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
superstitious and blynd as it pleaseth M. Whyre others to terme vs for how can they be blind who behould the articles of there faith with the eyes of all antiquity Examine it by the rules of Gods sacred word for the true sence of his written word as following euen the iugments of the most dispassionat and sobeâ— Protestants recur to the ioynt expositions of the primitiue fathers who liued when the church was most florishing and in her full orbâ— and know that the leaues of scripture without the intended sence of the holy Ghost are but leaues without frute as touching his vnwritten word call to mind that saying of Tertulian Id uerius quod prius id prius quod ab initio id ab initio quod ab Apostolis Remember that the most markable Protestants for learninge do confesse that those doctors are patrons of our Catholicke fayth who liued when the Spouse of Christ was most spotles chast and intemerat Apoynt indeed so euident as that from their learned monuments we are able to delineat and draw the very Image and face of the present Romane religion as for the more obscure passages occurring in them your ingenuityes may suppose them to be the sad colours or darke groundes seruing onely to giue greater luster and life to the whole portrayture Be neuer perswaded since it is graunted that the Romane Church was once the true church and the time of her supposed reuolt cannot be knowne that the daughter of Sion could euer so vnespiedly become a Babilonian strumpet Deuide not your selues froÌ„ that most conspicuous church of Christ which haith bene promised that in all ages it should gloriously appeare to the eye of the world lest so in sew thereof as for the last refuge you be forced to forge a Mathematicall and aery Church consisting of certainâ— imaginary inuisibilites impugned by the fathers and your more iudicious wryters since it being mearly consisteth in a not being Suffer not a Heteroclyte sectary who reiecteth though contrary to gods word and his owne brethren all regular ordinary and mediate vocation like an other Melchisadech borne without father or mother to plant in your soules a new kind of religion neuer heard of before till a libidenous Monke by mutuall breach of vowes had yoked him selfe with a lapsed Nunn and be a certained that such a nouelist must needs be one of those who say they are Apostles and are not but are found liars Finally relinquishe and abandon that supreame soueraignty of the priuat reauealing spirit condemned euen by Christs owne Apostles it being first cheefly erected therby to decline the weighty authorityes of the auncient fathers in the exposition of Gods sacred wryt to reduce all thinges to the most graue for-sooth and inappealable tribunall of each illiteterate mans empty scull and braines Thus do the gospellers of these dayes hould the fanaticall reuealing Spirit as their mount Sinay from whence they receue their new euangelicall lawe it being in deed shadowed with a cloud not wherewith to couer it owne ouer glorious infallibility but with a cloud or mist of pride ignorance and vncertainty And thus worthy Academians leauing you to the censure of your vnworthy sonn I take my leaue expecting that my good meaning herein shall ouer-ballance with you my bouldnes and wishing euen in the bowels of Christiane charity that euery one of you weare strong armed with our most auncieÌ„t Catholicke Roman faith for then you would easely learne to contemne those poore and weake assaults which euery first appearance of new doctrine doth threaten it being an acknowledged experienced truth that Hareses apud cos multum valent qui in fide non valent Your well willer in Christ Iesus T. W. P. THE PREFACE TO THE READER Good Reader before I remit thee to the perusall of this ensuing discourse I here thinke it good to acquaint thee with the occasion inducing me to wryte it and with my methode houlden therein And as touching the first thou art to conceaue that the worthles esteeme which we haue had of M. Whyte his booke how soeuer his owne followers do magnify it as seeing it fraught with such impurity of stuffe haith for theese yeares past preuailed with most of vs so far that we weare determined to forbeare the answearing thereof houlding it altogether vnworthy of such labour yet seing in diuerse passages of his late second worke he vaunteth in great exultation and iolity of words that this his first booke doth not stand chargeable with any wilfull corruption falsification or other such imposture and that he confidently prouoketh his aduersary if any such be to set them downe Therefore to controule this mans most shamelesse asseueration as being one of an obdurat conscience not caring how falsly he wryteth or how impudently he iustifieth it being wrytten I do here charge his said first treatise with most fowle abuses falsifications other such fraudulent dealing will in theese few sheetes following particularize to thee diuerse of them whereby thou shalt haue reason to assure thy selfe that M. Whyte in reguarde of his calling in his new Ministery and his exercise therein may truly be numbred amongest