of Rome produceth pag. 188 S. Ciprian in these wordes Nay Ciprian saith The vnity of Bishopes is broken when euen runne from theire owne to the Bishope of Rome which wordes if they had bene true being much materiall caused me diligently to peruse the Epistle quoted but indede agreable to my expectation I found none such and therefore truly deemed them to be framed in the fournace of M. Whytes forgeries And though in the Epistle cyted S. Ciprian reprehēdeth certaine heritikes who being iudicially cōuicted in Africk sayled to Rome with the marchandise of their lyes ◠endeuoring by their subtill and cunning rashnes to break the concord of Bishopes yet was he so farr from disprouing of any lawfull Appeale to Rome as that in the same place he auoucheth Rome to be the Chaire of Peter and principall Church from whence preistly vnity aryseth yea he scorned the said heritykes as not knowing◠the Romanes to be those vnto whom vntruth could haue no accesse and withall further affirming that the truth should sayle after them to Rome which with proofe of the thing certaine should cōuince their lying tongues All which doth plainely make knowen S. Ciprianes true conceipt of Romes superiority and indeede doth strongly confirme our Catholick doctrine concerning Appeales For if those heritykes censured by the Bishopes of Africk to auoyde their present punishment appealed to Rome no doubt this argueth that Appeales to Rome were in vse as then and though the Appellantes were heritykes yet in that otherwise their Appeale had bene plainely vaine foolish and fruitlesse it manifestly supposeth the foresaid Authority of admitting Appeales to reside in the Bishope of Rome Further though S. Ciprian reprehended them being lawfully conuicted for their further Appealing and not submitting them selues to their immediate Pastors yet doth he no-where so much as insinuate vpon iust occasions the vnlawfulnes of Appeales but euen in this very place doth imply the contrary by his sending after the foresaid heritikes to the Romane Church to enforme her of the truth which if it had not bene in regard of her foresaid Superiority or Primacy had bene altogether neede-les peraduenture inconuenient And whereas M. Whyte a litle before cyteth these wordes of S. Ciprian vnlesse peraduenture a few desperate and gracelesse persons think the Authority of the Bishopes in Africk that iudged them to be lesse it is plaine by the text that he maketh not this comparison with the Bishop of Rome but with those hereticall Bishopes which were censured and condemned by the Bishopes of Africk To conclude when M. Whyte sheweth me in the Epistle cyted of S. Ciprian these wordes obiected the vnity of Bishopes is broken when men runne from their owne to the Bishope of Rome I will publikely declaime him the cuningest Optician or rather Magician that the whole ministery of England affordeth The 10 Paragraph The Rhemists abused concerning the Authority of the Church Againe pag. 119. our fraudulent Doctor laboureth much to induce his credulous Readers to beleue that we hold that the Church can at her pleasure make that Scripture which is not and vnmake that which once is scripture thereupon saying that the papists haue a principle among them that the Scripres receiue all their authority from the Church he seketh to proue it in the next lynes from a testimony of the Rhemistes gal 6. thus alledging them The Scriptures are not knowne to be true neither are Christians bound to receaue them without the attestation of the Church Here againe he curtayleth their sentence concealing such their wordes as do lymite the Churches authority therein and wherein they do acknowledg an infallible truth of the Scriptures before any approbation of the Church therefore you shall haue their wordes alledged at large The Scriptures say they which are indeede of the Holy Ghosts indyting being put into the Churches tryall are found proued and testifyed vnto the world to be such and not made true altered or amended by the same without which attestation of the Church the holy Scriptures in them selues were alwayes true before but not so knowne to be to all Christians nor they so bound to take them Here the Rhemistes onely say that the truth of the Scriptures can not be made knowne to vs without the attestation of the Church And that this is all which M. Whyte can collect from this testimony which we willingly graunt Yet where the Rhemistes in this very place do vse wordes of reuerence to the Scriptures embrace their infallibility as these The Scriptures are not made true altered or amended by the Church And againe without the attestation of the Church the holy Scriptures in themselues were alwayes true As also wheare it is set downe by them in the mergent euen in that place The Church maketh not canonicall Scripture but declareth that it is so These I say though parcels of the former sentence or merginall explications thereof the D. haith after his accustomed maner most calumniously ouerskipped Thus it will still be found that the sphere of this his learned Treatise what glorious motion soeuer it semeth hitherto to haue in the sight of his ignorant fauorites turneth vpon the poles of shame full corruptions lying deceiptes The 11. Paragraph Cardinall Cusanus corrupted concerning the same subiect Againe continuing his former proiect pag. 51. he bringeth in the Cardinall Cusanus saying Epist. 