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
did withdraw men from the first forme thereof In lyke sort Sebastianus Francus an other learned protestant thus plainely writeth Statimpost Apostolos c. Presently after the Apostles all thinges were turned upside downe cana domini in sacrificium transformata c. The Lordes supper is turned into a Sacrifice To conclude M. Bacon a great protâ—stant here in England thus confesseth The Masse was conceaued begoten and borne anone after the Apostles tymes if all be true that Historiographers do write Thus much of the antiquity of the Masse which poynt thus acknowledged who seeth not that the testimonies of the former protestantes do vtterly ouerthrow the supposed truth of the D. Wordes affirming that the Masse came in by degrees and intimating to the credulous Reader that it was brought in by litle litle in these latter ages But M. Whyte if in the defending of your former vntruthes you can not blush for shame yet here grow pale through feare for your sinne is not ordinary seeing your mendaceous assertion doth obtrude an innouation vpon no lesser Article then the immolation and offering vp of the most sacred body and bloud of our Sauiour and Redeemer to his heauenly Father for the expiation of our sinnes first instituted out of the bowels of his mercy euen by Christ so as him self being the Preist did the sacrifice him self Quid gâ—atius offerri faith one Fa. aut daripotest quam caro sacrificiâ— nostri corpus effectuÌ„ sacerdotis nostri The 27. Vntruth Concerning wafer Cakes Page 389. the Doctor inueighing further against the Masse that wafer-cakes were first brought into the Sacrament in the eleuenth age or Century after Christ and answearably thereunto he haith made a reference to this place in his Alphabeticall Table at the latter end of his booke at the word wafer thus setting down wafers when brought in Sect. 5. nâ—m 31. Now that this procedeth from the same sirayne to wit a spiritu mendacit from whence all his former assertions had their origine is proued in that it is confessed by D. Bilson that in the dayes of Epiphanius it was rownd in figure Cartwright though he will needes find a beginning thereof after the Apostles yet thus writeth of the bread of the Sacrament It was a wafer-cake brought in by Pope Alexander which Pope euen by the testimony of Osiaâ—der liued fifteene hundreth yeres since And yet contrary to all these authorities we mightily wrong our minister if we will not beleue him affirming that wafers were brought in about a thousand yeares after Christ. The 28. Vntruth Against the adoration of the B. Sacrament Page 399. The minister persâ—sting in his serpentyne and vâ—nemous disposition against the most B. Sacrament touching the Adoration thereof thus lyingly forgeth The Adoration of the Sacrament is a late inuention folowing vpon the conceit of the Reall presence and prescribed 1220 yeres fâ—â—â— Christ by Honorius the third c That Adoration followeth vpon the beleefe of the reall presence it is graâ—â—ied but that it is a late inuention begon in the tyme of Honorius is false Thus the Doctor for the letter countenancing of this lye doth calumniously coople with it a truth that the one might be shrouded vnder the winges of the other Now that there was no innouation touching the Adoration of the Sacrament at that tyme is euinced from two reasons First because no Historiographer doth geue the least intimation of any such institution as then but newly brought into the Church onely Honorius decreed that the preist should more diligently admonish the people thereof in reguarde of some former negligence crept in concerning the same And this is all which can be truly collected from the Decree of the said Honorius Secondly the former poynt is proued from the abundant testimonies of our aduersaries charging the tymes precedent to Honorius with the said doctrine of Adoration For first we reade that Auerroes a hea then Philosopher who liued aboue 80. yeres before the prescribed time of Honorius his former supposed innouation did perticulerly deride the Christians of his dayes for the Adoring of the Sacrament This is acknowledged by D. Fulke and D. Saâ—liffe But to ascend to higher times the Centuristes speaking of the prayers of S. Ambrose in his booke entituled Orat. praeparat ad Massam do thus write Continent adorationem panis in Sacramento Those prayers do conteâ—ne the Adoration of the bread in the sacrament Chemâ—â—tius produceth diuers sentences of Augustine Ambrose and Nazâ—anzen which sentences in Chemâ—â—tius his Iudgment do affirme the Adoration of the Sacrament Now all these authorities do demonstratiuely conuince that the Adoration of the Sacrament was not introduced in the Church as an innouation in the time of Honorius From all which it is manifest that as in any other poynt of Catholick Religion so also in this of Adoration we altogether do conspire and agree with the venerable Fathers of Gods Church And therefore as Aristotle and other auncient Philosophers did teach that this our inferiour world was ioyned to the Superiour and Celestiall world that by the helpe of this coniunction we might more perfectly participate of the influences and vertues of those heauenly bodies So we may say that these our latter tymes through a continuall and vninterrupted current of beleeuing God and practising the same poyntes of Faith with the Auncient Doctors are indissolubly and nearely tyed to those primitiue dayes so as nothing is found in those reuerent dayes instituted either by Christ or his Apostles which by this meanes is not securely deryued to the Catholick Church of these moderne tymes The 29. Vntruth Against the Succession of Catholick Pastors Page 412. After the D. haith Trasonically boasted of the succession of the protestantes in his owne Church he procedeth further affirming that Succession of the pastors and Bishops in the Church of Rome haith bene interrupted And answearably hereto in the Table in the end of his booke at the word Succession with reference to this place he thus saith The Romane Church haith no true outward Succession Where you see by his owne wordes that the question here intended by this minister is not of succession of doctrine by which sleight and euasion diuers of our aduersaries vse to decline the testimonies of the auncient Fathers alledged by vs for strengthning the argument drawne from Succession but onely of externall succession of Bishops and Pastors which the minister falsly challenging heretofore to his owne church doth now as falsly take away from ours How maliceous a lye this is shall appeare from the mouthes of his owne brethren And â—iâ—st we finde that the Centuristes do very diligently and elaboratly set downe the succession particulerly of the Bishops of Rome in the 10. Chapiter of euery Century And this Methode they precisely obserue in all ages of the Church euen from S. Peter to their owne tyme entituling the said Chapiter de Episcopis