them Qui Commutauerunt veritatem Dei in mendacium who changed the truth of God onto a lye Now concerning my methode taken in displaying of his falshood and deceate thou art to be aduertised that my cheefe proiect in this treatise being to proue M. Whyte in his wrytings a most dishonest conscionles and faithles man therfore forbearing to confute the whole course of his booke in respect of doctrine which is already learnedly performed by my fellowe A. D. in his reply to M. W. said worke I do here restraine my selfe to three heads reduâ—ing all theese impostures in which hereafter I intend to insist to some of them The heads are these Corruptions Lyes and ImpertineÌ„cyes By CorruptioÌ„s I meane those depraued authorityes of the auncient Fathers and our own moderne Catholicke authours which this our Minister thereby to make theÌ„ to speake in his protestant language and dialect haith most shamelesly altered either by inserting or adding some words of his owne as part of their sentences or by concealing of some part of their words which do expound the rest of the testimonyes in a far different sence froÌ„ that in which M. Whyte doth vrge them or lastly though setting downe their words truly by strangely detorting and wresting them from the intended sence of the authors By Lyes I vnderstand false assertions and vast vntruthes mantained by M. White whom the more fully and irrepliably and for the greater compendiousnes to coÌ„uince therein I haue made choice of those vntruthes as are acknowledged for such by the most learned Protestants thus making his mother to wit the Vniuersity the iudg and his owne Brethren the plaintifs betwene himselfe and me herein By ImpertineÌ„ces
I conceaue his idle and fruteles aledging either of scripture fathers or Catholick writers to disproue thereby some poynt of our religion where my meaning is that allowing the sense and constructions to those authorityes which the wordes necessarily and truly importe yet they doe in no sort disable weaken the catholicke poynt for the impugning whereof they are there by our Minister produced so that it followeth that his illations drawne from those testimonies to the question intended are most absurd incongruous and inconsequent These three now are the seuerall particuler deliueries of our minister in his so much applauded worke himselfe in this his scene sometimes acting one part sometimes an other agreeable to the former heades but wee lesse maruaile since eich man knowes that whyte is successiuely capable of seuerall tinctures Now touching the number of these his impostures thou art good reader further to vnderstand that my meaning is not to displaye all those with which his booke is stored for this would require too painful a labour and rising to an ouer greate volume would be lesse fitting to be printed and diuulged Besides seeing my maine proiecte here is to decipher the dishonest dealing of our minister euery cleere iudgment will acknowledg that the true charging him euen with a few wilfull and vniustifiable corruptions doth condemne and proue him for such a man and euery one knoweth that who is found out of malice to corrupte some few places would in like sorte depraue as many authorities as opportunity might licence him Therfore touching his Corruptions or deprauations I haue contented my selfe onely with fourty which fourty are taken out of about some twenty different writers hauing in truth no more bookes alledged by him wherewith to examine it from which circumstance thou maist thus conclude that if restraining my selfe onely to twenty authours more or lesse I can find fourty most notorious corruptions of theyr testimonies how many scores in all liklihood of such like deprauations might be found in all the rest of the authors alledged by him which amount nere-hand to a hundred if diligent search weare made of them the rather considering that many bookes produced by him but omitted by me are most to be gotten and therefore he might corrupte their sayinges more securely and with greater bouldnes as presuming beforehand that such his corruptions through want of the bookes them selues could not easely be espied In like sort concerning his lyes I haue made choyce onely of such as are all of theÌ„ acknowledged for vntruthes by his owne learned brethren From which point thou maist also thus infer if M. Whyte his booke doth minister sundry such grosse lyes against our catholicke faith as that the most learned protestants that euer writ are forced though to their owne disaduantage to confesse them for such How many other vntruthes might be found therein which through some shewe or culour of answeare and euasion are such as though being lyes indeed wil not yet be so acknowledged by our aduersaries who are loth to confesse more in fauour of our catholicke religion then the vnauoidable euidence and clearenes of the truth it selfe constrayneth them Lastly all his impertinencies or weake absurd reasons hereafter set downe are taken out of lesse then twenty leaues of his booke from which thou maist in like maner thus collect that if twenty leaues and theese in the first part of his booke