3. pa. 3. When the Church changeth her Iudgment God also changeth his This he vrgeth to make vs mantayne that God doth so subiect his iudgment to the church that supposing for it is a mere supposall the church should alter or change any essentiall or fundamentall poynte of faith whatsoeuer by interpreting the Scripture otherwyse then before it did for M. Whyte setteth this sentence downe without any restraint so conformably thereto styleth the page The sence of Scripture changed with the tyme that then god also doth chāg his mynde therein so warrantiug the truth of this new stamped article But let vs see how the wordes do lye in Cusanus thus they are Sicut quondam coniugium praeferebatur Castitati c. As in former tymes meaninge in the firster ages of the world matrimony was preferred by the Church before Chastity so was it preferred euen by God But after the Iudgment of the Church being changed therein meaning after the world was fully peopled gods Iudgment it changed also If therefore the Church doth Iudg any act to be of great merite in reguard of the present circumstances and in an other tyme after shall Iudg an other act to be of greater valew c. it is euident that the greatnes of the merite doth much depende vpon the Iudgment of the Church Thus what is here spoken onely of the diuersity of merit of one and the same action according to the different circumstances of tyme or place M. Whyte will needes extend besides the intention of the Author to the chang of any dogmaticall point how great soeuer of
and doctrine do euen breath onely pryde contumacy sensuality Sardanapalisme and luxury Here now M. Whyte I haue thought good in the enumeration of your lyes to end with Luther as originally from him you first did suck your lyinge doctrine Onely I will conclude with this that since you are entred with our vulgar multitude who cheifly rest vpon the outward graine and appearance of thinges into the number and catologue of our new Euangelicall Prophets I would wish such your folowers to entertaine an impartiall vew and consideration of this and other your forgeries and sleightes which if they do doubtlesse they shall in the ende fynde and acknowledg that you are guided therein euen by that ghostly enemy of mannes soule who once said Egrediar ero spiritus mendaex in ore omnium Prophetarum eiuâ— I will go forth and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his Prophets WHYTE DYED BLACK THE THIRD PART Contayning diuers impertinences or absurd Illations or reasoninges drawne from Maister Whyte his alledged Authorities The 1. Paragraph Werein are discouered strange Illations or arguinges in proofe that the Scriptures are the sole rule of Faith against Traditions HAuing in the two precedent partes set downe many corruptions and lyes practised by M. Whyte it now followeth according to my former intended Methode that I also display diuers of his impertinent and absurde inferences and argumentes for these three pointes to wit corrupting lying idly or absurdly disputing are the three seuerall threedes whereof the whole worke of his Treatise is wouen In all which though different in them selues he still retayneth one and the same intention of deceipt like the loade-stone which though often changeth his place yet neuer changeth it center Now touchinge those his impertinences and loose illations the Reader is to conceaue that they consist in his alledging of such testimonies both of Scriptures Fathers and Catholick writers as being truly set downe do not neuerthâ—lâ—sse impugne that point of our Catholick doctrine against which they were by him so vrged Which course of writing whether it may be ascrybed to our Doctors ignorance want of learning or rather which is more probable to his malice against the Catholick Faith and desire to deceaue the simple and vnlearned or lastly to the beggery of his cause being deuoide of better arguments I leaue to him self to decide But howsoeuer it is here I am to aduertise the Reader that in perusing of such authorities produced by M. Whyte he would euer recurr to the true state of the question and particulerly that he would apply the said sentences to that verie point or touch wherein the life of the question consisteth and then he shall find how rouingly wandringly they are directed still glauncing by vpon some ignorant or wilfull mistaking or other neuer reaching the mark intended And so he may apply the wordes of Tertulian though in a different sense to the loose writinges of M. Whyte and such others Quemcunque conceperint ventum argumentationis scorpii isti quocunque se acumine impegerint vna tam linea ista to wit the lyne drawne from our vnderstanding to the mayne point in controuersy And here M. Whyte can not say in excuse of him self that such testimonies of this nature are produced by him onely to proue so much and no more as the wordes in their litterall and acknowledged sense do