or before shall refuse to obey the same but for that neare to the tyme of Antichrist and consummation of the worlde there is lyke to be a greate reuolt of Kingdomes people and Prouinces from the open externall obedience communion thereof c. when for the few dayes of Antichristes reigne the externall state of the Romane Church and publick entercourse of the faithfull with the same way cease yet the due honour and obedience of Christians towardes it and Communion in heart with it and practise thereof in secret and open confession thereof if occasion requyre shall not cease no more then it doth now in the Christians of Cyprus and other places where open entercourse is forbidden Here now the parcels of this testimony which are purposly omitted do show that the Rhemistes do euen peremptorily affirme that gods Church shall neuer no not in the tyme of Antichristes greatest persecutions be latent and inuisible Thus doth our M. you see vpon a sudaine breake of with the Rhemistes in alledging their wordes yet after some lyne or two curteously ioyneth with them againe and then after that once more vnkindly leaues them to them selues all this in one poore testimony And here good reader thou art to take notice of an other sleight of our minister touching this particuler place For whereas he in the first Edition of his booke which I here folow setteth downe the Rhemistes wordes as thou seest aboue in no sorte intimating that any one word of their said testimony is pretermitted he in some other of his Editions as it should seme being aduertised that this his egregious corruption was espyed by his aduersaries thought therefore in some sort to salue the matter haith at the last wordes where he breaketh of from the rest of the whole sentence added a virgula or lyne as this ingeniously forsoth to acknowledge that he omitteth some part of the sentence But this I say auaileth him nothing for first it doth not warrant his sincerity in his first Edition Againe though in alledging of a testimony we are not bound to set down euery word thereof yet as I haue before premonished that which is omitted ought to be impertinent to the mayne point for which the testimony is produced But subtily to pretermit with an c. or some such like marck that which punctually doth touch or explicate the true sence of the sentence alledged that directly contrary to that construction there pretended as here it falleth out it is no lesse then most impious corrupting and corrading of other mens writinges And therfore I say M. Whyte is nothing aduantaged hereby but doth for the tyme plaster one euill with an other euill but no meruell for it is a high mistery amongst heritikes to support deceipt with deceipt till at the length all do tumble downe with it owne weight and so erit nouissimus error petor priori Mat. 7. Thr 3 Paragraph S. Augustine corrupted concerning the same subiect of the Churches inuisibility In lyke sort pag. 103. he alledgeth S. Augustine de bap con Don. li. 6. ca. 4. thus to say The Church may be so obscured that the members thereof shall not know one an other S. Augustines wordes are these none other Idem spiritus Sanctus ea dimitit qui datus est omnibus sanctis sibi Charitate cohaerentibus siue se nouerint corporaliter siue non nouerint The same holy Ghost which it geuen to all the Sainctes or holy men agreing together in Charity whether they know one an other or not remitteth the sinnes But what is this to the inuisibility of the Church or by what Sintax or Grammar can M. W. translate thus the former latin lynes Finally by what sublimation or art can he extract such a refyned sence from the bare minerals of the former wordes Neither can he slubber the mater ouer in saying that he here gathereth onely some necessary Illation prouing the Churches latency for the sentence alledged by him is set downe in a different letter of caracter froÌ„ his owne and he there perticularly geueth them as the very wordes Now S. Augustine in that place doth not so much as glance at the Churches visibility or inuisibility but there showing how sinnes are remitted as effectually by the bad preistes as the vertuous proueth it by Anology of reason to wit that the power of the holy Ghost may aswell be geuen to a wicked Preist as to a good and vertuous as it is geuen alyke to all the godly though they know not one an other But M. Whyte fynding that parcell of the seÌ„tence sine nouerint se corporaliter siue non nouerint to be ment of the faithfull and vertuous thought presently that he lighted vpon a bootie and so hoping thereby to entrappe the incautelous reader was the more easely induced to create the world of this his deprauation out of a mere nothing of a sound of wordes And thus farre of his corruptions touching the Churches inuisibility from the mantayning whereof we Catholickes do so far disclame as that euen in the most tempesteous and raging tymes of persecution that either haue or shall happen we acknowledg innumerable members thereof to be euer visible and in faith permanent and vnmoueable for we reade that the beames of the house of Christ his Spouse are Cedars the rafiens are of firre Can. â— The 4. Paragraph Doctor Stapleton abused in behalfe of the Protestantes markes of the Church The next corruption which I here will shew shall be concerning the markes of the Church whearâ— he to proue that we absolutely embrace the markes thereof deliuered by the Protestantes to wit the proaching of the word as acknowledging it to be a more infallible marke to euery Christian then our Catholicke markes are Antiquity Succession Vniuersality c. all which notes he after endeuoreth to confute To this end I say pag. 105. he produceth Doctor Stapleton thus wryting princip doctrinal li 1. ca. 22. The preaching of the Gospell is the proper and a very cleare note of the Catholick Church so it be done by lawfull Ministers Mark heare how he declareth this authors meaning by concealing the wordes in him that there are immediatly subioyned for thus that Catholick Doctor Praedicationem Euangelii We graunt that the preaching of the Gospell by lawfull Ministers is a very cleare and proper note of the Catholick Church Hâ—c est enim ordinaria c for by this is that ordinary and perpetuall Succession of Bishops Preistes and Pastors dâ—ryued in a continued order euen from the Apostles them selues to vs. From which latter part of the sentence purposly omitted by M. W. it is euident that D. Stapleton doth allow the preaching of the Gospell by lawfull pastors so far forth onely to be a note of the Church as it is included in the Catholick note of Succession and in no other sence which point is made more cleare besides his mayne drift in that Chapter diuers others of
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