deuiding the whole into three partes do afford such a boundance of impertinent allegations and authorityes how many hundreds then in all probability of like nature are dispersed throughout his whole treatise it contayning aboue two hundred leaues And the rather seeing that diuers authours do commonly fortify and strengthen the first part of their wrytings with more forcible proofes and authorities then the latter part both thereby the sooner and with greater speede to inuade the iudgment of the reader as also knowing that many do peruse the beginninges of bookes who through a werisome carelesnes do neuer reade the latter part of them And thus much of my methode in this my treatise Here now thou seest curteous reader what I vndertake to performe that is to make euident that M. Whyte his first booke is stored with most shameles falsifications lyes and other such collusions the which if I doe not effect I am content to become a reproche and shame not onely to my particuler profession the sacred function whereof I hould my cheefest honour but also to the Catholicke cause in generall for here I protest in the sight of god and as I shall answere the truth or falshood of this my protestation at the most dreadfull daye that I neuer perused booke of this quantity wherein I did find more vnanswereable corruptions lyes and impertinencies then in this worke of M. Whytes And if so eminent a man as he is presumed by many to be doth stand chaâ—geable with such prophane and wicked deportments what shall we then censure of other inferiour wryters of his side Since if the light be darknes how great is the darknes or what may we iudg of thâ— iustnes of their cause seeing the faith of Christ is of that force as it scorneth to be vphoulden with the weake supporters of such deceatfull meanes it being no better then an impious deuotion or irreligious godlines to deferd truth with falshood or to blaze forth the light of the gospel by the workes of darknes And as touching his second booke which is fraughted with all base scurrility of wordes and railing I will onely say that seing there hath not bene as yet sufficient opportunity for the particuler examining of it yet I am assured that who shall impose that labour to himself shall find the same to stand chargeable with no lese store of impostures then this his other for if this his booke impugned by me being the strength and first borne of his cause be found so corrupt how can we probably coniecture that this other second feminine and lesse perfect labour of his should not pertake of the former blemishes and deficiences But now good reader I will detaine thee no longer from perusing this my accusation earnestly entreating thee euen for the good of thy soule that if thou vnderstand latin thou wouldest see the testimonies them selues as they lye in the authours the which I doe avouch to be here corrupted which if thou dost doubtlesly thou shalt be forced to confesse that M. whyte is a most egregious falsary and howsoeuer he enameleth his cause with the phrazes of the waye to the true Church of the enlarging of the Ghospell of Christ of rooting out superstition and blindnes and the like neuerthelesse thou shalt find that he is most conscious and guilty both of his owne weake cause as also of his perfidious and prophane mantaining and defending of the same so as in reguard of his hipocrisy and dissimulation herein thou shalt see the wordes of the apostle iustified in him all they are
not Israell which are of Israell himselfe being one of those which will not cease to peruert the way of our Lord. A TABLE OF THE CONTENTES The first Part. Chapiter 1. Conteyning Corruptions concerning woorkes and Iustification The First Paragraph Premenitions geuen to M. whyte if he entend to reply vpon this present Treatise 2 The Rhemistes Corrupted concerning merite of workes 3 Cardinall Bellarmine Corrupted concerning iustification 4 Bellarmine againe abused against merite of workes 5 S. Thomas Corrupted against iustification by workes 6 S. Augustine Corrupted against iustification Chapiter .2 Concerning the reading of the Scriptures The first Paragraph S. Ierome Corrupted concerning the reading of the Scriptures by the vulgare people 2 S. Cirill of Alexandria abused for the same purpose Chapiter .3 Concerning the Church and the Pope The first Paragraph Vincentius Lirinensis Corrupted in proofe that the Church may erre 2 The Rhemistes Corrupted for the Churches inuisibility 3 S. Augustine Corrupted concerning the same subiect 4 Doctor Stapleton abused in behalfe of the protestantes markes of the Church 5 S. Gregory de valentia Corrupted concerning the same 6 Bellarmine egregiously Corrupted for the same 7 S. Thomas fouly corrupted concerning the Popes authority 8 Doctor Sapleton corrupted concerning the same subiect 9 S. Ciprian corrupted against appeales to Rome 10 The Rhemistes abused concerning the authority of the Church 11 Cardinall Cusanus corrupted concerning the same 12 The canon lawe corrupted concerning the Pope 13 Bellarmine corrupted against the Popes authority Chapiter 4. wherin are discouered sundry corruptions concerning the sacred