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
religiously obserued since such not ouer partially resting in their owne natiue iudgmentes to what way soeuer they be inclyning do most diligently follow the supreme resolution current of the Church in part resembling herein the inferiour orbes which with greater speede sedulity and expedition performe the reuolutions of the highest Spheare wherunto they are subiect then they do accomplish their owne naturall perticuler motions The 9. Vntruth Against the Popes Primacy Page 185. The Doctor wryteth in his digression thus The Primitiue Church did not acknowledg the Popes Primacy Here I see that M Whyte will euer be M. Whyte I meane that he will euer be lyke to him self first in coyning and after mantayning most impudent vntruthes Now as touching the discouery of this his false position since to go through all the centuries of the primitiue Church would be needlesly laboursome I think it good to restraine my self onely to the fourth century or age after Christ an age wherein Constantine the first Christian Emprour liued and which for that respect not vndeseruedly seemes to be most entertayned and approued by the graue iudgment of the Kinges Maiesty Now for the greater clearing of this poynt it will be needefull to obserue what authority the Popes did exercyse by the acknowledgment of our learned aduersaries since the authority and soueraignty ouer all other Churches and Prelates is that which doth as it were organize and perfect the Popes Primacy Now then answearable hereto Cartwright wryteth that Iulius Bishop of Rome at the Councell of Antioch ouerreached in clayming the hearing of causes that did not appertaine vnto him Now this Iulius liued in the sourth age Againe the said Cartwright saith of S. Damasus who was Pope in this age that he spake in the dragons voyce when he shameth not to wryte that the Bishop of Romes sentence Was aboue all other to be attended for in a Synode So far was this sectaries censure different from the iudgment of S. Ierome deliuered of the same Pope in these wordes Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens beatitudini tuae id est Cathedrae Petri communione consocior super illam Petram Ecclesiam edificatam scio quicunque extra hanc domum Aguxm commederit prophanus est c. quicunque tecum non colligit spargit In lyke sort touching appeales to Rome an essentiall poynt of Ecclesiasticall Supremacy we finde that the Centurists do acknowledg that Theodoret a Greeke Father and one of this fourth age being deposed by the Councell of Ephesus did accordingly make his appeale to Pope Leo and thereupon was by him restored to his Bishoprick And to conclude the Centuristes do no lesse acknowledg that Chrisostom did appeale to Innocentius who decreed Theophilus Chrisostomes enemy to be deposed excommunicated Thus we fynd how dissonant this our ministers assertion touching the Primacy is to the practise of the Primitiue Church euen in the iudgment of those who are designed enemies to the said Primacy as might well be exemplifyed throughout all the Centuristes and ages of those tymes seing all reuerent antiquity no lesse then the Catholickes of these dayes was fully perswaded that S. Peter and his successors were euer to be accompted the visible Baseis or foundations of gods Church and all other Bishops but Columnâ—s And as this foundation immediatly supportes these pillers so these pillers the rest of this spirituall edifice and structure The 10. Vntruth That Gregory the great detested the Popes Primacy Page 193. M. Whyte descendeth to the example of S. Gregory the great and first Pope of that name in whose wryting he hopeth to fynd great sttrength for the impugning of the Popes soueraignty and among other thinges the D. saith Gregory had no such iurisdiction as now the Pope vsurpeth but detested it not only in Iohn of Constantinople but also in him self c. Where now the Reader may be instructed that the reason why this Gregory is by some supposed to disauow the doctrine of the primacy is in that he reiecteth in Iohn of Constantinople the title of vniuersall Bishop as sacrilegious which his saying was grounded onely in taking the name of vniuersall Bishop to exclude the true being of all other Bishops as it is confessed by Andreas Brictius But now that S. Gregory did both claime and practise the Primacy is acknowledged by our aduersaries for the Centuristes write of him that he said The Romane Sea appoynteth her watch ouer the whole world and that he taught that the Apostolick Sea is the head of all Churches that Constantinople it self is subiect