Religionâ— and this he doth by nakedly setting downe one lyne which is the middest of the periode but subtily according to his maner omitting both the wordes precedent wherein the instance is geuen and whereunto the sence of the former sentence is peculierly tyed as also the wordes subsequeÌ„t contayning the reason thereof But it semeth he haith vowed with him self neuer to alledg any one testimony ingeniously and plainely seing his true quotations iâ— any such be may for their quantity be engrauen within a ring whereas his wilfull deprauations doe stretch beyond all reasonable dimension The 12 Paragraph The Canon Law corrupted concerning the Pope In nothing more doth M. Whyte manifest or continue his implacable hatred or his dexterity in falsification then against the Church and Pope of Rome amongest many take this example folowing pag. 433. I am affrayd saih he I haue bene to bold in medling with these matters for the Church of Rome haith a Law within her self that it is and then foloweth in a different letter as though they were the wordes of the Canon law sacriledg to reason about the Popes doinges whose murders are excused lyke Sampsons and theftes lyke the Hebrues Adultries lyke Iacobs But here I must charg you with much fowle demeanour for first you affirme that the wordes cyted are a Law of the Romane Church whereas they are onely taken out of the glosse or comment which is a thing much different and of incomparable lesse authority then the Law it self Secondly whereas in the Law it is disputed what censure is to be geuen when the case is doubtfull whether the Pope haith sinned or noe as by committing adultry or murder to which it is answeared that in that case it is to be presumed in the Popes behalf yea saith the glosser in this case sacrilegii instar esset disputare de facto suo Vel dic quod facta Papae accusantur vt homicidia Samsonis surta Hehraeorum adulterium Iacob It were lyke Sacriledg in that doubtfull case to dispute of his fact Or say that the deedes of the Pope are accused as the murders of Samson the thefts of the Hehrues the Adultery of Iacob What is here spoken in defence of the pope which euery Christian ought not to performe in defence of his neighbour to wit in a case doubtfull to think and speake the best Are not those factes of Samson the Hebrues and Iacob piously censured by the learnedst Doctors But with what front do you auouch so absolutely and in generall that according to the law of the Romane Church it is sacriledg to reason about the Popes doinges whereas the glosser saith onely In dubiis c. when the case is doubtfull of the Popes fact instar sacrilegii c. It were lyke Sacriledg to dispute of his fact Will you of doubtfull premisses inferre an absolute conclusion Would you take it kindly if in a case admitting it but doubtfull whether a certaine minister had beene drunke should absolutely affirme that the protestants Church haith a Law within her self that it is Sacriledg to reason about ministers doinges whose drunkenes is excused as Noes c. The 13. Paragraph Bellarmine corrupted against theâ— Popes Authority As the former deprauations were practised in ouermuch aduauncing and extolling the Authority of the Church and Pope so here on the contrary part he falsly alledgeth Bellarmine extenuating and lesning the said power For thus entytling the page 167. The papistes them selues refuse the Popes Iudgment he laboureth to make good this assertion from the confession of Bellarmine who de Rom. Pon. lib. 4. ca. 7. speaking of S. Ciprian withstanding Pope Stephen touchinge rebaptisation writeth as M. Whyte saith that after the Popes definitioÌ„ it was free for Ciprian to think otherwise our minister intimating hereby to the Reader that Bellarmine mantayneth that it is lawfull to beleue contrary to that which is once defyned as a matter of faith by the Pope Here againe he bestowes on his Reader a broken sentence leauing of in the middest thereby to auoyde the setting downe of what is most materiall for Bellarmines wordes are these Fuit enimpost Pontificis definitionem c. It was lawfull after the definition of the Pope to think otherwyse as Augustine affirmeth beoause the Pope noluit rem ipsam de fide facere sine generaliconcilio would not make it as a matter of Faith without a generall Councell but onely in the meane tyme willed the auncient custome to be obserued And then after Stephanus noÌ„ defiuiuis rem illam tanquam de fide P. Stephen did not defyne the matter as a poynt of Faith yet he commaunded earnestly that heritykes should not be rebaptysed See here now the integrity of our minister who purpoâ—ly concealeth that part of the sentence which isexpresly contrary to that sence in the which he alledgeth the former wordes thereof For Bellarmine vnderstandeth by the wordes post definitionem after it was commanded that rebaptisation should not be vsed and not after it was sententially defined as an article of faith as M. Wayte semeth to force Now Catholickes do graunt that it is lawfull to hould or beleue contrary to the practise of what the Pope commandeth so that we doâ— according to his commandement and as long as the matter it self is not definitiuely decreed by the Pope for a dogmaticall poynt of our beleefe thus much thereof from whence we may discerne the Ministers inueterate hatred against the head of Gods Church who aÌ„swerably thereto speaking of the words of our Sauiour Pasce oues meas thus styleth some of his pages in his Lucian and scornfull phraze Feede my sheepe is not poping But howsoeuer to feede in this place be to pope it I am sure most egregiously and impudently to corrupt Authors is to Whyte it Chapter 4. Wherein are discouered sundry corruptions concerning the sacred Scriptures and Traditions The 1. Paragraph Bellarmine corrupted in behalf of the Scripture prouing it self to be the word of God THE next poynt we are to come to are such his corruptions wherein he pretendeth that the Catholickes doe acknowledge all sufficiency of Scripture both for the interpreting of it self without any needefull explication of the Church thereof as also for it fulnesse in contayning expresly all thinges necessary to mans saluation excluding thereby all Apostolicall Traditions whatsoeuer And first pag. 59. shewing that the Scripture is knowen to be the word of God without the attestation of the Church which as he houldeth may be deceatfull he alledgeth Bellarmine de verb. des li. 2. ca. 2. thus confessing other meanes may deceaue me but nothing is more knowen nothing more certayne then the Scriptures that it were the greatest madnes in the world not to beleue them c. See how loth our minister is to cease to be him self I meane to cease his notorious corrupting for the wordes of Bellarmine are these Sacris Scripturis quae Prophetieis Apostolicis literis