Scriptures and Traditions The first Paragraph Bellarmine corrupted in behalfe of the Scripture prouing it selfe to be the word of god 2 Bellarmine corrupted in proofe that the Scriptures are the onely rule of faith 3 Eckius abused concerning the Authority of the Church and Traditions 4 Canus corrupted concerning Traditions Chapter .5 Concerning Faith and Heresy The 1 Paragraph Bellarmine corrupted against the necessity of true Faith 2 Bellarmine againe corrupted against the knowledg of the misteries of our faith and in preferring of ignorance 3 Nauar corrupted concerning the sinne committed by the Laity in disputing of matters of faith Chapter 6. Concerning mariage of Preistes Fasting and Miracles The 1 Paragraph Sinesius impudently abused concerning his owne mariage 2 Paphnutius abused concerning the mariage of preistes 3 S. Angustine corrupted against fasting Baronius notoriously corrupted in proofe that heritikes can worke true miracles Chapter .7 Concerning the Sacramentes of the Eucharist and Pâ—nance The 1. Paragraph Bellarmine corrupted against Transubstantiation 2 The. M. of the Sentences corrupted against confession to a Preist 3 Bellarmine corrupted against Satisfaction 4 S. Thomas corrupted concerning the remission of veniall sinnes Chapter 8. Concerning the Author of sinne and Reprobation The 1. Paragraph Bellarmine egregiously falsified in proofe that god is the Author of sinne 2 S. Augustine abused concerning reprobation Chapter 9. Concerning the honour to be geuen to Sainctes and their Images The 1 Paragraph S. Epiphanius corrupted in dishonour of the B. Virgin Mary 2 S. Gregory notoriously corrupted against the worshiping of Images 3 The Councell of Eliberis corrupted against Images The second part Containing sundry notorious vntruthes or lyes proued to be such by the confession of learned protestantes And first is preuented a weake euasion which may be vsed by M. Whyte against this second part The 1. vntruth That protestantes embrace that kind of tryall which is by antiquity 2 Against Traditions 3 In proofe of the protestants Church to haue continued in all ages 4 In proofe of the vnity of faith and doctrine amongst protestantes 5 In proofe of the immutability of the present English Religion 6 In proofe of the Romane Churches mutability in matters of faith 7 In proofe of the protestantes concord in matters of Religion 8 Against the vnity of Catholickes in matters of faith 9 Against the Popes primacy 10 That Gregory the great detested the Popes primacy 11 In proofe that Catholickes are more viceous then protestantes 12 Against auriculer confession 13 Against Fasting 14 In proofe that Montanus the herityke was the first that brought in the lawes of Fasting 15 In proofe that they make not God the Author of sinne 16 In proofe that S. Bernard was noe papist 17 Against the miracles wrought by S. Bernarde and S. Francis 18 In proofe of the protestantes Churches euer visibility 19 In defence of Preistes mariage 20 Against Images 21 Against Transubstantiation 22 Against the conuersion of England by S. Augustine the Monke 23 Concerning the Conuersion of Countries 24 Against the Popes Authority in calling of Councels 25 Against merite of woorkes 26 Against the Sacrifice of the Masse 27 Concerning wafer cakes 28 Against the Adoration of the B. Sacrament 29 Against the succession of Catholick Pastors 30 In defence of Martin Luthers lyfe and manners The Third Part. Contayning diuers impertinences or absurd Illations or reasoninges The 1. Paragraph Wherein are discouered strange Illations or arguinges in proofe that the Scriptures are the sole rule of faith and against Traditions 2 Wherein are discussed certaine arguments drawne from Scriptures Fathers in proofe that the sacred Scriptures the true sense thereof are made sufficiently knowne vnto vs without any probation or explication of the Church 3 Wherein are examined some of M. Whites profes against the visibility of the Church 4 Wherein are discussed certaine proofes of M. Whytes in behalf of the protestantes markes of the Church 5 Wherein are examined strange kindes of Argunges against the Authority of the Church Faultes escaped in the printing In the preface to the Vniuersity of Cambridge Pag. 1 lin 10. for iudiceous reade iudicious Ibid. lin 11. for grearly read greatly Ibid. pag. 4. lin 27. for Iugements read Iudgements Ibid. pag. 5. lin 22. for inuisibilites Inuisibilistes Preface to the Reader Pag. 2. lin 4. leaue out said worke Pag. 4. lin 15. for â—nlour read colour Chapter 1. Pag. 4. lin 25. for Iustifieth read insisteth in Pag. 5. lin 25. for preadmonish read premonish Pag. 18. lin 21 for great read greatest Pag. 27. lin 9. for Quod read Quid. Pag. 31. lin 23. for Anologie read Analogie Pag. 47. lin 4. betwixt druncke and should insorte one Pag. 52. lin 16. 17. leaue out these wordes All which your omissions are impaled and marked in the said english authority Pag. 52. lin 20. for Emprour read Emperour Pag. 53 lin 14. for disopting read dissorting Pag. 53. lin 23. for perusing read pursuing Pag. 64. lin 14. leaue out the word is Pag. 77. lin 10. for Chapiter read Chapter Pag. 87. lin 24. for maliuolent read maleuolent Pag. 138. lin 27. next after the word Masse insert affirmeth Pag. 159. lin 10. betwixt authority the insert in Pag. 73. lin 30. for fully read fouly Pag. 87. lin 33. for paralayes read parallels Pag. 92. lin 4. for differences read discoueries Pag. 97. lin 28. for musk read musick Pag. 114. lin