to the Apostolick Sea Furthermore S. Gregory is charged by the Centuristes that he chalenged to him self power to commaund Archbishops To ordaine or depose Bishops at his pleasure that he tooke vpon him right to cyte Archbishops to declare their cause before him when they were accused That actually Gregory did vndertake to excommunicate such and such Bishops That in their Prouinces he placed his Legates to know and determine the causes of such as appealed to Rome Finally to omitt many other poyntes recorded by them that he vsurped power of appointing Synodes in their prouinces Here now I referr this point to the indifferent Reader whether he wil beleue M. Whyte denying to the benefyte of his cause the Primacy of S. Gregory of the Centuristes being diuers learned protestantes all confessing the same though to their owne preiudice The 11. Vntruth In proofe that Catholickes are more viceous then protestantes Page 209. For the extenuating and lesning of the sinfull liues of the protestants the Doctor much extolleth their imputatiue and supposed vertues and as much depresseth the liues of all Catholickes in generall and thus he entitleth that leafe The protestants people as holy as the papistes In lyke sort from page 213. to 218. he spendeth him self in gathering together whatsoeuer Catholick writers haue spoken touching the liues of some loose liuers thus scornfully entytling the leaues The holines of the Church of Rome deciphered most of which sayinges being found in sermons or exhortations and in heate of amplification deliuered generally as the custome is and this without any reference or comparison to the lyues of the protestantes can not iustly be extended to all Catholickes nomore then the reprehensions of the Prophets in the ould testament spoken without any restraint could be truly applyed to all the Iewes Wherefore for the further vpbrayding of this our ministers lye which is wouen vpon the threede of malice and for the more punctuall conuincing him of falshood I will proue from the Protestantes owne confessions that the lyues of Catholickes are generally more vertuous then those of the protestantes in which kind of proofe from the lyke acknowledgment of vs Catholickes in fauour of the protestantes the D. haith not brought so much as one lyne To this purpose then is not Luther forced thus to write to the eternall shame of
that Church which in doctrine and faith conspired with the protestantes Church Thus you see M. W. that not I but such as in other poyntes of Nouelisme do interleague with you geue you the lye therein and thus is falshood truly controuled euen by the Patrones of falshood The 24. Vntruth Against the Popes authority in calling of Councells Page 375. He in charging the Pope with innouation of his iurisdiction thus saith The beginning of the Popes Supremacy ouer Councells was of late since the Councells of Constance and Basill decreed within this hundreth yeres in the Councell of Lateran by a few Italian Bishops wheras in the auncieÌ„t Church it was otherwise In this poynt for the more compendiousnes thereof I will insist onely in the fourth and fifth Century after Christ both being within the circuite of the primitiue Church First then we fynd that D Whitaker confesseth an Ecclesiasticall Canon to be in the fourth Century that Noe Councell should be celebrated without the Bishop of Rome He also further acknowledgeth that Pope Iulius made challenge therby meaning by the benefite of the said Canon to assemble a Councell And where Bellarmine insisting in the president of Iulius and other Bishops vrging this Canon Danaeus a learned protestant thus onely replyeth Nullius est moments c. The example is of noe force since it is proued from the Testimony of the Bishop of Rome who is a party in his owne cause Thus confessing the poynt it self outfaced by the minister but denying onely the lawfulnes thereof Now in the fyfth age we fynde that the Magdeburgians do thus plainely Censure the Popes of that tyme. Generalia Concilia c. The bishops of Rome haue challenged to them selues power of celebrating Councells as appeareth out of the 93. Epistle 7. chapter of Leo. And yet further the said Centuristes do say Ac Synodos c. They haue reiected such Councells as vnlawfull which were not called together by their Authority And thus farr of this poynt where you see that our minister saying that no Bishop of Rome challenged authority of assembling of Councells or being aboue them but within this hundreth yeares last is contradicted by the former learned protestantes who confesse that the Bishop of Rome practised it eleuen