immediatly import Which euasion is insufficient for two respects First because the proofâ— of that which litterally plainely they signify is not in controuersy betwene the protestantes and vs and therefore the iustifiing of so much being not denied by any learned Catholick is needelesly vndertaken Secondly in that M. Whyte doth most labouriously painefully and purposly alledg the said testimonies to conuince and impugne some one Catholick poynt or other taught by vs and denyed by the protestantes and this his drift and scope is manifested either by his answearable entituling of the leaues wherein such authorities are found or els by his owne wordes precedent or subsequent to the said sentences But to detayne the Reader no longer from these his allegations The first point of this kynde which presenteth it self is as touching the Rule of Faith reiecting of all Apostolicall Traditions For pag. 13. we thus read digres 3. Wherein by the Scriptures Fathers Reasons and papistes owne confessions it is shewed that the Scripture is the rule of Faith As likewise he entituleth that leafe and some others following in this manner The Scripture onely is tho iudg rule of Faith And so answearably hereto pag. 17. beating the former tytle he thus saith Shall the Libertynes be recalled from their blind reuelations to their writen text and shall not the papistes be reuoked from their vncertaine Traditions to the same rule But that we may the better behould how valiantly our minister impugneth all Traditions by erectinge the Scripture as sole rule of Faith we are here to call vnto mind what the Catholick Church teacheth in this poynt It then teacheth that the word of God is to limit and confine our Faith and that nothing is to be accompted as matter of faith which receaueth not it proofe from thence Hereupon it teacheth further that this word is either writen which is commonly called the Scripture or els deliuered by Christ his Church and this comprehendeth Traditions Both these we beleue to be of infallible authority since the true and inward reason why the word of God is the word of God is not because it is writen rather then deliuered by speach for this is merely extrinsicall to the point but because the said word proceded from them who were infallibly and immediatly directed therein by the assistance of the holy Ghost This supposed let vs see how M. Whyte proueth that the writen word is onely the rule of Faith and consequeÌ„tly that there are no Traditions of the Church which may also in part be a rule thereof First then our Doctor vrgeth to this end seuerall places of Scripture as among others that of Salomon The scripture will make a man vnderstand righteousnes and iudgment and equity euery good path Againe that of Esay We must repaire to the Law to the testimony if any speake not according to that word there is no light in him Also out of Malachy Remember the Law of Moyses my seruant which I commaunded him in Horeb for all Israell with the statutes Iudgmentes In lyke sort he alledgeth that Abraham answearing the rich glutton said that his brethren had Moyses and the Prophets Now that the Reader may see how well these texts are to the point controuerted I will set some of them downe in forme of Argument and so apply them to M. Whytes purpose As first thus Salomon said of the Scriptures of the old Testament The Scripture will make a man vnderstand righteousnes and Iudgment and equity and euery good path Ergo now
Tenure by the which we make claime to our eternall and celestiall enheritance In like sort they willingly confesse that Scripture is Scripture and the word of God before it receaue any approbation from the Church as also that this or that is the true sense of any particuler text of the Scripture before the Church do confirme the same Notwithstanding seing the true sense of the Scripture is as it were the very Soule which informeth the body of the letter and that the Scripture is to be vnderstoode by the Reader with that spirit with the which it was written to wit with the spirit of the holy Ghost Therefore we do hold that so far as concerneth our taking of notice that this or that is the Scripture of Gods word or that this is the true sense of such a passage thereof intended by the holy Ghost we are to recurre to the authority of the Church which we beleue to be directed and guided therein by the same holy Ghost according as the Scripture it self in seuerall places assureth vs. But now let vs come to the proues and testimonies produced by M. Whyte to conuince that the Scripture so far forth as we are to take acknowledgment thereof for this onely is here the point of the doubt as I shewed aboue needeth not for warranting to vs that it is the word of God or for explicating the true sense thereof and Authority or approbation of the Church And first he bringeth to this end diuers texts of Scripture contayning the worth and dignity of it self as when it is tearmed an Immor all seede The demonstration of the Spiâ—it power that it is Liuely powerfull that it maketh our bearâ—â—â— to burne within vs. that It geueth a greater testimony to Christ then Iohn Baptist could geue that