coopling to the Atheist which your self M. Wayte haue heare assumed and practised and you shall finde strange positions well manteined by him For example the Psalmiâ—t speaking of your self and other such like saith Tâ—s foole haith said in his heart there is no god Now kindly allow him to blott out the word foole as you more theÌ„ folishly did the woord Grace to insert in steed thereof the wordes wyse man as you according to the wisdome of the world inserted the word Nature and then obserue how easely he will defende from the scriptures that there is no god seing according to your scriptures The wyse man said in his heart there is no god But to conclude this knowingly and deliberately to corrupt to the dishonour of your owne Catholick Religion and to the ruyne of your owne other ignorant soules is to me an argument most conuincing that you are one of those fooles who said in his heart there is noe god Paragr 3. Cardinall Bellarmine corrupted concerning Iustification IN the verie first page of his preface to the Reader so loth it semed he was to loose any tyme he sheweth vs an other trick somwhat like vnto the former Where by the way I must aduertise him that I hould him a man herein impolitick and incautelous that would not suffer the verie face or front of his Treatise to passe vnblemished since the first he rather should haue coueted to winne the eare of credulity with pleasing insinuations of truth and then the iudgment of his Reader being once possessed after to haue vented forth his more impure dâ—egs for we are taught Io. 2. that omnis homo primum bonum vinum apponit cum inebriati sunt tum id quod est deterius But to the deprauation pag. 1. of his preface M. Whyte falsly to intimate to his reader how much the Catholicks do disualew the passion of Christ thus wryteth The Church of Rome teacheth that iustâ—fication is wrought by the habite of our owne righteousnes not by Christes Thus you see how peremptorily he affirmeth without any reseruation that we reiect the righteousnes of Christ to concurre to our Iustification Now this he laboureth to proue from a testimony of Bellarmine de iustificat li. 2. ca. 2. which he thus setteth downe Our owne inherent iustice is the formall cause of absolute iustification not the iustice of Christ imputed vnto vs. That we may conceaue the true meaning of that learned Cardinall in this place I will set downe his owne wordes in latine who there discoursinge of the causes of our Iustification thus saith Ad quaestionem an vid. iustificamur propter meritum Filii dei an propter in châ—atam renouatioâ—em nostram Respondemus Si illud propter significet causam formalem nos iustificari propter noui tatem nobis inhaerentem non propter meritum Christi quod iuhaeâ—eâ—e non potest si veró significet causam meritoriam nos iustificari dicemus propter meritum Filii des non propter nouitatem in nobis haerentem That is In this question whether we be iustified propter meritum for the merit of the Sonne of God or for our owne renouation of lyfe I answeare If the word propter doe signify the formall cause then are we iustifyed through our owne newnesse of lyfe inherent in vs and not through the merites of Christ because they can not inhere in vs and these are the wordes alledged by M. Whyte but if the worde propter do here signify the meritorious cause then are we iustifyed propter meritum Filii deâ— through the merites of the Sonne of God not through any inherent newnes or iustice in vs And then presently concludeth ita iustificamur propter vâ—rumque c. So we are iustifyed by reason or through them both to wit through the merites of the Sonne of God meritorié meritoriously and through an inherent iustice in vs formaliter formally Thus Bellarmine Where you see the question is not as M. Whyte suggesteth whether Christes iustice doth concurre to mannes iustification which were a horrible blasphemy to deny but onely in what kynd of cause it concurreth the Catholickes teaching that it concurres as the meritorious cause not as the formall cause since if it did as the formall cause then euen according to philosophy it should really inhere in vs but so it doth not But now to obserue M. Whytes calumny fraude in alledging this testimony First he purposly concealeth the latter part of the sentence which sheweth how we ascribe our iustification to Christ as vnwilling that the reader should heare that in any sence we rely thereon Secondly that whereas this testimony of the Cardinales euen as it is set downe by M. Whyte him self excludeth onely Christes merites as the formall cause of our iustification and in none other sence yet our minister alledgeth it to proue that it is no cause thereof at all in this respect it is impertinently vrged for in his owne wordes immediatly before without any limitation of the cause he