or twelue hundreth ages I pray you whether of these is more likly to lye The 25. Vntruth Against merite of woorkes Page 378. For the more disauthorising of the doctrine of merit of workes our minister thus outlasheth The doctrine touching the merit of workes was begoâ— lately by the schoolemen For the triall of this poynt some of the Fathers of the primitiue Church confessed euen by the protestants to teach this our Catholic Faith shall becom the wittnesses bewene the D. and me First then the Magdeburgians do thus write of one Father Chrisastome handleth impurely the doctrine of Iustification and attributeth merite to workes Luther calleth Ierome Ambrose and Augvstine Iusticiarios Iustice-workers of the ould Papacy Finally D. Humfrey ascendeth euen to Ireneus Clemens and others pronouncing of them that then hauy in their writinges the merite of workes And thus farr of this poynt Wherefore our ministers ouersight was most grosse in diuulging such a notorious vntruth contrary to the expresse Iudgment of his owne most learned brethren The 26. Vntruth Against the Sacrifice of the Masse Page 378. The minister endeuoring calumniously to dishonour the most healthfull and incruent Sacrifice of the Masse writeth that the Masse began not all at once but by degrees Now here to instruct the Doctors ignorance or at least to detect his malice I am to lay downe the Iudgmente of the Catholick Church teaching what is maÌ„tayned to be essentiall to the Sacrifice of the Masse and what but accidentall The true nature then and essence of this Sacrifice we hould to consist in the oblation of the most sacred body and blood of Christ and consummation thereof what praiers or ceremonies do either precede or follow the wordes of the institution are no essentiall part of the Masse if they were all omitted in the celebration thereof yet were the Sacrifice of it true and perfect And therefore we willingly confesse without any preiudice to our cause that most of the said prayers or Ceremonies were added by seuerall Popes at different tymes yet from our acknowledgment thereof it in no sort followeth that the Masse came in by degrees since we all teach that they are neither the Masse nor any essentiall parte of it Now wheareas the minister by subtilty and by falsly suggesting to the Reader that the Masse came in at seuerall tymes would haue it to be vnderstoode for our greater disaduauntage of the essence and nature of the Masse it self I will lay downe the Iudgment of the Primitiue Church herein vnanimously teaching euen by the confession of the most iudiceous protestantes the true and vnbloudly Sacrifice oblation of Christes body and bloud to be performed in the celebration of the Eucharist so shall the Reader be instructed in the antiqnity of that which is essentially the masse and withall in reguard of the ministers calumnious dealing herein he shall haue iust reason to say Astonishment and meruelous thinges are done in the land the prophets prophesied a lye And here for greater compendiousnes I will forbeare to set downe the Protestantes confessions of particuler Fathers teaching the doctrine of the Masse and will restraine my self onely to such their sayinges whereof some do belong to the primitiue Church in generall and others to the first age or Century thereof And first we fâ—nd Caluin to wryte of them in generall Veteres excusandi non sunt c The auncient Fathers are not to be excused seing it is euident that they turned from the true and genuine Institution of Christ. For whereas the lordes supper it celebrated to this end that we should communicate with the Sacrifice of Christ the Fathers not being contente therewith haue added thereunto an oblation And to the lyke purpose he saith in his Institutions Veteres quoque illos video c I do see that those Auntient Fathers did detort the memory thereof meaning of the Eucharist otherwise then was agreeing to the Institution of Christ for their Lordes Supper doth make shew and representation of I can not tell what reiterated and renewed Sacrifice They haue more nearely imitated the Iudaicall manner of Sacrificing then either Christ did ordaine or the nature of the Gospell did suffer Tnus Caluin Add hereunto for the greater Antiquity of the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Masse that the protestantes them selues do confesse the faith thereof to be vniuersall euen in the first age or Century after Christ. For we fynde that Hospmian a famous protestant doth thus write I am tum primo c. Euen in the first age the Apostles being yet liuing the deuill did deceaue men more about this Sacrament then about Baptisme