there Sozomen doth thus wryte Veterem Ecâ—lesiu â—â—aeditionem esse vt qu Casâ—ties gradum sacerdo â—â—em consâ—euti fuisseur postea minime vxores duderenâ— qui autem post nuptias adteum or dinem vocati essent hit ab vxoribus quas habebaâ—â— minime separarentur â—ta quidem liceâ— Coniuglie pâ—rs fâ—ant Paphnutius It is an ancient Tradition of the Church what such as be vnmaried when they enter the degree of preisthood should not after taâ—â—e to them selues any wyues But those who being afore maried and after arcealled to that order should not be therefore seperated froÌ„ theire wyues and this Paphnutius though him self vnmaried perswaded the Councell vnto and thus far Sozomen of this poynt Now I referre to the iudtecous reader how worthily and sincerely M. Whyte halth quoted Paphnutius out of Sozomen for interpreting of S. Paules wordes in defence of Preistes mariage in generall without any distinction of tymes whereas in deede Sozomen Paphnutius and the Councell of Nyce did absolutely forbid mariage of the Cleargy after their ordination of preisthood directly opposite against the most generall practise of our english ministers who for the most part first seeke after a steeple and then a woman and thus with them a fat benefyce and a sister in the Lord for heresy euer lyes groueling in sensuality are become in our new euangelicall philosophy the terminus ad quem whereunto all other their motions doe finally propend and are directed The 3. Paragraph S. Augustine corrupted against fasting The Doctor through his great auersion which he haith of fasting and of forbidden meates for certaine dayes pag. 307. wryteth that the auncient Monkes made no distinction of meates alledgeth in the margent for proofe thereof S. Augustine de mor. Eccl. li. 1. ca. 33. Now you shall see how truly he auoucheth the Father herein for in that very Chapiter not to insist of his speaking of the Monkes fasting in those wordes Ieiunia prorsut incredibilia multâ—s exercere didâ—ci I haue learned that many Monkes did practise eueÌ„ incredible fastes he thus wryteth touching forbearaÌ„ce of the eating of flesh multi non vescuntur carnibus c. Many Monkes do not feede vpon flesh though they are not perswaded superstitiously that flesh is an vncleane meate after againe Continent se illi qui possunt quâ—â—tamen sunt innumerabiles a carnibus a vino c. Such Monks as in body are hable who yet are innumerable do abstaine from flesh and from wyne Here it is euident what the custome of the ancient Monkes was in those tymes how different from the practise of the new gospellers since infinite of them eating fish neuer tasted of flesh whereas to the contrary I dare auouch in the behalf of this my sanctifyed minister that euen out of conscience he forbeares to feede of superstitious fish But indeede M. Whyte doth well to shew himself so resolute an aduocate as afore of venety in the mariage of Preisles so now of Epicurisme since he well knoweth that there is a secret reference and mutuall dependency betwene these two most spirituall and ghostly Characters of our late stamped gospell a poynte so cleare that euen the Poets do tell vs that Venus was euer much befrended by Ceres and Bacchus The 4. Paragraph Baronius notoriously corrupted in proofe that heritykes can worke true miracles To depryue the Catholick Church of her glory of most certaine and vndoubted miracles wherewith god haith seuerall tymes sealed vp the truth of the faith professed by her Doctors our minister laboureth to proue from the confession of Catholickes that woorking of true miracles are also common to heritikes therefore no peculiar note of the true Church or Faith Now to this end pag. 301. he alledgeth Baronius Annal. An. 68. nu 22. touching the miracles of Simon Magus Simon made Images to walk would lye in the fyre without hurt flye in the ayre make bread of stones he could open doares fast shut vnloose boundes of Iron c. But doth out M. here leaue his accustomed trade of corrupting think you No for he paireth the testimony round aboute for euen both immediatly before and immediatly after the Authority alledged he concealeth Baronius his owne wordes wherein he acknowledgeth that these were no miracles by impostures and sleightes onely For thus he wryteth before Quaenam autem hat fuerâ—t â—â—m reue◠á non essent tament ab hominibus videri videbantur referam c. I will relate what prestigies or steightes those of Simons were seeing indeed they were not true yet semed to be in the sight of men and the mentioneth those reckned by M. Whyte And after Baro. haith nuÌ„bred the said supposed miracles he thus instantly concludeth Hueusque de Simonis imposturis quibus haec per imaginem osteâ—debat visum cum nulla veritaâ—e consisterent Thus farr of the impostures of Simon which appeared but in show and in the eye seing indeede they were not truly performed Now I appeale to the iudiceous Reader with what â—andor and sincerity M. Whyte could produce part of the sentence of Baronius omitting both the beginning and endinge â—â— euict that true and vndoubted miracles are incident also to heritykes and consequently are no competent marke of the true Faith or Church Chapiter 7. Concerning the Sacramentes of the Euchaâ—lâ— and Pennance The 1. Paragraph â—â—â—armine corrupted against Transubstantiation OVR Doctor pag. 24. haith a soule deprauation touching the doctrine of TransubstantiatioÌ„ alledging Bellarmine saving de Euch. lib 2. ca. 2.3 That it may iustly be doubted whether the text be cleaâ—e enough â—o infeâ— Transubstaâ—tiatioâ— seing men sharpe learned such as Scotus was haâ—e thought the contrary The Reader shall see the whole periode of Bellarmine at large and so may discerne how strongly both he Scotus impugne transubstantiatioÌ„ as they are here by our M. traduced to doe Thus then Scotus dicit â—on exâ—are c. Scotus saith that there is no place of Scripture so expresse which fiâ—e Ecclesiae declaratiore without the â—â—claration or interpretation of the Church can euidently force transubstantiation And this is not altogether in probable for although the text of Scripture which aboue we haue alledged sâ—me so cleare 〈◊〉 that it is able to conuince hominem â—on proâ—eruâ—â— a man not obstinate neuerthelesse whether it do so or no iâ— may iâ—â—lâ— be doubted of seing that learned and sharp men such as Scotus was haue thought the contrary But Scotus â—ddâ—â—h that sâ—â—g the Catholick Church haith expounded the said text of Scripture in a generall Councell therefore saith he from the said Scripture so declared by the Chuâ—ch transuâ—stâ—â—tiation is manifestly proued Thus farâ— Bellarmine Now I doe aâ—ke that if we consider the whole coÌ„texture of this passage together whether according to the mynds of Bellarmine Scotus it maketh against transubstantiation or no I say it euen fortifyeth the Doctrine thereof For Bellarmine first