saith The Church of Rome teacheth that iustification of a sinner is done by the habite of our owne righteousnes not by Christes And then as I said alledgeth for proofe thereof such wordes of Bellarmine as excludeth onely the formall cause thereof But his sleight here was that perswading him self that the ignorant reader not knowing what the word formall cause is or how it is distinguished from other kinde of causes but thinking that it did signify any cause in generall should no sooner see the wordes of Bellarmine but then should instantly conclude with him self here Bellarmine the Church of Rome teacheth that mans iustification is in no sort or maner wrought by the iustice of Christ. And thus much of our Doctors deportement herein who through his subtill feaninge at his pleasure what we are supposed to mantaine doth in the meane tyme endanger and wrong the honour of the worthy and illustrious Cardinall till more full search and disquisition of the truth be made And thus our poetizing minister I meane our lyinge M. Whyte doth interest him self in the censure of the poet Ouid. li. 2. fast fraude perit virtus Heare now I end this deprauation assuring my reader that Bellarmine is so farre of from teaching that Christes iustice doth not necessarily concurre to our iustification that in the former alledged Chapter he thus writeth Iustitia homini a deo per Christi merâ—ta donata est c. That is Iustice is geuen by god to man through the merites of Christ. And then presently thus repiâ—hendeth Kemnitius for his deceipte vsed in this question Kemnitius fraudulenter egit c. kemnitius dealeth fraudulently herein in that to precure malice against vs he opposeth on the contrary side our late begon renouation or newnes of lyfe to the merites of the Sonne of God as if we prized more our owne change or newnes of lyfe though imperfect and late begon then the
of Rome produceth pag. 188 S. Ciprian in these wordes Nay Ciprian saith The vnity of Bishopes is broken when euen runne from theire owne to the Bishope of Rome which wordes if they had bene true being much materiall caused me diligently to peruse the Epistle quoted but indede agreable to my expectation I found none such and therefore truly deemed them to be framed in the fournace of M. Whytes forgeries And though in the Epistle cyted S. Ciprian reprehēdeth certaine heritikes who being iudicially cōuicted in Africk sayled to Rome with the marchandise of their lyes ◠endeuoring by their subtill and cunning rashnes to break the concord of Bishopes yet was he so farr from disprouing of any lawfull Appeale to Rome as that in the same place he auoucheth Rome to be the Chaire of Peter and principall Church from whence preistly vnity aryseth yea he scorned the said heritykes as not knowing◠the Romanes to be those vnto whom vntruth could haue no accesse and withall further affirming that the truth should sayle after them to Rome which with proofe of the thing certaine should cōuince their lying tongues All which doth plainely make knowen S. Ciprianes true conceipt of Romes superiority and indeede doth strongly confirme our Catholick doctrine concerning Appeales For if those heritykes censured by the Bishopes of Africk to auoyde their present punishment appealed to Rome no doubt this argueth that Appeales to Rome were in vse as then and though the Appellantes were heritykes yet in that otherwise their Appeale had bene plainely vaine foolish and fruitlesse it manifestly supposeth the foresaid Authority of admitting Appeales to reside in the Bishope of Rome Further though S. Ciprian reprehended them being lawfully conuicted for their further Appealing and not submitting them selues to their immediate Pastors yet doth he no-where so much as insinuate vpon iust occasions the vnlawfulnes of Appeales but euen in this very place doth imply the contrary by his sending after the foresaid heritikes to the Romane Church to enforme her of the truth which if it had not bene in regard of her foresaid Superiority or Primacy had bene altogether neede-les peraduenture inconuenient And whereas M. Whyte a litle before cyteth these wordes of S. Ciprian vnlesse peraduenture a few desperate and gracelesse persons think the Authority of the Bishopes in Africk that iudged them to be lesse it is plaine by the text that he maketh not this comparison with the Bishop of Rome but with those hereticall Bishopes which were censured and condemned by the Bishopes of Africk To conclude when M. Whyte sheweth me in the Epistle cyted of S. Ciprian these wordes obiected the vnity of Bishopes is broken when men runne from their owne to the Bishope of Rome I will publikely declaime him the cuningest Optician or rather Magician that the whole ministery of England affordeth The 10 Paragraph The Rhemists abused concerning the Authority of the Church Againe pag. 119. our fraudulent Doctor laboureth much to induce his credulous Readers to beleue that we hold that the Church can at her pleasure make that Scripture which is not and vnmake that which once is scripture thereupon saying that the papists haue a principle among them that the Scripres receiue all their authority