that of Salomon The scripture will make a man vnderstand righteousnes and iudgment and equity euery good path Againe that of Esay We must repaire to the Law to the testimony if any speake not according to that word there is no light in him Also out of Malachy Remember the Law of Moyses my seruant which I commaunded him in Horeb for all Israell with the statutes Iudgmentes In lyke sort he alledgeth that Abraham answearing the rich glutton said that his brethren had Moyses and the Prophets Now that the Reader may see how well these texts are to the point controuerted I will set some of them downe in forme of Argument and so apply them to M. Whytes purpose As first thus Salomon said of the Scriptures of the old Testament The Scripture will make a man vnderstand righteousnes and Iudgment and equity and euery good path Ergo now
in the tyme of Christianity there are no Traditions but the Scripture of the old Testament it the onely rule of Faith Againe Remember the Law of Moyses my seruant which I commaunded him in Horeb for all Israell with the statutes iudgments Therefore no Traditions Lastly The brethren of the rich glutton had Moyses and the Prophets Therefore no pointes of Christian Faith are to be proued froÌ„ any Traditions of the Church Strangly wildly most exorbitantly concluded for what reference haue these textes with the rule of Faith the which is not so much as glaunced at in any one of them or graunting that they had why should the old Testament be a paterne for the Faith professed in the new Testament since all Christians do graunt that the time of Grace is enriched with many priuiledges and immunities whereof the old Law was altogether depriued After these and such like textes of Scripture he descendeth to proue the soresaid point from the testimonies of the auncient Fathers as to omitt diuers others he alledgeth Tertulian saying The Scripture is the rule of Faith which we graunt for we teach that it is Regula partialis fidei a Rule of our faith in part yet hence it followeth not which is the point here onely to be proued that it is Regula totalis an entyre sole rule of Faith without the help of any Traditions and as large in extent as our faith is Also S. Augustine thus wryting This controuersy depending betwene vs requyres a Iudg let Christ therefore iudg and let the Apostle Paule iudg with him because Christ also speaketh in his Apostle As if Christ his Apostles could not aswell speake in Traditions as in writinges or because graunting that that particuler controuersie there ment by S. Augustine was proued from the wrytinges of S. Paule therefore all other Articles of Christian Religion should thence also receaue their sole proofe Againe Gregory Nyssen tearming the Scripture a strait and inflexible Rule as in that the Scriptute is inflexible and inchangeable for those pointes which it proueth therefore it alone and no Apostolicall traditions is to proue any article of our Faith Lastly he introduâ—eth S. Austine againe saying Whatsoeuer thing it be that a man learnes out of the Scripture if it be hurtfull there it is condemned if it be profitable there it is found Which place particulerly concerning conuersation of life as vertue and vyce of both which the Scripture most fully discourseth how it may condemne Apostolicall traditions which may deliuer supernaturall and high misteries of Christian faith I leaue to the censure of any iudceous man This done he next falleth to the sentences of more late Catholick writers as first of S. Thomas Aquinas saying The doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets is Canonicall because it is the Rule of our vnderstanding But what do these wordes force onely in the behalfe of Scripture and against Apostolicall Traditions since in leede they do not peculierly concerne the Scripture but as the wordes litterally import that the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets in generall whether it be written or vnwritten is Canonicall Againe he vrgeth S. Thomas the second tyme Our Faith resteâ—h and stâ—eth it self vpon the reuelation geuen to the Apostles and Prophets which write the Canonicall bookes and not vpon reuelation if any such haue bene made to any other Doctors But who denies that the prophets Apostles did write the canonicall bookes Or who reacheth that our Faith ought to rest vpon