A voice from heauen is not so sure as it that It is the spirit which beareth witnes to the truth thereof that If we receaue the witnes of men the witnes of God is greater Lastly he alledgeth those wordes of Christ. They which will not beleue Moyses wrytinges will not beleue him Now let vs see how towardly our Minister can conclude from these textes against our former doctrine The scripture is an immortall seede and it is liuely and powerfull Therefore it ought to receaue no authority touching the manifesting of it true sense to vs from Gods Church which is guided with the holy Ghost Againe It is the demonstration of the Spirit and power and it maketh our harts to burne within vs Therefore it ought to receaue no authority c. If we receaue the witnes of men the witnes of god is greater and he that beleueth not Moyses writings will not beleue Christ Therefore the Scripture ought to receaue no authority c What inferences are these Or who would think that a learned minister of gods word the via lactea a Doctor made onely for desert before his due ordinary tyme Finally that M. Whyte since this very name is supposed to comprehend woorth enough should thus exorbitantly and extrauagantly inferre and conclude contrary to all precepts of art Logicall rules But to passe on the more in his iudgment to depresse the Authority of the Church he bringeth in D. Stapleton though most impertinently alledged saying The Authority of the Church is but a thing created distinct from the first verity which position we willingly admitt who acknowledg the Church to be a thing different from god who is the first truth though guided by his Spirit Againe he produceth to the like effect S. Ambrose who thus writeth Let God him self teach me themâ— steries of heauen not man who knoweth not him self Whom may I beleue in the thinges of god better then god him self which sentence also we embrace yet do affirme that god teacheth vs more securely by the authority of the Church directed by his assistance and consequently not by the authority of man then by the mediation of each mannes priuate and vncertaine spirit Also Salutanus is brought by him saying All that men say needes reasons and witnesses but Gods word is witnes to it self bicause it followeth necessarily that whatsoeuer the incorrupt truth speaketh must needes be an incorrupt witnes of it self As if what the Church assisted by the holy Ghost said were the saying onely of man or as if the question were here whether Gods word be Gods word before it be defined by the Church which no man denyeth and not whether the members of the Church which indeede is the point here issuable is to accept of Gods word as his word by the Authority of his said Church In like sort pag. 53. to the former scope he produceth S. Augustine thus writing to the Manaches You see this is your endevourâ— to take away from vs the Authorityes of the Scriptures and that euery ones mind might be his Author what to allow and what to disalow in euery text and so he is not for his faith made subiect to the Scripture but maketh the Scripture subiect to him self c. Which wordes how they can touch the Catholickes I see not seing they seeke not to take away the Authority of the Scriptures which they willingly reuerence neither teach they that euery ones mind ought to be an authour what to allow or what to disalow in the exposition of any text for they rely herein vpon the iudgment of Gods vniuersall Church the former being indeede rather peculiar to the sectaries of this age in reguard of their priuate interpreting spirit And presently after he also cyteth S. Augustine againe in the former booke Why dost thou not rather submits thy self to Euangelicall Authority so steedfast so stable so renowned and by certaine succession commended from the Apostles to our tymes that thou maist beleue that thou maist behould that thou maist learne all those thinges which hinder thee from doing it through thine owne vaine peruerse opinion How can these wordes be tentred shamed to vs Catholickes Or how can it be tearmed a mannes owne vaine and peruerse opinion by receauing Euangelicall Authority as it is manifested to vs not by our owne imaginations but by the censure of the Church of God which is styled by the Apostle Columna firmamentum veritatis Thus we see how wandringly M. Whyte discourseth matching and coopling together through his malice and ignorance in arguing adulterate aud bastard conclusions with legitimate premisses And after the like manner euen in the first leafe here alledged though somwhat before these last testimonies he vrgeth certaine textes of Scripture intended of Christ as The Scriptures are written that we may beleue in him Againe He that beleueth in him haith a witnes in him selfe Thirdly We are all built vpon the foundation of the Apostles Prophets Christ him self being the head corner stone in whom all the building is coopled together by the spirit Now to