from the Church he seketh to proue it in the next lynes from a testimony of the Rhemistes gal 6. thus alledging them The Scriptures are not knowne to be true neither are Christians bound to receaue them without the attestation of the Church Here againe he curtayleth their sentence concealing such their wordes as do lymite the Churches authority therein and wherein they do acknowledg an infallible truth of the Scriptures before any approbation of the Church therefore you shall haue their wordes alledged at large The Scriptures say they which are indeede of the Holy Ghosts indyting being put into the Churches tryall are found proued and testifyed vnto the world to be such and not made true altered or amended by the same without which attestation of the Church the holy Scriptures in them selues were alwayes true before but not so knowne to be to all Christians nor they so bound to take them Here the Rhemistes onely say that the truth of the Scriptures can not be made knowne to vs without the attestation of the Church And that this is all which M. Whyte can collect from this testimony which we willingly graunt Yet where the Rhemistes in this very place do vse wordes of reuerence to the Scriptures embrace their infallibility as these The Scriptures are not made true altered or amended by the Church And againe without the attestation of the Church the holy Scriptures in themselues were alwayes true As also wheare it is set downe by them in the mergent euen in that place The Church maketh not canonicall Scripture but declareth that it is so These I say though parcels of the former sentence or merginall explications thereof the D. haith after his accustomed maner most calumniously ouerskipped Thus it will still be found that the sphere of this his learned Treatise what glorious motion soeuer it semeth hitherto to haue in the sight of his ignorant fauorites turneth vpon the poles of shame full corruptions lying deceiptes The 11. Paragraph Cardinall Cusanus corrupted concerning the same subiect Againe continuing his former proiect pag. 51. he bringeth in the Cardinall Cusanus saying Epist. 3. pa. 3. When the Church changeth her Iudgment God also changeth his This he vrgeth to make vs mantayne that God doth so subiect his iudgment to the church that supposing for it is a mere supposall the church should alter or change any essentiall or fundamentall poynte of faith whatsoeuer by interpreting the Scripture otherwyse then before it did for M. Whyte setteth this sentence downe without any restraint so conformably thereto styleth the page The sence of Scripture changed with the tyme that then god also doth chāg his mynde therein so warrantiug the truth of this new stamped article But let vs see how the wordes do lye in Cusanus thus they are Sicut quondam coniugium praeferebatur Castitati c. As in former tymes meaninge in the firster ages of the world matrimony was preferred by the Church before Chastity so was it preferred euen by God But after the Iudgment of the Church being changed therein meaning after the world was fully peopled gods Iudgment it changed also If therefore the Church doth Iudg any act to be of great merite in reguard of the present circumstances and in an other tyme after shall Iudg an other act to be of greater valew c. it is euident that the greatnes of the merite doth much depende vpon the Iudgment of the Church Thus what is here spoken onely of the diuersity of merit of one and the same action according to the different circumstances of tyme or place M. Whyte will needes extend besides the intention of the Author to the chang of any dogmaticall point how great soeuer of
sence which hitherto I can not find yet it is no small dishonesty in M. Whyte thus vnkindly to match and ioyne together such disopting sentences without the parents consent Againe what a strange construction or translation is this Scriptura non est authentica sine authoritate Ecclesiae The Scripture receaueth all the authority it haith from the Church and from Tradition If this liberty be Iustifiable what errour so grosse may not easely be iustifyed against all Scripture thongh neuer so plentifull though neuer so manifest The 4. Paragraph Canus corrupted concerning Traditions Againe perusing his former proiect he pag. 2. fortifyeth him self with a wrest d authority of Canus whom li. 3. ca. 3. he bringeth in thus teaching There is more strength to confute heritykes in Traditions then in the Scripture yea all disputations with them must be determined by Traditions Here againe the proteruity of our Doctor more and more discouereth it self For thus Canus speaketh Non modo aduersum haereticos c. Not onely against heritykes Tradition is of more force then Scripture but also omnis fermè disputatio almost all disputation with them is to be reduced to Traditions receaued from our Auncestors For seing both Catholickes heritikes doe alledg Scripture for them selues the difference betwene them is in the sence and interpretation thereof Now which is the true and lawfull sence of it can not otherwise certainly be knowen then by the traditioÌ„ of the Church Here now our ministers sleight