that M. Whyte can not reply in answear hereto that because there are some other protestantes that do mantaine the said positions with him against his former learned brethren that therefore such his positions are freed from all imputation of vntruth and consequently him self of lying This his answeare is most insufficient First because some of his vntruthes do rest in affirming that not any one Father or any one protestant taught such or such a poynt or doctrine against which generall assertion including all Fathers and protâ—stantes if I can produce but any one Father or protestant as indeede I can for the most part produce many it is enough to conuince him of lying Secondly in that all Maister W. vntruthes do make head against the Catholick Faith and strengthen the protestantes religion in which respect they may be presumed to be the more wilfull it can not therefore with any shew of reason be otherwise conceaued that such learned protestants for the most part mantaining against the Catholicks the poynt or conclusion of faith out of which such assertions do ryse and therefore are not become parties against M. Whyte therein would euer defend against the Doctor the contrary assertions much weakning their owne cause thereby were it not that the euidency of the truth on the Catholick side doth force them thereunto And therefore it followeth euen in reason that the voluntary acknowledgment of any such one learned protestant ought to ouer balance weigh downe euen scoares of others not confessing so much so true is the saying of Irenen li. 4. ca. 14. Illa est vera sine contradiction probatio quae etiam ab aduersariis ipsis signa â—â—stiâ—iâ—atioAâ—â—s prosâ—rt But to make this poynt more perspicuous to the reader by example our minister in one place which hereafter shall be alledged anouchâ—th that the doctrine of Transubstantiation was neuer heard of before the Councell of Lateran for here he speaketh not of the definition of that Article but of the doctrine onely To conuince this as a most notorious vntruth I produce not Catholick authorities for they would seme to the readers eye ouer partiall but because all perfect differences are made vpon vnequall standinges I insist in dyuers learned protestantes otherwyse our professed enemies who do not beleue our Catholick doctrine herein as true neuerthelesse do confesse that such such Fathers liuing in the primitiue Church and therefore many ages before the foresaide Councell did teach the said doctrine of Transubstantiation Now here I say M. Whyte is not excused from lying in that he is able to bring forth other particuler protestantes teaching with him the said innouation of Transubstantiation euen at the same tyme and not before in reguard of his former learned brethren confessing the further antiquity thereof to the much disabling of their owne cause Now what can our Doctor obiect herein not their ignorance for they are the most accomplished protestantes for their literature that euer liued not their partiality in the cause for they here speake against them selues and do conspyre in the fnndamentall and primitiue point of faith therein with M. Whyte him self Onely therefore it is to be said that these protestantes thâ—s confessing to their owne preiudice are more ingenious vpright and lesse impudent in their wrytinges and M. Whyte and his compartners are of a canterized and seâ—red conscience not caring euen against their owne knowledg by their shameles mantayning of lyes to suppresse Gods truth and Religion Now this Basis and groundwork being immoueaable and this firmly laid let vs proceede to these his vntruthes The 1. Vntruth The first vntruth that Protestantes embrace that kinde of tryall which is by antiquity Therefore first in his preface to the Reader pag. penul thus you see the very front of his book is no lesse subiect to lying then before as I haue shewed it was to corrupting our minister still forgeating that a great sore in the body is more tollerable then a moale in the face there speaking of the Fathers of the primitiue tymes and of their IudgmeÌ„ts in matters of Faith betwene the protestantes vs thus writeth We are so well assured meaning of the resolution of the Fathers that we embrace that kind of tryall which is by antiquity and dayly fynde our aduersaries to be gauled thereby A most vast vntruth and acknowledged to be such euen by the most iudiceous protestantes For we fynde that wheareas M. Iewell with the lyke hipocrisy did appeale to the auncient Fathers at Paules Crosse euen his owne brethren did rebuke him greatly for those his inconsiderate speaches in so much that D. Humfrey the half-arch of the English Church in his dayes affirmeth that to vse his owne wordes M. Iewell gaue the papists therein too large a scope that he was iniurious to him selfe and after a manner spoyled him self and his Church To the lyke ende D. Whitaker but with extraordinary scurrility wryteth that The popish Religion is but a patched couerlet of the Fathers errours sowed together From whence it followeth that D. Whytaker would be loth inappealably to stand to their determinations Finally Luther him self the first mouer of our new Gospels Spheare so farr disclaymeth from the Fathers Iudgmentes as that he thus insolently traduceth them The Fathers of so many ages speaking of primitiue tymes haue bene blynd and most ignorant in the Scriptures they haue erred all their lyfe tyme vnlesse they were amended before their deathes they were neither Sainctes nor perteyning to the Church Thus Luther Here now is euident the vntruth of M. Whyte appealing to the Fathers since we fynd that the most learned members of his owne Church do reiect them with all contempt charging them with slat papistry which they would neuer haue done if they could haue vsed any other conuenient euasion Be affrayd M. Whyte of Gods iust reuenge for this your mantayning of euill by euill for thus you here do first by impugning the true faith of Christ then for your better warranting thereof in traducing the auncient and holy Fathers as enemies to the said Faith And remember the sentence Metum auget qui scelere scelus obruit The second vntruth Against Traditions But to procede to other vntruthes pag. 2. our M. Whyte laboureth to proue that the protestantes Church receaueth not nâ—cessarily any one Tradition and answearably thereto in his first Table before his booke he thus wryteth No part of our faith standeth vpon Tradition Now here his owne brethren will charge him with falshood For seing M. Whyte must and doth acknowledg that to beleue that such bookes as the wrytinges of the four Euangelistes the Actes of the Apostles the Epistles of S. Paule c. are the sacred word of god is a mayne article of both his and our Faith The falshood of his former Assertion is euidently euicted from the wordes of learned protestantes who teach that not from our pryuate spirit or scripture
