or before shall refuse to obey the same but for that neare to the tyme of Antichrist and consummation of the worlde there is lyke to be a greate reuolt of Kingdomes people and Prouinces from the open externall obedience communion thereof c. when for the few dayes of Antichristes reigne the externall state of the Romane Church and publick entercourse of the faithfull with the same way cease yet the due honour and obedience of Christians towardes it and Communion in heart with it and practise thereof in secret and open confession thereof if occasion requyre shall not cease no more then it doth now in the Christians of Cyprus and other places where open entercourse is forbidden Here now the parcels of this testimony which are purposly omitted do show that the Rhemistes do euen peremptorily affirme that gods Church shall neuer no not in the tyme of Antichristes greatest persecutions be latent and inuisible Thus doth our M. you see vpon a sudaine breake of with the Rhemistes in alledging their wordes yet after some lyne or two curteously ioyneth with them againe and then after that once more vnkindly leaues them to them selues all this in one poore testimony And here good reader thou art to take notice of an other sleight of our minister touching this particuler place For whereas he in the first Edition of his booke which I here folow setteth downe the Rhemistes wordes as thou seest aboue in no sorte intimating that any one word of their said testimony is pretermitted he in some other of his Editions as it should seme being aduertised that this his egregious corruption was espyed by his aduersaries thought therefore in some sort to salue the matter haith at the last wordes where he breaketh of from the rest of the whole sentence added a virgula or lyne as this ingeniously forsoth to acknowledge that he omitteth some part of the sentence But this I say auaileth him nothing for first it doth not warrant his sincerity in his first Edition Againe though in alledging of a testimony we are not bound to set down euery word thereof yet as I haue before premonished that which is omitted ought to be impertinent to the mayne point for which the testimony is produced But subtily to pretermit with an c. or some such like marck that which punctually doth touch or explicate the true sence of the sentence alledged that directly contrary to that construction there pretended as here it falleth out it is no lesse then most impious corrupting and corrading of other mens writinges And therfore I say M. Whyte is nothing aduantaged hereby but doth for the tyme plaster one euill with an other euill but no meruell for it is a high mistery amongst heritikes to support deceipt with deceipt till at the length all do tumble downe with it owne weight and so erit nouissimus error petor priori Mat. 7. Thr 3 Paragraph S. Augustine corrupted concerning the same subiect of the Churches inuisibility In lyke sort pag. 103. he alledgeth S. Augustine de bap con Don. li. 6. ca. 4. thus to say The Church may be so obscured that the members thereof shall not know one an other S. Augustines wordes are these none other Idem spiritus Sanctus ea dimitit qui datus est omnibus sanctis sibi Charitate cohaerentibus siue se nouerint corporaliter siue non nouerint The same holy Ghost which it geuen to all the Sainctes or holy men agreing together in Charity whether they know one an other or not remitteth the sinnes But what is this to the inuisibility of the Church or by what Sintax or Grammar can M. W. translate thus the former latin lynes Finally by what sublimation or art can he extract such a refyned sence from the bare minerals of the former wordes Neither can he slubber the mater ouer in saying that he here gathereth onely some necessary Illation prouing the Churches latency for the sentence alledged by him is set downe in a different letter of caracter froÌ„ his owne and he there perticularly geueth them as the very wordes Now S. Augustine in that place doth not so much as glance at the Churches visibility or inuisibility but there showing how sinnes are remitted as effectually by the bad preistes as the vertuous proueth it by Anology of reason to wit that the power of the holy Ghost may aswell be geuen to a wicked Preist as to a good and vertuous as it is geuen alyke to all the godly though they know not one an other But M. Whyte fynding that parcell of the seÌ„tence sine nouerint se corporaliter siue non nouerint to be ment of the faithfull and vertuous thought presently that he lighted vpon a bootie and so hoping thereby to entrappe the incautelous reader was the more easely induced to create the world of this his deprauation out of a mere nothing of a sound of wordes And thus farre of his corruptions touching the Churches inuisibility from the mantayning whereof we Catholickes do so far disclame as that euen in the most tempesteous and raging tymes of persecution that either haue or shall happen we acknowledg innumerable members thereof to be euer visible and in faith permanent and vnmoueable for we reade that the beames of the house of Christ his Spouse are Cedars the rafiens are of firre Can. â— The 4. Paragraph Doctor Stapleton abused in behalfe of the Protestantes markes of the Church The next corruption which I here will shew shall be concerning the markes of the Church whearâ— he to proue that we absolutely embrace the markes thereof deliuered by the Protestantes to wit the proaching of the word as acknowledging it to be a more infallible marke to euery Christian then our Catholicke markes are Antiquity Succession Vniuersality c. all which notes he after endeuoreth to confute To this end I say pag. 105. he produceth Doctor Stapleton thus wryting princip doctrinal li 1. ca. 22. The preaching of the Gospell is the proper and a very cleare note of the Catholick Church so it be done by lawfull Ministers Mark heare how he declareth this authors meaning by concealing the wordes in him that there are immediatly subioyned for thus that Catholick Doctor Praedicationem Euangelii We graunt that the preaching of the Gospell by lawfull Ministers is a very cleare and proper note of the Catholick Church Hâ—c est enim ordinaria c for by this is that ordinary and perpetuall Succession of Bishops Preistes and Pastors dâ—ryued in a continued order euen from the Apostles them selues to vs. From which latter part of the sentence purposly omitted by M. W. it is euident that D. Stapleton doth allow the preaching of the Gospell by lawfull pastors so far forth onely to be a note of the Church as it is included in the Catholick note of Succession and in no other sence which point is made more cleare besides his mayne drift in that Chapter diuers others of
in those wordes sed quod mediaté eam tollat which you translate not in that naturall sense which the wordes import but onely thus but that Christes satisfaction remoueth the punishment so by your feeble translation making vs in an ignorant eare to ascribe lesse to Christes satisfaction then we doe Thirdly in that last parcell of the sentence sine qua nihil valeret nostra satisfactio Without which grace of Christ our satisf were of noe force Which wordes as soundinge fully in our acknowledgment of the valew of Christes passion you also haue fully translated in a more remisse phraze and tenour of speach to wit from which grace our satisfaction is made of power Thus well knowinge that according to the rules of Rhetorick different phrases bearing one and the same sence doe make a different and so more or lesse impression in the hearers eares But you doe well and in one sense we will not much complaine of you since this persideous deportment in your wrytinges as necessarily discoueringe that you are conscious and guilty of your owne bad cause doth much aduantage your aduersaries The 5. Paragraph S. Thomas corrupted concerning the remission of veniall sinnes Touching veniall sinnes pag. 246. and how they are remitted our minister extremely corrupteth a saying in S. Thomas par 3. q. 87 ar 3. making him thus without any further illustration of the poynte to speake Veniall sinnes may be forgeuen by knocking of the breast going into the Church receauing of holy water or the Bishopes blessing or crossing our self or by any such work of Charity though we do not think actually of them Tell me M. Wh. when must we expect at your handes one pertinent allegation without any deprauation or imposture I do think euen then and not before when as the poet wrytes Terra feret stellas calum scindetur araâ—ro Ouid. l. Vnda dabit slammas dabit ignis aquas 1 de tre For according to your accustomed vaine you haue most fowly wronged S. Thomas and so your self here by wilfully satisfying the doctrine of veniall sinnes haith committed a mortall sinne For he in the place alledged showing how veniall sinnes are remitted either by an act of detestation of sinne or an act of reuerence towardes god thus concludeth Manifestum est generali confessione c. It is manifest that veniall sinnes are remitted by a generall confession knocking of the breast saying of our Lordes prayer quatenus cum detestatione peccati siunt as these actions are done with a detestation of sinne as also by the Bishopes blessing by sprincling of holy water and other such actions quatentâ—s cum dei reuerentia exercentur as they are performed with a reuerence towards god Here you see first how you haue most fraudulently discarded these two parcels of the sentence to wit quateÌ„us cuÌ„ detestatione 〈◊〉 fius quatenus cum dei reuerentia exercentur as they are done with a detestatioÌ„ of sinne as they are performed with reuerence to god which parcels do enleuen and season the whole For we do not hould that these actions except they be accompanyed either with a detestation of sinne or reuerence towardes god do remitt veniall sinnes But your intended calumny and deceipt here was to make your credulous reader thinke that the superstitious papists as you tearme them in your rayling and calumnious language do beleue that these externall actions of them selues alone are as it were certaine spells or charmes to extinguish and dryue away all veniall sinnes whatsoeuer Secondly touching