Councell consisting of many scores of Fathers so happy a progresse M. Whyte haith made in his profession of corrupting Now for the conueyance though it be not to be paralleled with diuers of the former extensiué as the schoole-men speake in multitude and stoare of wordes corrupted it lying onely in slye transposition of one or two wordes yet intensiué for the art thereof it may be equalled with any This then it is Our minister there pag 344. to ouerthrow the religious vse of Images produceth the 36. Canon of the Councell of Eliberis to wit No picture is to be made in the Church lest that be adored which is paynted on wales The wordes of the Canon are these Placuit picturas in Ecclesia non debere ne quod colitur adoratur in partetibus depingatur It pleased the Councell that pictures should not be in the Church leste that which is worshipped and adored be painted on the wales Be obseruant here Reader and marke the difference which is made of the same wordes by a witty interchange of their place in their translation thou shalt see that my delicate minister here euen transcends him self The Councell saith Images are not to be in the Church lest that be painted on the wales which is worshipped M. Whyte translateth lest that be worshipped which is painted on the wales Thus the difference breefely resteth in this lest that which is worshiped be painted And lest that which is painted be worshipped A small difference in shew of wordes but great in sence For the wordes of the Councell acknowledging the worship of Images maketh the worship due to them to be the cause why they are not to be painted on wales But M. Whyte saith that they are not to be painted on wales because they are not to be worshiped and so maketh the Councell to speake lyke good protestantes Now the reason why the Councell would not haue the wales of Churches to be painted with Images was in reguard of the due respect they bare to them not as M. Whyte falsly suggesteth For being so painted they were subiect to be defaced either by the inuasioÌ„ of the enemies in those tymes or els by the rayne and bad wether whereas Images drawne in Tables of which the former Councell maketh no restraint in that they are portable and remoueable do not lye open to the same daunger Therefore the intention of the CouÌ„cell herein was the same with the intention of that decree by the which it was ordained that in reuerence to the Crucifix no Crosse should be made vpon the plaine ground because it being so made must needes be often irreuerently be tramped with the feete of meÌ„ Thus is M. Whyte in seking to disproue the lawfull vse of an Image become him self a perfect Image of deceate fraude and collusion But here now I make an ende of his corruptions deprauations hasting my self to the second Part of his scene which is his lyes and falshoods Onely I must say that in reguard of the impurity and conse onlesse deportment of him in his whole Treatise I can not but commiserate all such poore credulous soules as do highly Preiudge of his booke as beiug writen in all sincerity and plainesse and free from the least touch or aspersion of any wilfull deprauation And therefore I hould it most strange that M. Purchase a scholer and ingenious though extremely maliuolent should in his owne booke pag. 100. entytle M. Whyte Via Lactea alludinge perhaps both to his name and his supposed candor in wrytinge But since his mistakinge is not iustifiable I will allow to M. Whyte the same tytle though through a differeut reason For as the Via Lactea appeareth to a vulgar sight to be a part of heauen and yet indeede is not being if we follow the iudgment of the auncient Philosophers far lower then the heauens as it is necessarily euicted from the different parallayes and variations thereof taken from seuerall places So is M. Whyte reputed in the comon eye and censure of vnlearned protestantes as a man which in all truth haith much laboured in that heauenly course of dilating the Gospell and faith of Christ whereas we fynd that the contrary is most true as haith fully appeared from his seuerall exorbitant deprauations of so many Catholick Authors and others Wherefore to be short I greatly feare that except hereafter there follow a feeling remorse of this foule and vnchristianlike dealing the wordes of S. Iohn the Euangelist may be more truly applyed to our Sir Iohn the minister Nomen habes quo viuis mortuus es Apoc. 3. The ende of the first part WHYTE DYED BLACK THE SECOND PART Contayning sundry notorious vntruthes or Lyes proued to be such euen by the confession of the most learned Protestantes And first is preuented a weake euation which may be vsed by M. Whyte against this second parte FROM Corruptions good Reader we are next to descend to vntruthes for lying indeede is the second piller which supporteth the whole weight frame of M. Whytes worke This passage I here make distinct from the former For although all the precedent deprauations of the first part do potentially include vutruthes and falshoodes yet our Doctors proteruity therein doth cheifly rest either in corrupting other mens wordes or in alledging them directly against the knowne intention of the Authors whereas here the reduplicatiue formality as I may terme it of his hereticall deportment consisteth in plaine lying to wit in setting downe and instifying certaine most false assertions and positions a course little sorting to one who styleth him self a minister of gods word in that his sacred word is altogether incompatible with falshood The floate of these his vntruthes is so greate as that our Doctor assordeth vnto vs many scoares of this nature yet because he would make shew to mantaine diuers of them vnder some prâ—text either of much reading or in wrasting the sence of such produced authorities if I should fortify the contrary truth from their particuler testimonies of Scripture Fathers Histories c. being a kynd of proofe in reguard of the often suggested doubtfulnes of the true sense directed by many wheeles of inferences and deductions Therefore to the end that I may euâ—n chokingly and irreplyably conuince him of such notorious miscariage I haue thought good to supererogate with him in disprouing his said falshoodes I meane in restrayning my self precysely to such his lyes as the contrary thereto is acknowledged for true euen by his own brethren and these not mâ—n obscure or vulgar but the most eminent and learned protestantes of Christendome and such as haue euer bene accompted starres of the greatest magnitude in their euangelicall Spheare Neither will I alledge so many of them as I could but for the greater expedition I will content my self for the most part with the testimonies of two or three of our learnedst aduersaries Now here I would haue the iudiceous reader to obserue
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
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
24. for proh dolor read proh pudor Ibid. lin 27. for clausure read closure Pag. 118. lin 33. for entertaine read enteruaine Pag. 125. lin 12. for concurre read recurre For ingenious read in sundry places ingenuous WHITE DYED BLACK THE FIRST PARTE WHEAREIN are discouered Fourty most foule vniustifiable corruptions and deprauations of Authors vsed by Doctor Whyte in his Treatise of the way to the true Church Chapter 1. Conteyning Corruptions concerning workes Iustification Paragr I. Premonitions geuen to M. W. if he intende to reply vpon this present Treatise WE reade Exod. 13 that the first borne of the people of Israell was euer consecrated vnto god in regard of a gratefull acknowledgment of his innumerable benefites shewed vnto them and by reason of such his tytle thereto god who had a supreme interest in all theire issue peculierly pronounced This is myne I feare that M. Whyte who vaunteth him selfe for a true Israelite haith not sanctified vnto his diuyne Maiesty this his child the first borne of the wombe of his braine for bookes are faetus ingenii carying in them selues an inward resemblance to theire parentes and withall as perpetuating their remembrance doe extende their lynes beyond their liues Nay I am rather perswaded that he haith particulerly deuoted it to Gods and mans ghostly enemy For to whom rather are lyes and impostures the very burden of his Treatise to be ascribed then to him who is the father of lyes And sure I am that God who is the truth it selfe can not be found herein since no man vseth to gather grapes of thornes or figgs of thistles Mat. 7. And M. Whyte him selfe confesseth that we can not learne truth in the schoole of lyes Now to discouer that this worke of his is euen loaded with many most foule vntruthes corruptions and deceiptes is my taske voluntarily imposed by my selfe and I hope with thy good patience gentle reader to performe the same And first according to my former prescribed Methode his perfidious corruptions of fathers Catholique Authoures thereby to force them to speake in a language and dialect of which they were merely ignorant shall begin the Scene But because as M. Whyte is pregnant in deprauing of mens writinges so also he will no doubt shew him selfe ingenious in fynding some sleighty euasions and answeares vnder the tecture whereof to shrewde him selfe Therefore I thinke good now in the front and beginning of this my labour to set downe by way of preuention all what may be imagined that he can pretende for his defence and Apology and to discouer the weaknes thereof that so his impostures may be obserued and perused with greater benefite to the reader and more shamefull guiltinesse to him selfe First then M. Whyte can not transferr the fault vpon the printer for heare he standes for the most part chargeable either with adding too or detracting frō the authority alledged so abastarding it by this meane that the true father thereof would not acknowledg it for his owne whereas the printers errour comonly resteth in quotations made by figures or by mistaking of some letter in placing one woord for another ouer-sightes heare forborne and indeede vnworthy to be insisted vpon by any iuditious penne Secondly he can not say that his intention in alledging such authorities was onely to alledg the sense of the Authour not tying him selfe to the authoures perticuler wordes Of this euasion he preuenteth him selfe in that he euer vndertaketh to alledg the perticuler sayings of the Authour and for that reason doth distinguish them in a different letter from that wherin his owne wordes are printed a course amongst writers