the reuelation of any other Doctors then the Prophets the Apostles Or shew any reason which is the cheif point in this sentence to be shewed why the reuelations of the Prophets and especially the Apostles may not aswell comprehend traditions as the writen word In like sort he bringeth in Gerson saying Scripture is the Rule of our faith which being well vnderstoode noe authority of men is to be admitted against it As I haue said before we do teach that the Scripture is the Rule of Faith but not the sole Rule which M. Whyte ought to proue Againe we willingly acknowledg that no authority of man is to stand against the Scripture but what doth this impeach Apostolicall traditions which are nomore the bare authority of man then the Scripture it self both equally proceding froÌ„ God by the assistance of the holy Ghost Finally he comes in with Perisius wryting that The Authority of no Sainct is of infallible truth for S. Augustine geues that honour onely to the sacred Scriptures But here the question is not touching the tradition of any other Sainctes then onely of our Sauiour his Apostles and the whole Church yet we see Peresius here speaking of Sainctes must needes meane only of Particuler Sainctes or holy men since the tymes of the Apostles seing otherwise he should teach which were most wicked that the authority of the Apostles and the Euangelistes are not of infallible truth Besides S. Augustine in that place restrayneth without any reference at all to Traditions his meaning onely to the writinges of priuate Doctors in respect of the sacred Scripture and in this reguard still speaking of bookes written we all graunt that the Scripture is of an infallible truth Such vnprofitable and wast testimonies M. Whyte is accustomed to heape together in his booke the which that they shall not so easely be espied he subtilly for the most part mingleth them with other Authorities more pertinent at least in outward for the c shew of wordes lyke a good Captaine who rangeth his worst weakest souldiers in the middest thâ—ong of the more experienced so making those formes to serue onely to encrease in the enemies eye the number though not their force The 2. Paragraph Wherein are discussed certaine Arguments drawne from Scriptures and Fathers in proofe that the sacred Scriptures the true sense there of are made sufficiently known vnto vs without any approbation or explication of the Church The next subiect of his loose kind of Inferences wherein I will insist partly conspireth with the former and is touching the absolute and supreme soueraigâ—ty of the Scriptures in determining of controuersies without any needefull explicatioÌ„ of gods Church this assertion being indeede a head Theoreme or principle with the sectaries of this age For page 4â— M. Whyte thus writeth Digressio 11. prouing that The Scripture it self haith that outward authority whereupon our faith is built and not the Church Now here for the better vindicating and freeing vs from all contumelious calumnies touching our supposed contempt of the Scriptures as also for the more manifest discouery of M. Whytes weake arguing herein the Reader is to take notice that the Catholicks do ascribe all due reuerence estimation and respect to the Scripture whatsoeuer acknowledging it to be gods embassadour which vnfouldeth vnto man vpon earth the sacred will and pleasure of our heauenly King as also that it is the spirituall
not Israell which are of Israell himselfe being one of those which will not cease to peruert the way of our Lord. A TABLE OF THE CONTENTES The first Part. Chapiter 1. Conteyning Corruptions concerning woorkes and Iustification The First Paragraph Premenitions geuen to M. whyte if he entend to reply vpon this present Treatise 2 The Rhemistes Corrupted concerning merite of workes 3 Cardinall Bellarmine Corrupted concerning iustification 4 Bellarmine againe abused against merite of workes 5 S. Thomas Corrupted against iustification by workes 6 S. Augustine Corrupted against iustification Chapiter .2 Concerning the reading of the Scriptures The first Paragraph S. Ierome Corrupted concerning the reading of the Scriptures by the vulgare people 2 S. Cirill of Alexandria abused for the same purpose Chapiter .3 Concerning the Church and the Pope The first Paragraph Vincentius Lirinensis Corrupted in proofe that the Church