the last part of the senteÌ„ce as it is set downe by you vz or by any worke of Charity though we doe not think actually of them is not in this third article but afore in the first article of 87. question and is onely an obiection of S. Thomas vrged for forme sake according to his Methode and then afterwardes answeared by him self Chapiter 8. Concerning the author of sinne reprobation The 1 Paragraph Bellarmine egregiously falsifyed in proofe that god is the Author of sinne TO the iustifying that Catholicks are as far ingaged in defendinge that blasphemous and horrible doctrine that god is the Author of sinne as the protestantes are pag. 271. he alledgeth Bellarmine de amis gra l. 2. ca. 13. thus wryting God by a figure commendeth sinne and excyteth men vnto it as a huntsman setteth a dog vpon a hare by letting goe the slippe that held the dog God therefore doth not onely permit the wicked to do many euils neither doth he onely forsake the godly that they may be constrayned to suffer the thinges done against them by the wicked but he also ouerseeth their euill willes and ruleth gouerneth them boweth bendeth them by working inuisibly in them And not onely inclyneth euill willes to one euill rather then to an other by permitting them to be caried into one euill not permitting them to be caried into an other but also positiuely he bendeth them by inclyning to one euill turning them from an other occasionally morally c. Thus our minister alledgeth Bellarmine and then triumphantly thus concludeth Let our aduersaries looke well into these speaches they shall fynde that we say in effect nomore Your aduersaries M. Whyte haue loked well into these speaches and they do fynde and say in effect that you are a most faith-lesse dishonest and corrupt wryter and indeede one of those whom the spanish phraze calls vnhombre de salmadâ— a fellow without a soule for if you either feared god had a true coÌ„ceate of any Religion or thought that the soule were immortall to answear for what it performes in this lyfe you would neuer depraue this Author as you do making the Catholickes to be patrones of that blasphemy which in their soules they damne to the pit of hell Wherefore good Reader I am to intreate thy patience if I insist somwhat longe in the full discouering of this corruption Well then Bellarmine in the Chapiter alledged sheweth how that God may be said seuerall wayes to inclyne a man to euill And there upon saith Primus modus esset si Dens per se proprié c. The first way should be if god by him self and properly either physicé phisically and naturally by mouing the will immediatly or moraliter to wit by truly and properly commaunding the will should impell it to euill but this kind is manifestly false impious and blasphemous against God Therefore this kind as wicked being omitted a second way as that we may vnderstand god to be said in the Scriptures to excyte and prouoke some vnto euill or to commaunde that they work wickedly and to vse them as instrumentes because he permitteth them to do euill although euery one that permitteth any thing can not be rightly said to commaund it that it may be done neither to excite or prouoke an other thereto Notwithstanding god without whose permission nothing can be done when as he suffereth any thing to be done
teacheth that the text is eâ—ident enough to conuâ—nce any man that is not froward or obstinate and Scotus as we fynde here grauntes that transubstantiation is manifestly proued from the Scripture being so already expounded by a generall Councell wherefore our ministers sleight resteth in nakedly settinge downe the former parcell of Bellarmine and in concealing the wordes afore sine declaratione Ecclesia againe hominem non proteruum to both which the sentence alledged haith a necessary reference So as if M. Whyte would haue deliuered Bellarmines true meaninge here he must haue deliuered it in this sort It may be iustly doubted whether the Text without the declaration of the Church be cleare enough to conuince an obstinate man in the poynt of transubstantiation seing men sharp learned such at Scotus c. But this deportment had bene ouer candid sincere and in no manner sortinge to the calumnious proiect of our deprauing minister who by his perfidious dealinge throughout his whole booke semeth to haue made ship-wrack of all morall honesty reputation religion and shame periere mores ius decus pietas fides quiredire nescit cum perit pudor Seneca in Agam. The 2. Paragraph The Maister of sentences corrupted against confession to a Preist In this next place we will descend to the Sacrament of Penance prophaned by this our Doctors deprauations and first to beare the reader in hand that by the acknowledgment of Catholickes auricular Confession and other partes of this Sacrament are not necessary he pag. 254. produceth the M. of Sentences li 4. d. 17. saying By contrition onely without Confession or payment of outward punishment or liberality of the prelate or paynes in purgatory I may goe straight to heauen The wordes of this Author are these Sanè dici potest quod sine confessione