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
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
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
he wrongeth the Cardinall who saith that a man onely of outward profession is but aliquo modo pars Ecclesia meaniÌ„g onely in aÌ„ imperfect equiuocall manner of being whereas our minister concealing the wordes aliquo modo maketh Bellarmine to asscribe to such a one as perfect a being a member of the Church as to any other man endewed with all the Theologicall vertues But M. Whyte as we haue seene in others of his corruptions so also in this haith a great facility in passing ouer and concealing diuters such wordes as si ferme aliquo modo and the lyke in any Author that he alledgeth though they mightely alter the meaning of the sentence It may be perhaps he haith framed to him self a new Accidence houlding such poore particles but as imperfect partes of speach be accomptes them as vnworthy to be traÌ„slated or set downe by his learned pen. The 2. Paragraph Bellarmine corrupted against the kuowledg of misteries of our Faith in preferring of ignorance Againe to our more depressing of faith our supposed aduancing of ignorance the Doctor telleth his Reader how among vs the lay people are not bound to know what the matters of their faith be but that ignorance is better and thereupon in his mergent he fortifyeth him self with a sentence of Bellarmine de Inst. l. 1. ca. 7. in these wordes Fides melins per ignorantiaÌ„ quam per notitiam definitur Faith is better defyned by ignorance then by knowledg I think the minister euen for feare of breach of his oath taken as it should seme to the contrary is loth to alledg any one sentence entyrely ingeniously and truly For mark here how vntruly he diuorceth Bellarmines wordes from his owne drift and mynde For the Cardinall entytuling that Chapiter Fidem iustificantem non tam esse notitiam quaÌ„ assensum Iustifying Faith rather to be assent then knowledg there proueth that faith euen according to the Apostles definition thereof can not be demoÌ„strated and that the assent which we geue thereunto saith he followeth not rationem euidentiam rei a cleare euideÌ„ce of the poynt beleued which is property called notitiaÌ„ but it followeth authoritatem proponentia the authority of the proposer and therfore it is more properly called fides And then some three lynes after he thus sayeth Igitur misteria fides quae rationem superant credivius non intelligimus ac per hoc fides distinguitur contra scientiam melius per ignorantiam quam per notitiam definitur Therefore we beleue the misteries of faith which are aboue reason we vnderstand them not and in this respect Faith it distinguished against science of knowledg and iâ— better defyned by ignorance then by euidency of knowledg Now here I doe demaund euen in sincerity whether these wordes with any tecture of colour of possibility can be wrasted to the supporting of a supine and an affected ignorance of the articles of our Faith as here our minister seeketh to strayne them Wherefore I say that M. Whyte dealeth vnchristianlyke and most irreligiously with Bellarmine herein For first he inuesteth his wordes which are spoken onely of the nature of faith with a new construction neuer dreamed of and therefore you see the minister besides his passing ouer the ground and reason of his sentence purposly omitteth in his translation the beginning of the seÌ„tence alledged though it doth expound the wordes following to wit Therefore we beleue the misteries of Faith which are aboue reason we vnderstand them not and in this respect Faith is distinguished against science Secondly he taketh aduauntage in translating the word notitia which though it signifyeth in large construction knowledg in generall in which sence he forsaw the ignorant reader would take it yet with the schoolemen it is restrayned as Bellarmine here expresly noteth to that kynd of knowledg which is properly Scientia which procedeth out of a demonstrable euidency of the thing knowen and consequently it is incompatible with Faith For shame of your owne credit M. Whyte and for the feare that you owe to God forbeare to seduce any longer the ignorant by these deceauable meanes and making your benesyte of these my trendly admonitions which indeede procede from Christian Charity remember that meliora sunt vulnera diligentis quaÌ„ fraudulente oscula prou 27. The 3 Paragraph Nauar corrupted concerning the sinne committed by the Laity in disputing of matters of Faith Now next let vs come to one or two deprauations consisting of