it with greater effects and frutes of vertue and the confessed better lyues euen of seculer Catholicks And so lewdly and lowdly did M. Whyte lye in whoÌ„ there is much Zuinglius when he affirmed that the protestantes were as holy as the papistes But I feare that through my earnestnes in displaying of the ministers vanity I haue bene ouer long in this poynt therfore I will descend to the next vntruth The 12. Vntruth Against auriculer Confession Page 227. discoursing of auriculer ConfessioÌ„ he saith that the Primitiue Church knew it not For the discouery of this falshood we fynd that the Centuristes do confessse that in the tymes of Ciprian and Tertulian priuate Confession was vsed euen of thoughtes and lesser sinnes And which is more they acknowledge that it was then Commaunded and thought necessary And D. Whytaker writeth that not onely Ciprian but almost all of the most holy Fathers of that tyme were in errour touching Confession and Satisfaction Thus we see how little bloud was in M. Whyte his cheekes when he was not ashamed to set downe this former bould assertion touching the doctrine of Confession But indeede it seemeth that our minister accompteth it onely a shame to feele in him self any touch of shame so far is he of in likelyhood from all hope of future amendement seeing on the contrary syde that saying for the most part is true Erubuit salua res est The 13. Vntruth Against Fasting Page 224. Our delicate minister as a professed enemy to all austerity of lyfe writeth thus against fasting All antiquity can witnes that in the primitiue Church Fasting was held an indifferent thing euery man was left to his owne mind therein This falshood is made discouerable by these acknowledgmentes following And first it is so certaine that AErius was condemned by Epiphanius haer 76. and by S. Augustine haer 53. for taking away all set dayes of fasting as that D. Fulke thus wryteth of this point I will not dissemble that which you think the greatest matter Aerius taught that fasting dayes are not to be obserued The same condemnation of Aerius by the former Fathers is acknowledged by doctor Whytaker By Pantaleon and Osiander But if Aerius was condemned by the former auncient Fathers for an heritike for denying certaine prescribed tymes of fasting it inauoydably followeth that fasting was not houlden as a thing indifferent in the primitiue Church This lye will appeare more euident if we instance it in the fast of Lent which fast was so farr from being accompted arbitrary or a thing indifferent in the primitiue Church as that Cartwright reproueth S. -Ambrose for saying It is sinne not to fast in Lent Thus you see how familierly this ministers pen drops lye after lye and such as the contrary assertion is mantayned for true euen by the most eminent protestantes The 14. Vntruth In proofe that Montanus the herityke was the first that brought in the lawes of Fasting Page 224. Our Doctor in further disgrace of fasting thus writeth Montanus a condemned herityke was the first that euer brought in the lawes of Fasting from whom the Papistes haue borowed them The 〈◊〉 misapplication of which is so forced and racked that no inferiour a protestant then Hooker him self confesseth ingeniously in these wordes that the Montaristes were condemned for bringing in sundry vnacâ—stomed dayes of fasting continued their fastes a great deale lâ—â—ger made them more rigorous c. Whereupon Tertulian mantayning Montanus wrote a booke of the new fast But what is this to vs Catholickes for we see that the errour of Montanus consisted formally not in absolutly bringing in of fasting but in varying from the former practised fastes of the whole Church Answearably hereunto the protestant wryter of Quaerimonia Ecclesiae reiectâ—th the former idle assertion in these wordes Eusebium inquiunt Montanum primas de iciuniis tulisse leges c. They say that Eusebius did vndoubtedly teach that Montanus first brougt in the lawes of fasting but they are sowly deceaued in this as in some other pointes for Montanus abrogating the fasts of the Church brought in a new kind of fasting Thus we see by the former assertions that M. Whyte like a good felow and one that meanes to enioy his Christian liberty can not well relish the vnsauery doctrine of fasting as in some pages hereafter we shall synd that in lyke sort he reiecteth all voluntary chastity which two pointes as before I noted do entertaine the one the other for who knoweth not that Epicurisme is the oyle which norisheth the flame of lust The 15 Vntruth In proofe that they make not god the author of sinne Page 263. M. Whyte being desireous that his religion should decline all contumelious reproach and staine touching the author of sinne thus wryteth The doctrine of the protestantes doth not make God the author of sinne nor inferreth any absolute necessity constrayning vs that we can not do otherwise then we doe That the indifferent Reader may the better discouer whether these his wordes be false or true I will only set downe the sentences of the cheifest protestants and withall will deliuer the iudgmentes of other protestantes against the former defending of the said sentences Zuinglius saith that God moueth the theefe to kill And that the theefe killeth god procuring him And that the theefe is inforced to sinne Thus in the heritykes iudgment God who in euery leafe of his sacred woord denounceth his comminations against sinners doth incyte procure and force man to sinne Beza in lyke sort teacheth that God exciteth the wicked will of one theefe to kill an other guideth his hand and weapons iustly enforcing the will of the theefe Fynally Caluin writeth that In sinning the deuill is not author but rather an instrument thereof thus referring the author of sinne to God him self Now that these sayinges of the former protestants do if not actually immediatly and primariously yet at least potentially and necessarily include in theÌ„ selues that god is the author of sinne is graunted by other more modest protestant wryters who do altogether condemne the foresaid doctrine of Caluin Zuinglius and Beza Thus is the said doctrine condemned by Castalio who wrote a speciall treatise hereof against Caluin By Hooker in his Ecclesiast Pollicy lib 5. pag. 104. By D. Couell in his defence of M. Hooker pag 62. Yea in farther conuincing of M. Whytes former vntruth we fynd that Iacobus Andreas a Protestant in Epitom Coloq Montisbelgar pag. 47. thus plainely writeth Deus est Author peccati secundum Bezam Here now I referr the matter to the iudiceous Reader whether he will beleue M. Whytes former assertion as true politikly onely deliuered by him to salue the honour of his Church or the plaine contrary meaning of Caluin Zuinglius and Beza set downe in their owne sayinges so acknowledged by others of their owne Religion where we fynd that the protestant