may erre 2 The Rhemistes Corrupted for the Churches inuisibility 3 S. Augustine Corrupted concerning the same subiect 4 Doctor Stapleton abused in behalfe of the protestantes markes of the Church 5 S. Gregory de valentia Corrupted concerning the same 6 Bellarmine egregiously Corrupted for the same 7 S. Thomas fouly corrupted concerning the Popes authority 8 Doctor Sapleton corrupted concerning the same subiect 9 S. Ciprian corrupted against appeales to Rome 10 The Rhemistes abused concerning the authority of the Church 11 Cardinall Cusanus corrupted concerning the same 12 The canon lawe corrupted concerning the Pope 13 Bellarmine corrupted against the Popes authority Chapiter 4. wherin are discouered sundry corruptions concerning the sacred Scriptures and Traditions The first Paragraph Bellarmine corrupted in behalfe of the Scripture prouing it selfe to be the word of god 2 Bellarmine corrupted in proofe that the Scriptures are the onely rule of faith 3 Eckius abused concerning the Authority of the Church and Traditions 4 Canus corrupted concerning Traditions Chapter .5 Concerning Faith and Heresy The 1 Paragraph Bellarmine corrupted against the necessity of true Faith 2 Bellarmine againe corrupted against the knowledg of the misteries of our faith and in preferring of ignorance 3 Nauar corrupted concerning the sinne committed by the Laity in disputing of matters of faith Chapter 6. Concerning mariage of Preistes Fasting and Miracles The 1 Paragraph Sinesius impudently abused concerning his owne mariage 2 Paphnutius abused concerning the mariage of preistes 3 S. Angustine corrupted against fasting Baronius notoriously corrupted in proofe that heritikes can worke true miracles Chapter .7 Concerning the Sacramentes of the Eucharist and Pâ—nance The 1. Paragraph Bellarmine corrupted against Transubstantiation 2 The. M. of the Sentences corrupted against confession to a Preist 3 Bellarmine corrupted against Satisfaction 4 S. Thomas corrupted concerning the remission of veniall sinnes Chapter 8. Concerning the Author of sinne and Reprobation The 1. Paragraph Bellarmine egregiously falsified in proofe that god is the Author of sinne 2 S. Augustine abused concerning reprobation Chapter 9. Concerning the honour to be geuen to Sainctes and their Images The 1 Paragraph S. Epiphanius corrupted in dishonour of the B. Virgin Mary 2 S. Gregory notoriously corrupted against the worshiping of Images 3 The Councell of Eliberis corrupted against Images The second part Containing sundry notorious vntruthes or lyes proued to be such by the confession of learned protestantes And first is preuented a weake euasion which may be vsed by M. Whyte against this second part The 1. vntruth That protestantes embrace that kind of tryall which is by antiquity 2 Against Traditions 3 In proofe of the protestants Church to haue continued in all ages 4 In proofe of the vnity of faith and doctrine amongst protestantes 5 In proofe of the immutability of the present English Religion 6 In proofe of the Romane Churches mutability in matters of faith 7 In proofe of the protestantes concord in matters of Religion 8 Against the vnity of Catholickes in matters of faith 9 Against the Popes primacy 10 That Gregory the great detested the Popes primacy 11 In proofe that Catholickes are more viceous then protestantes 12 Against auriculer confession 13 Against Fasting 14 In proofe that Montanus the herityke was the first that brought in the lawes of Fasting 15 In proofe that they make not God the Author of sinne 16 In proofe that S. Bernard was noe papist 17 Against the miracles wrought by S. Bernarde and S. Francis 18 In proofe of the protestantes Churches euer visibility 19 In defence of Preistes mariage 20 Against Images 21 Against Transubstantiation 22 Against the conuersion of England by S. Augustine the Monke 23 Concerning the Conuersion of Countries 24 Against the Popes Authority in calling of Councels 25 Against merite of woorkes 26 Against the Sacrifice of the Masse 27 Concerning wafer cakes 28 Against the Adoration of the B. Sacrament 29 Against the succession of Catholick Pastors 30 In defence of Martin Luthers lyfe and manners The Third Part. Contayning diuers impertinences or absurd Illations or reasoninges The 1. Paragraph Wherein are discouered strange Illations or arguinges in proofe that