the word heresy where pag. 6. to intimate that we hould it no lesser offence then heresy for a Lay man to argue of matters of Religion as though the Church barred them in any sort whatsoeuer not to speake thereof he alledgeth Nauar Manual ea 11. nu 26. It is heresy for a Lay man to dispute in a point of Faith Nauars wordes are these Quinto qui disputat de fide cum sit Laicus sciens Laicis esse prohibitum sub excommunicationis paena de tlla disputare Fiftly who being a Lay man disputeth of Faith knowing that Lay men are forbidden vnder payne of excommunication to dispute thereof Here you see there is no mention of heresy and indeede without reference to some other wordes the sense is here imperfect therefore the Reader is to vnderstand that the Tytle of this Chapiter in Nauar is this Modivsitatiores peccandi mortaliter contra praeceptum de rectè colendo honorando Deo c. The seuerall more accustomed kindes of sinning mortally against the precept of worshiping and honoring God aright c. and so answearably to this tytle he setteth downe dyuers wayes of sinninge mortally in that sort keping the methode of primo secundo c. and so comming to quinto he sheweth in what manner a man sinneth thereinâ— therefore the offence here committed is not heresy as our minister falsly saith but it is a mortall sinne which yet is so to be vnderstoode as when a Lay person pertinaceously without subiecting his Iudgment to the Church wauereth in disputatioÌ„ in any point of the Catholick faith and thus much of M. Whytes fynding the word heresy in Nauar. But I may well say he is a man of a very strange and as I may terme it imperfect perfect eye-sight since he can not see wordes in testimonies which euery other man doth see and yet seeth other wordes in them which no man els can see Chapter 6. Concerning mariage of Preâ—stes Fasting and Miracles The 1 Paragraph Sinesius impudently abused concerning his owne mariage The next corruption shall be touching mariage of Preistes the lawfulnes whereof this our yoked minister is more willing to iustify in that such as professe voluntary Chastity are according to the principles of his faith accompted noe better then superstitious wilfull Eunuches Now then for the warranting thereof page 343. he produceth a testimony from Sinesitus Bishop of Ptolemais who in his Epistle to a frend called Euopius thus writeth of
him self a coople to answeare in his behalf But speake M. Whyte once in good sincerity why did you translate it euidently probable was it to make the Cardinall for his learning and sanctity most Illustrious to speake as ignorantly as a protestant minister Do not your so foule and frequent corrupting of his writinges make it more then probable yea euidently credible that no other meanes is left you to euade the force of his Argumentes Wel my wholesome aduyse is this if you presume to reade Bellarmine be lesse conuersant with Bacchus The 7. paragraph S. Thomas fouly corrupted concerning the popes authority M. Whyte is not ashamed to affirme that we take all authority and sufficiency from the Scripture geue it to the Church finally the Churches authority to the Pope and thereupon insinuateth that we houlde that the Pope at his pleasure is able euen to stampe or create a new faith or Crede neuer afore heard of To this end he alledgeth pag. 68. this saying out of S. Thomas 2. â—â— quest 1. ar 10. The making of a new Crede belongeth to the Pope as all other thinges doe which belong to the whole Church thus insimulating all Catholickes within this errour as houlding that the chang of the articles of our Crede resteth vpon the change of the Popes mynde therein For the fuller discouery of this diabolicall deprauation for I can terme it no better I will here set downe at large the wordes of S. Thomas Thus then he saith Ad solam authoritatem Summi Pontificis pertinet noua Editio Symbols c. A new Edition of the Crede belongeth to the Pope as all other thinges doe which concerne the whole Church And then some few lynes after foloweth which belyke the Doctors hand would haue aked to haue writen downe Haec noua Editio Symboli non quidem aliam fidem continet sed eandem magis expositam This new Edition of the Crede conteyneth not an other faith but the former more fully explicated Here our minister haith practised his profession of corrupting two wayes first in translating noua Editio Symboli The making of a new Crede whereas it should be The new Edition of the Crede thus causing the newnes to consist in the newnes of our beleefe or Crede and yet as you see in S. Thomas the worde new is ioyned onely with the Edition or