haith bene no where externall and visible Now during all these ages when was M. W. company of men visibly professing the same faith that he doth Finally D. Fulke though not acknowledging so great an inuisibility yet wryteth that in the tyme of Boniface the third which was Anno 607. the Church was inuisible and fled into wildernesse there to remaine a long season To these testimonies we may adde the former heretofore alledged touching their Churches not being vpon the first reuolt of Luther From all which it is ineuitably concluded against this our Architect of lyes that the protestants imaginary Church consisting of aery supposales of certaine inuisibilistes had no subsisting or being in the world for these laste thousand yeres at the least before the Apostacy of that vnfortunate wicked Monke The 19 Vntruth In defence of Preistes mariage Page 343. The Doctor much Apologizing defending the mariage of the Cleargy affirmeth that the Church of Rome houldeth contrary herein to that which was taught in the Primitiue Church Now for the triall of this falshood let vs concurr to that which is confessed by our learned aduersaties concerning the same First then Cartwright confesseth of the first Councell of Nyce which was celebrated in the 3. Century or age after Christ that it taught that vnto those which were chosen into the ministery it was not lawfull to take a wyfe afterwardes only being maried before entrance into the ministery it was lawfull for them to vse the benefyte of the precedent mariage In lyke sort M. Iewell in the defence of the Apology page 195. after the editioÌ„ of Anno 1571. speaking of preistes mariages thus acknowledgeth Here I graunt M. Harding it lyke to find some good aduantage as hauing vndoubtedly a great number of holy Fathers on his side Lastly Chemniâ—ius graunteth that this doctryne that preistes can not mary is taught by Origen Ierome Ambrose Innocentius Ciritius Epiphanius Now here I referr to the iudgment of any indifferent reader whether we are to beleue these former learned protestantes ingeniously confessing the practise of this our Catholick doctrine in the primitiue Church to the preiudice and endangering of theire owne cause or M. Whyte denying the same for the better tecture and pretext of his owne sociable lyfe and his ministeriall copulation The 20 Vntruth Against Images page 344. Inueighing much against the religious vse of Images among other thinges he saith according to the tytle of that his digression that touching Images the Church of Rome houldeth contrary to that formerly was houlden And after alledgeth that the auncient Christians of the Primitiue Church had no Images But the contrary hereto is most true For first we finde that the Centuristes do wryte that Lactantius who lyued in the fourth Century or age affirmeth many superstitious thinges concerning the efficacy of Christes Image Doctor Fulke affirmeth that Paulinus a very auncient Author caused Images to be painted on Church wales In lyke sort touching the signe of the Crosse of which there is the same reason and ground the Centuristes teach that Ambrosius multa commâ—morat superstitiosâ— de cruce inuâ—nta The said Centuristes also affirme of the third age after Christ that Crucis Imaginem c. Tertulian is thought to affirme that Christians had the Image of the Crosse in the places of their publike meetinges as also priuatly in their owne houses So farâ— did M. W. erre from the truth in affirming that touching Images The Church of Rome bouldeth contrary to that which was formerly houlden But I see if it be proofe enough for M. Whyte onely to condemne the Church of Rome must not be innocent The 21. Vntruth Against Transubstantiation Page 346. The D. thus writeth Lastly I name Transubstantiation c. wherein it is plaine that they meaning the Catholickes haue altered the Faith of the auncient Fathers Here for the tryall hereof we are to appeale to the sayinges and confessions of his owne syde where we shall fynd that M. Whytes credit and estimation is particulerly in this as in the former most daungerously wonnded euen by the handes of his owne breethren For we fynd it confessed by the Centuristes that Chrisostomus transubstantiatiorem vid tur confirmare Chrisostem is thought to confirme transubstantiation In lyke sort by the Iudgment of other protestantes Theophilactus Dama ceâ—us plane inclinant ad transubstantiatiorem Theophilact D. mascen do euidently inclâ—ne to Transubstantiation Answearable hereto Occolampadius doth charge Damascen with the said doctrine Finally D. Hâ—mfrey writeth that Gregory the great brought in Transâ—bstantiation In Ecclsiam verò saith he speaking of our conuersion quid inuexerunt Gregorius et Augustinus Intâ—lâ—runt c. Transubstantiationem Now I would demaund of our minister with what countenance he can auâ—rre that in the doctrine of TraÌ„substantiation we haue altered the faith of the auncient fathers if he obserue what is taught to the contrary by his owne brethren who not beleuing the doctrine it self yet do confesse the great antiquity thereof May we thinke that M. W. was ignorant of these Fathers myndes therein If so then are his followers much deceaued in ouerualâ—ing his good partes and literature and withall the obscurity of his owne iudgment touching the said fathers in this poynt haith thus farr preuailed that it haith ministred fitâ— opportunity to the Reader to take notice how cleare perspicuous shyning our Catholick faith of Transubstantiation was euen in those primitiue tymes So the Opacity and darknes of the earth is occasionally the cause of the dayes light The 22. Vntruth Against the conuersion of England by S. Augustine the Monke Page 354. and 355. to depriue S. Augustine the Monke of the honour and reuerence due vnto him by vs English for our conuersion the M. thus wryteth Touching the conuersion of England by Augustine the Monk in which our aduersaries make so much a doe I answeare two thinges fiâ—st that supposing he dâ—d conuert it it was not to the present Romane faith c. Secondly I say he conuerted not our Country at all excepting the planning of some tryfling Ceremonies Here you see that the first poynt of this passagâ— to wit touching Augustines connâ—rsion and his faith is Hipotheticall and deliuered with som hesitation and doubting the other recalling the first Categoricall absolute and peremptory Now in my reprouall of this his falshood I will vnyte together the two former disioynted parcels and directly proue from our aduersaries penaes that S. Augustine did conuert our Country to the present Catholick Romane faith in the euicting whereof I will content my self with the confessions of the Centuristes and of D. Humfrey For if we peruse the history of those Censorions Magdeburgians who reproue and controule at their pleasure all the Fathers of all ages we shall fynd that these Centuristes acknowledging S. Augustines conuersion of vs in their Alphabeticall Table of the 6. Century at