the Scriptures are the sole rule of faith and against Traditions 2 Wherein are discussed certaine arguments drawne from Scriptures Fathers in proofe that the sacred Scriptures the true sense thereof are made sufficiently knowne vnto vs without any probation or explication of the Church 3 Wherein are examined some of M. Whites profes against the visibility of the Church 4 Wherein are discussed certaine proofes of M. Whytes in behalf of the protestantes markes of the Church 5 Wherein are examined strange kindes of Argunges against the Authority of the Church Faultes escaped in the printing In the preface to the Vniuersity of Cambridge Pag. 1 lin 10. for iudiceous reade iudicious Ibid. lin 11. for grearly read greatly Ibid. pag. 4. lin 27. for Iugements read Iudgements Ibid. pag. 5. lin 22. for inuisibilites Inuisibilistes Preface to the Reader Pag. 2. lin 4. leaue out said worke Pag. 4. lin 15. for â—nlour read colour Chapter 1. Pag. 4. lin 25. for Iustifieth read insisteth in Pag. 5. lin 25. for preadmonish read premonish Pag. 18. lin 21 for great read greatest Pag. 27. lin 9. for Quod read Quid. Pag. 31. lin 23. for Anologie read Analogie Pag. 47. lin 4. betwixt druncke and should insorte one Pag. 52. lin 16. 17. leaue out these wordes All which your omissions are impaled and marked in the said english authority Pag. 52. lin 20. for Emprour read Emperour Pag. 53 lin 14. for disopting read dissorting Pag. 53. lin 23. for perusing read pursuing Pag. 64. lin 14. leaue out the word is Pag. 77. lin 10. for Chapiter read Chapter Pag. 87. lin 24. for maliuolent read maleuolent Pag. 138. lin 27. next after the word Masse insert affirmeth Pag. 159. lin 10. betwixt authority the insert in Pag. 73. lin 30. for fully read fouly Pag. 87. lin 33. for paralayes read parallels Pag. 92. lin 4. for differences read discoueries Pag. 97. lin 28. for musk read musick Pag. 114. lin
it self or conference thereof but from the tradition and Authority of the Church such wrytinges are certainly knowne to be the vndoubted word of God most contrary to M. Whyte pag. 47. who saith that The Scripture proueth it self to be the very word of god receaueth not authoritie from the Church To this end we fynde D. Whitakar first reiccting the testimony of the pryuate spirit to say thus Non nego Traditionem ecclesiasticam esse argumentum quo argui et conuinci possit qui libri Canonicâ— sunt qui Canonicâ— non sunt I do not deny but that Ecclesiasticall tradition is an Argument from the which it may be proued which are the Canonicall bookes and which are not In lyke sort M. Hooker assenteth hereto saying In thinges necessary the very cheifest is to know what bookes we are bound to esteeme holy which poynt is confessed impossible for the Scripture it self to teach But what the Scripture teacheth not is by our aduersaries confession a mere Tradition Hookers iudgment in this poynt is iustifyed by Doctor Couell Now if these eminent protestantes do ascrybe onely to the Church the Indgment of discerning which is Scripture and which is not Scripture then we know from the Authority and Tradition of the Church not from the Scripture it self which is the true vndoubted word of God and what bookes are but spurious and adulterated and consequently M. Whyte lyed most grosly in affirming that no part of their faith standes vpon Tradition thus ranging him self amonge those who according to the Scripture mendaciorum funiculis conantur subuertere By the meanes of lyes endeuour to ouerthrow The third vntruth The Third vntruth in proofe of the continuance of the protestantes faith in all ages Our minister labouring to enamell and bewtify his deformed faith with the speceous tytle of antiquity succession pag. 86. vseth these swelling speaches Against all papistes whatsoeuer we make it good that the very faith we now professe haith successiuely continued in all ages since Christ was neuer interrupted so much as one yere month or day and to confesse the contrary were sufficient to prooue vs no part of the Church of god Wordes of brasse but if he be put to the proofe no doubt leaden performance To set downe the Iudgmentes of the learned protestantes touching the interruption of their faith for many seuerall ages since Christes tyme were laboursom and withall needeles since to conuince this bould assertion of falshood it is