most certaine and vsuall to know when a man deliuereth the precise wordes or sentences of an other and which is more for the most part he thus vshereth his testimonies Bellarmine saith Thomas Aquinas saith Austine saith c. or putteth their names in the mergent whereby it is not to be doubted but that he would haue his reader thinke that the Authorities set downe are the very wordes of the Authoures them selues without any variation or chang whatsoeuer Now if he will iustify them to be the precise words of the Authoures without any chang either of adding or detracting then is he to name the perticuler Editions of such bookes which he foloweth and wherein the testimonies as they are alledged by him are to be found Thirdly where he is charged to corrupt any Authority by concealing for his owne aduantage any part thereof he can not iustify it by replyinge that he is not tyed to set downe all which his Authour saith of that poynt since so his Authorities would grow ouer longe and tedious this is no sufficient answeare For although a writer is not bound to set downe all that his alledged Authour saith of such a point yet is he bound not purposly to omitt any part of the beginning of the middest or of the ending of the said sentences which he produceth especially when the wordes concealed make for his aduersary and against the drifte and scope of that meaning wherein the reste of the sentence is by him deliuered And this kind of omission wherevnto M. Whyte standeth extremely obnoxious and is in this part folowing so by me charged is in the iudgment of all writers a wilfull vnpardonable vniustifiable corrupting of mens bookes Fourthly it is no excuse to say touching such authorities as M. Whyte truly alledgeth without adding or detracting of which kind there are very few if any that his meaning is onely to set downe the wordes of Catholick Authoures without restrayning them to any perticuler sence which he leaueth to that daungerous and inconuenient exposition which the wordes in the readers eye may best seme to afford This is most false for there is no Catholick which he iustifyeth but he perticularly restraineth the sence of his testimony either to the supporting of some point of protestācy or els to the manteyning of some absurde and scandalous opinion which he obtrudeth vpon vs. And thus much besides the often answearable entituling of the pages his owne precedent or subsequent wordes do for the most part imply Fyftly if his pryde would suffer him to descende so low he can not plaster the marter in acknowledginge that the testimonies heare corrupted are not of his owne reading but that he relyed therein vpon the annotations and note-bokes of others of the ministery a refuge wherunto some of his profession haue bene heretofore driuen and so as being ouer credulous and confident of his frendes supposed allegations he was by them mistaken Of this sily poore euasion he haith already precluded him selfe For in his first Edition which I here folow after his Alphabeticall Table in the end of his booke he haith made an ambitious note to the reader that he will to vse his owne wordes mantaine the quotations for substance to be true c. And againe it is one thing if I haue wilfully falsifyed or
meaning of S. Augustine in this place he is to conceaue that the drift of that father here is to shâ—w that a man can not liue in this lyfe in that perfect and true peace of mynde as to exercyse vertue and flee vice without all sodain reluctatioÌ„ of our sensualitie though we geue no assent thereunto and therefore the tytle of that Chapiter is De pace seruientium deo c. Of the peace of such as serue God whose perfect tranquillity can not be enioyed in this temporall lyfe And according to this his tytle some fewe lynes after the sentence alledged by M. Whyte he thus writeth Nam profecto quanquam imperetur c. For although reason doth ouerule vyce yet it doth not ouerrule without some conflict of vyce And therefore as longe as it is exercysed in commaunding and ouerruling vyce man haith not perfect peace But to ende this subiect of Iustification here you see how dexterously our minister haith borne him selfe who for the impugning of the same haith seuerall wayes abused the sentences of his Authors somtimes by insertions of his owne as if they were the Authors wordes somtimes by taking away and concealing what is there plainely set downe othertimes though the Authority be truly alledged yet by violent detortinge and wresting the place from the true intended sence yea often when the very place strongly fortifyeth that Catholick point or doctrime against which it is theare brought Thus though M. Whyte in his deprauations vseth seuerall shewes and coloures yet they all retaine in them one generall countenance and looke of deceipt and falshoode so as the Poets sentence here houldeth Facies non omnibus vna nec diuersa tamen Chapiter 2. Concerning the reading of the Scriptures The 1 Paragraph S. Ierome corrupted for the reading of the scriptures by the vulgare people where also vpon occasion geuen by M. Whyte it is examined whether S. Ierome was a papiste IT being a certaine truth that from