oris solutione paenae exterioris peccata delentur per contritionem humilitatem Verily it may be said that sinnes are remitted by contrition humility without confession of the mouth or payment of exteriour punishment Where we fynde first these wordes or liberality of the prelate or paynes in purgatory to be added by M. Whyte though set downe in a peculiar character letter of the Author but this our minister did to make the confession of this Author more full swellinge neuerthelesse to passe ouer this I affirme that the sentence is fraudulently alledged to take away auriculer confession And therefore the reader ought to conceaue that though all Catholickes teach that perfect contrition is of force to blot owt a mans sinnesâ— yet they houlde that this contrition can not be without confession at least in voto as the schoole-men speake that is that the party haith a desire to coufesse his sinnes to a preist when opportunity shall serue And that this is the very meaning of the Maister of the sentences in this place appeareth first out of his owne wordes euen in the said paragraph or distinctioÌ„ where he saith Non est veré peâ—â—tens qui confessionis vâ—tums non habes he is not truly penitent who haith not a desire to confesse his sinnes Which poynt is also further made cleare by the tytle of the next paragraph sauinge one of this Author which is this quod non sufficit soli Deo coufiteri si tempuâ— adâ—it si tamen homini possit That it is not sufficient onely to confesse our sinne to God if so we haue tyme or opportunity to confesse to man Thus it appeareth what reason our Doctor had to alledg the Authority of the Maister of the sentences for the absolute abolishing of the Sacrament of Confession whereas he meaneth that onely in tyme of necessity and when opportunity is not to confesse them to man then with a true contrition the sinnes may be remitted without Confession Such you see is the proceding of our minister throughout his booke euer inuesting his doctrine and assertions with most foule and stained deprauations wel discouering the spotted guiltines of his owne soule where fore for the tyme hereafter I could wish M. Whyte that so his mynde might be appareled answearably to his name to follow the admonition of the Euangelist Get thee a whyte garment to wit of repentance and future integrity that thou maist be clothed and that thy thy filthy nakednes doe not further appâ—â—â—â— Apoâ— 3. The 3 Paragraph Bellarmine corrupted against Satisfaction Lastly touching the Sacrament of Penance whereof Satisfaction is on part to make the Catholick doctrine thereof become â—ame â—ngracefull he pag. 249. produceth Bellarmine li. 1. depur ca. 14. thus writing Christer satisfaction it self taketh not away the punishment due 〈◊〉 vs but it removeth it so farr forth as we haue grace from thence to make our owne satisfaction of power For the better apprehending of Bellarmines due meaning in this places the Reader is to conceaue that the Cardinall here handleth a schoole poynte which being no meter of Faith but a poynt of â—adiâ—ferency is seuerally defen led by Catholick wryters The poynt is this thâ— seing all the force of our satisfaction is originally â—i yâ—â—d and recoaâ—teth it fore as all Catholickes do ground from the passion and satisfaction of Christ whether therefore this satisfaction of Christes and ours may be tearmed but one satisfaction or two satisfactions Bellarmine houldeth that it is but one satisfaction and that farmaliter ours and thereupoÌ„ wryteth â—â—the alledged place Vna tantum est â—â—tual is satisfactio c. There is here but one actuall satisfaction and the same ours neither by this it excluded Christe or his satisfaction for by his satisfaction we haue grace from whence we doe sâ—tisfy in this sense the satisfaction 〈◊〉 Christ is 〈◊〉 be appledrâ— vs non quod 〈…〉 ipsa ti is satisfactio tollan penam temp malem nobis 〈◊〉 sed quod mediat eam tollat quate ius videlice◠〈◊〉 gâ—atiamâ— themes sine qua nihil valeret nostrae satisfactio Not thâ—â— his satisfaction immedeatly taketh away the punishment due vnto vs but that it taketh it away mediatly in so much as from his satisfaction we receaue Grace without the which our satisfaction would be of noe force Here all men may see that Bellarmine doth in noe sort detract from the passion or satisfaction of Christ for he saith that Christes satisfaction is not excluded by our satisfaction that by his satisfaction we haue grace to satisfy that our satisfaction applyeth Christes satisfaction to vs Finally that without Christes satisfaction ours can be of no force But before I ende I will be the Readers remembrancer of two or three sleightes vsed by you M. Whyte in this one testimony First in these wordes Not that Christes satisfaction immediatly taketh away the punishment due vnto vs you conceale in your translation the word immediatly and so makes vs to say that Christes satisfaction doth not at all take away the punishment due vnto vs which to affirme is no lesse then a monstrous blasphemy Secondly
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