sufficient to insist in any one age or tyme. Therefore I will content my self with the authorities of two learned protestaÌ„ts touchiÌ„g the very time of Luthers first Apostacy and departing from our Church they graunting that their faith before Luthers reuolt was not to be found in any man liuing which they neuer would haue done if the euidency of the matter did not force them thereto considering how much such a confession doth enaruate and weaken their cause First theÌ„ we finde euen Luther himself to acknowledg this poynt who thus wryteth hereof Ego principio causae meae c. In the beginning of this my cause speaking of his change of religion I had this guift graunted me euen from heauen that I alone should vndertake so great a matter and I did conceaue that it should be made good onely by me neither did I put any confidence in the trust of others Here we see that he graunteth him self to haue bene alone in this his supposed restauration of the Gospell And hereupon it is that Luther in an other place thus vaunteth Christum a nobis primo vulgatum andemus gloriari We dare glory that Christ was first made knowne by vs. In lyke sort M. Iewell no meane Rabbi in our English Sinagoge saith that the truth was vnknowne at that tyme and vnheard of when Martin Luther and Vldrick Zuinglius first came vnto the knowledg and preaching of the Gospell The 4. Vntruth In proofe of the vnity of faith doctrine amongst protestantes Pag 138. For the more iustifying of the protestantes doctrine he thus saith of the booke entituled The Harmony of confessions The Harmony of confessions wherein the particuler Churches set downe and name the articles of their faith if the Iesuite can shew to â—arr in Dogmaticall poyntes of faith I am content you beleue him in all the rest Here the reader haith a bould assertion which as you see the more easely to winne a credulous eare is steeped in muske but I feare M. Doctor the note Diapason which implieth an absolute and generall concord and which is so much commended by all the most skilfull in that science will here be wanting And therefore for the more exact disquisition of that poynt we will refer our selues to that very booke called the Harmony of confessions englished printed at Cambridg by Thomas Thomas 1586. where for the greater expedition I will touch but some few stringes thereof onely to heare how they sound First then we fynde this harmony to teach that sinnes are efâ— sons punished euen in this lyfe at Dauids Manasses and the punishments may be mitigated by good woorkes pag. 229. See here how fully it acknowledgeth the abstensiue nature of penance and satisfaction Againe this obedience towardes the Law is a kind of Iustice marke you this discord and deserueth rewarde pag. 266. Like at the preaching of penance is generall euen so the promise of grace is generall c. Here needeth no disputation of Predestination or such like for the promise is generall pag. 268. 269. As touching priuate Confession c. we affirme that the ceremony of pryuate absolution is to be retayned in the Church and we do constantly retayne it pag. 231. In lyke sort it saith that the Bishops haue inrisdiction to forgeue sinnes pag. 366. Finally not to rest vpon euery perticuler stop thereof we thus fynde there We do not speake of the Church as if we should speake of Platoes Idea but of such a Church as may be seene and heard c. The eternall Father will haue his Sonne to be heard amonge all mankinde pag. 326. A note which must needes sound most harshe with our inuisibilistes Now I referr the matter to M. Whyte him self whether there be in these poyntes any concordance betwene the harmony of Confessions the doctryne of our English protestantes of the Hugonots in France and the Caluenistes in Germany so assured I was that a diligent eare would easely obserue many iarring stringes in the Consort The 5. Vntruth In proofe of the immutability of the present English Religion Page 138. He particulerly insisteth in his supposed constancy of religion here in England and thus wryteth If the Iesuite can shew the Church of England since papistry was first abolished to haue altered one article of the present faith now professed I am content c For the disproofe of this falshood we will conuince the same by discouering the manifould
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