Scriptures euill vnderstoode procede most heresies M. Whyte a faithfull frend thereof well knowing by dayly experience that no one thing in truth is more auaileable either for the first beginninge or propagation of heresy then generall libertie graunted to the vulgar people of reading and expounding the sacred Scriptures doth thereupon much labour in sundry places in profe of his supposed commodity and necessitie thereof amongst which he grosly abuseth the authority person of that great and most Catholick Doctor S. Hierome in these wordes pag. 22. Hierome writes of Paula a gentlewoman how shee set her maides to learne the Scripture and many of his wrytinges saith Whyte are directed to women commending theire labour in the Scripture encouraging them thereunto c. which he would not haue done if he had bene a papist Heare Christian reader I must confesse I reste verie doubtfull whether the malice of this minister is more to be detested or his greate folly to be admyred pityed for not contenting him self to corrupt S. Hieromes wordes and meaning he will needes inferre hereof that S. Hierome was noe papiste which how true it is I will onely for this present appeale vnto this Epitaph of S. Paula writen by this holy Doctor to the Virgin Eustochium and here cyted by our protestant minister whereby if it do not plainely appeare by sundry pointes of religion there mentioned and practised that S. Hierome S. Paula and the Bishops Preistes and people of those tymes were of the same Religion or beleefe which Catholickes now professe and protestantes impugne that then let me be enrolled in the black bill of lying ministers or coopled in brotherhood with Whyte as a legitimate sonne of the father of lyes First then S. Hierome vndertaking to set downe the blessed lyfe and death of the holy woman S. Paula in proofe of his sincere proceding therein maketh this protestation I call Iesus to witnes and his Sainctes yea that very Angell who was keeper and companion of this admirable woman that I will speake nothing in her fauour or after the maner of flaterers but for a testimony and that which is lesse then her merites whom the whole worlde doth praise preistes admyre quiers of virgins desyre and troupes of Monkes and poore people bewayle Is the inuocation of Sainctes and Angells which of necessity supposeth their knowledg is the beleefe of euery mannes proper Angell to guard him and quiers or companies of Virgins and Monkes plaine proofes of Catholick or protestant religiou To procede S. Hierome describing in perticuler her pilgrimage to the holy lande whereunto he affirmeth that men of all Nations did come sheweth how that prostrating her selfe before the Crosse she adored at though she had seene our Lord harging thereupon Entring the Sepulchre she kissed the stone of the Resurrection c. at one thirsting desyreth waters she licked with her faithfull mouth the very place of the body wheare our Lord had laid Then hauing visited the pillour at the which our Lorde was bound and whipped and the place where the holy Ghost did descend vpon the faithfull she went to Bethelem where entring our Sauiours caue and looking at the holy Iune of the Virgin and the stable after many other deuout speaches she vttered these wordes And I wretch and sinner am thought worthy to kisse the manger in which our Lord a litle babe cryed and to pray in the caue in which the Virgin brought forth our Lord an infant After this amongst sundry other holy places she went vnto the Sepulchres of the 12 Patriarches where she trembled beinge affrighted with many wonders for she saw the diuells roare being dyuersly tormented and before the sepulchres of the Sainctes she saw men howling lyke wolues barking lyke dogs roaringe lyke lyons hissing lyke serpentes and belowing lyke buls c. And is not all this with a protestant papisticall superstition Will our Whyte allow of pilgrimage to holy places or will he with S. Paula prostrate him selfe before the Crosse and worshipe will he kisse sacred Reliques or will he attribute such sanctity to the Sepulchres of Sainctes that in presence thereof diuells are tormented I perswade my self he will not And yet S. Hierome with him noe papist relateth the promisses to the commendation of Paula But to come nearer the maner of lyfe which S. Paula led her daily practise being best witnes of her beleefe hauing visited with greate deuotion all the places of the holy land intending to spend her lyfe in holy Bethelem she stayed there in a straite lodging for the space of three yeres vntill she had built Cells and Monasteries Mansions for diuers pilgrimes where she liued in such humility as being attended with many virgins in her apparell speach habit and going she was the least or basestâ— of all After her husbands death vntill her owne slenever with any man though she knew him to be holy and a Bishope Bathes she went not to but in daunger In her greatest agues she vsed not soft
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
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
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
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