explication of the Crede Secondly in retayning from the Reader those other latter wordes which doe expresse S. Thomas his meaning therein to wit that no new faith or Crede contrary to the first is decreed thereby but the former onely is more fully explicated the reason whereof he thus deliuereth euen in the same paragraph In doctrina Christi Apostoloris c. The truth of faith is sufficiently explicated in the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles but because wilfull men do peruert to their owne destruction the doctrine of the Apostles and Scriptures therefore it was necessary that there should be in processe of tyme an explication of faith against all ensuing erroures Here you haue manifested the true reason of S. Thomas his former wordes aud consequently here is discouered che vncharitable impudency of our minister to diuorce the said wordes from their legitimate and maine sence but it semeth that he professing him self a publick aduersary to the catholick Religion thinketh it iustifiable to impugne the same by any deceitfull or indirâ—ct stratagems whatsoeuer Dolus an virtus quis in hoste requirat Virg. The 8 Paragraph Doctor Stapleton corrupted concerning the same subiect In lyke sort to shew to his Reader what sâ—pposed transcendency of soueraignty and power the Catholickes geue to the Pope he pag. 68. thus writeth Stapleton Praefat. princip fidei doctrinal saith The foundation of our Religion is of necessity placed vpon the authority of this mans teaching meaning of the Pope in which we heare god hâ—m self speaking In all that Preface I assure thee good Reader there is no such saying at al and therefore it is merely forged by our calumnious minister thereby first to suggest that we make the Pope the foundation of our faith which we asscribe to Christ Iesus onely Secondly that we beare the ignorant in hand that we accompt the Pope as an other God the nearest wordes in that Preface that can beare any resemblance at all to these I will here set downe Quae prima sunt fidei nostrae elementa c. Such pointes as are the first elements or principles of our faith and yet the baises or foundation thereof as the true Catholick and Apostolick Church of God the necessary and infallible power of the Church to teach and Iudg matters of faith the persons in whom this power remayneth the meanes which the said persons ought and are accustomed to vse in iudging and teaching the cheif heades or branches about which this power is exercysed as to determine some certaine and authenticall Canon of Scripture to geue the vndoubted and auâ—henticall interpretaâ—ion thereof and finally besydes the decreeing of the Canon of the Scripture to deliuer and command the vnwriten Articles of faith all these I say which are principia doctrinalia doctrinall principles of our faith and which do teach confirme and explaine the same the heritikes of our vnfortunate tyme haue most fowly denyed contaminated and depraued How many wheeles and deductions of inferences here neede we before we can draw out M. Whytes alledged sence and yet he deliuereth it in a different letter with the vshering wordes of Stapleton saith as though they were the very precise wordes of the said Authour or what is geuen more to the Pope then to the reste heare specifyed Yet our minister blushed not to particularyze what here is spoken in respect of the principles of faith in generall onely to the pope Againe his sleight further appeareth in taking the word foundation in an equiuocall and dooble sence for he will needes accept it to make the saying more odious for that which is an essentiall and primatiue foundation of faith which is Christ Iesus whereas D. Stapleton here meaneth according to the tytle of his booke Principia fidei doctrinalia onely Doctrinall principles or Secondary foundations which as him self saith fidem docent confirmant explicant doe teach confirme and explaine our faith Thus the further we dog him in his allegations the more we shall be assured that deprauing and strangely detorting the wrytinges of Catholick Doctors and the Fathers is among the rest those feble supportes whereupon his cause leaneth The 9 paragraph S. Ciprian strangely handled against Appeales to Rome It haith euer bene the course of former heritikes not onely with contumelies to disgrace the deserued renowne of the Popes and Church of Rome but also with their subtilty and corruption falsely to detracte from theire iust authority and prerogatiues In which kynd our minister to shew him self lawfully descended in proofe of his dislyke of Appeales from other Bishopes to the Bishopes