the word Gregory do set downe certaine erroures in their iudgmentes of S. Gregory in these wordes following Eiusdem error de bonit operibus de Confessione de Coniugio de Ecclesia de Sanctorum inuocatione de Inferno de Iustificatione de Libero arbitrio de Purgatorio de Paenitentia de Satisfactione And further in the said Century they charge him with Celebration of Masse Col. 369. with claime practise of supreme Iurisdiction ouer all Churches col 425. 426. c. with Relickes and sprinkling of holy water col 364. with Pilgrimage col 384. with Monachisme col 343. Finally to omit many other pointes with Chrisme oyle col 367. Now this being the confessed Faith of S. Gregory I think no reasonable maÌ„ will deny but that S. Augustine who was sent by him to conuert our Country was of the same Faith with S. Gregory In lyke sort D. Humfrey is most full in this point who thus writeth In Ecclesiam verò quid inuexerunt Gregorius Augustinus c. What brought Gregory Augustine into the Church They brought in the Archbishops vestmont for the solemne celebration of Masse they brought in Purgatory and oblation of the healthfull houst aâ—d Praiers for the dead c. they brought in Relickes Transubstantiation c. New consecration of Churches c. From all which pointes what other conclusion is gathered then that Indulgences Monachisme the Papacy and all the other chaos and heape of superstition was erected thereby And thus faâ—r of this testimony though heretofore vpon other occasion alledged Now here it being confessed both by the Centuristes and by this learned Doctor that S. Augustine did not onely conuert vs but also did teach vs all the former doctrines I would be resolued of M. whyte by what extenuation or figure in Rethorick he can style our instruction in the said maine articles of Catholick Religion the planting of certaine tryfling Ceremonies But I see he is most willing for his owne behalf to alleuiate and lessen the weight and consequence of our former conuersion The 23. Vntruth Concerning the Conuersion of Countries Page 357. Touching the conuersion of other heathen Countries to the Faith of Christ fore-tould so long since by the Prophets of God to be accomplished onely in the true Church of Christ the D. as being emulous of the Romane Catholick Church her honour therein flatly affirmeth of certaine Countries by him mentioned that they were conuerted by that Church which was of his owne faith and profession and not by the Church of vs Catholickes for thus he writeth Allowing all these Countries to haue bene conuerted by such as were members of the Church of Rome yet this was a thousand yeres agoe when that Church was the same that ours is and so the conuersions weare wrought by persons adhering to the protestantes faith This point is discouered to be false first by refuting the reason deliuered by the Doctor why the said Countries should be conuerted by the professors of the protestantes faith Secondly by the testimonies of the said protestantes flatly confessing that their Church as yet neuer conuerted any Country to Christianity As concerning the first poynt I say that the Church of Rome more then a thousand yeres agoe haith seaced supposing that before it was to be protestant and therefore her self professing the contrary faith as then could not conuert the said Countries to protestancy That the Church of Rome acknowledged not in these tymes the protestantes religion is most abundantly confessed by the protestantes them selues who do frequently teach that the true Church of God consequently in their supposales their owne Church haith bene latent and inuisible more then these laste thousand yeres during all which tyme the Antichristian and popish Religion as they terme it haith possessed all Christian Countries whatsoeuer The protestantes abundant confessions haue bene already made so euident in this point incidently in the discouery of some of M. W. vntruthes as that I presume an iteration of the same would be ouer fastidious aud wearisom to the Reader and therefore I will passe on to the other point consâ—sting in the confessions of the protestantes that their Church neuer yet conuerted any one Country to Christianity And first for confirmation hereof we fynde that Sebastian Castalie a learned Caluenist and highly praisep by D Humfray writing of the accomplishment of the prophesies of conuerting of kingdomes saith thus Equidem aâ—t haec futura fatendum est c. Truly we must confesse that these thinges shall be performed here after or haue been heretofore or God is to be accused of lying If any man answer that they haue bene performed I will demaund when If he say in the Apostles time I will aske how it falleth out that neither then the knowledg of God was altogether perfect and after in so short a time vanished away which was promised to be eternall and more aboundant then the floods of the sea And then there somwhat after the said protestant thus acknowledgeth The more I do examine the Scriptures the lesse I obserâ—e it the same performed howsoeuer the said Prophets be vndeâ—stoode To conclude this point the prophecies deliuered by Esay and others the Prophets for the spreading of Gods Châ—rch are so fart from being yet acomplished in the protestantes Church that diuers protestantes haue not onely acknowledged so much but by reason of the not performance thereof haue in the end become most wicked Apostataes mantaining that if the faith and Religion preached by Christ and his Apostles had bene true and his Church that Church which was figured out by the auncient Prophets that then should the said Prophesies touching the enlargment of the Church and the conuersion of nations haue had their successiue euent and infallible performance in the said Church which they affirme hitherto haâ—th not bene effected And vearably hereunto we find that the want of the performance to the said prophesies in the protestantes Church wrought so forcibly with Dauid George a HollaÌ„der once professor of the protestants faith religion in Basill to omitt the lyke examples of diuers others that in the end he taught most fearfull horrible blasphemy affirming Christ to haue bene a seducer his cheifest reason being in that the true Religion our Catholick Religion being by him supposed to be false and therefore the conuersions of Countries made to it not admitted to be intended by the Prophets according to the predictions should haue spred and disseminated it self before this tyme through the most Nations Countries of the world which poynt saith he hitherto is not accomplished Here now the iudiceous Reader may collect both from what haith bene acknowledged aboue as also from the present confession of the former Apostata being accompanied with such a dreadfull euent how vntrue the D. wordes were when he affirmed diuers Countries some thousand yeres since to haue bene conuerted from paganisme vnto Christianity by
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
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