is three-fould for first Canus borroweth this saying from Tertulian of whom twenty lynes before this place Canus thus us writeth Tertulianus monet vt aduersus hareticos magis Traditionibus quam Scripturis disseramus Scripturae enim varios sensus trâ—huntur Traditiones non item TertuliaÌ„ counseleth vs that we hould dispute against heritikes rather with Tradition then with Scripture since the Scriptures are drawen into seuerall constructions whereas Traditions are not so Thus it appeareth that the opinion is Tertulians and borrowed onely from him by Canus yet M. Whyte thought it more conuenient to deliuer it as proceding onely from Canus so concealing Tertulian as vnwilling to haue it graced and countenanced with the Authority of so auncient a Doctor The second deceipt here lyeth in not translating but concealing the reasoÌ„ of Canus his IudgmeÌ„t therein though it be expressed by Canus in the wordes immediatly folowing the place alledged which shew that the cause why we are to dispute with heritykes with Traditions rather then with Scriptures is not as our minister falsly pretendeth our distrust in the Scripture or want thereof to proue our Catholick Faith but as Canus saith because the true sence of it is cheifely to be taken from Tradition warranted by the Church Thirdly and lastly he abuseth his Reader in concealing the aduerbe ferme in those words aboue omâ—is ferme disputatio almost all disputation whereas he translateth all disputations Thus Canus by vsing the worde fermè exempteth some points from being decyded onely by traditions whereas by our ministers translation not any one is excepted Thus haue we seene how our Doctor by his fowle collusions haith laboured seuerall wayes to depresse and obscure the worthines of gods Catholick Church as by making her become somtimes inuisible by falsly ascribing to her and her head in the catholickes name an vsurping soueraignty thereby to make her due Authority the more contemned to conclude by depryuing her of all Apostolicall Traditions and of all preheminency in explayning and expounding the Scriptures whereas she especially now in the tyme of the Gospell euer sendeth from her self most glorious beames and splendor of truth and perpetuitie according to that of the princely psalmist In sole pos uit Tabernaculum suum for indeede she is that Soon which contrary to our inuisibilistes for these sixteene hundreth yeres did neuer once set vnder the horizon of an vniuersall latency that Soon which neuer expatiates beyond the tropickes of Gods Traditionary or writen word that Soon which with it defyning and infallible authority in explicating the true sense of Gods word dissipates and dissolues all cloudes of errour exhaled through the weake influence of the reuealing spirit finally that Soon whose concentrous vniformity could yet neuer broke any Phaniomena or apparances of innouation and nouelty whereas all other sectes professing the name of Christians are in regard of it but as Planetary and wandring starrs producing many Anomalous irregularities of vncertainty dissention and confusion Chapiter 5. Concerning Faith heresy The 1. Paragraph Bellarmine verrupted against the necessity of true Faith BVT to returne to our Doctor from Traditions we will descend to such other his deprauations as concerne Faith in generall as pag. 212. suggesting that we exact not besides other vertues any true or inward Faith to denominate or make one a perfect member of Gods Church but onely an outward show hereof he introduceth Bellarmine thus speaking de Eccl. mil. lib. 3. ca. 2. Noe inward vertue is required to make one a part of the true Church but onely the externall profession of Faith And then M. Whyte ryoteth in great profusion of wordes that vpon this grounde in the papistes Iudgment all holines of lyfe and conuersation is superfluous and needelesse But let vs recurre to Bellarmines wordes them selues Not credimus in Ecclesia inueniri c. We doe beleue that in the Church are found all vertues at Faith Hope Charity the rest ver vr aliquis aliquo modo dicâ— possiâ— pars verae Ecclesiae c. That any one may be called in some sort or manner a part of that true Church whereof the Scripture speaketh we doe not think any inward vertue to be requyred but onely an externall profession of faith c. And in the folowing paragraph he saith that those who wanting all vertue haue onely an externall profession of Faith câ— are as it were de corpore but not de anima Ecclesiae of the body not of the soule of the Church c. He but sicut capilli an t mali humores in corpore humano So wrongfully here we see is Bellarmine traduced by our Doctor First in concealing the beginning of the sentence wherein he acknowledgeth all theologicall vertues euer to be found in Gods Church Secondly in suggesting to the Reader that Bellarmine requyreth no true inward vertues as necessary for a Christian soule but onely an externall faith this is a false and selanderous contumely for pulchra es decora â—â—lia Hierusalem Caâ— 6. And Bellarmine is so farre froÌ„ teaching that such doe take any benefite by this theire outward profession that he saith as we see they are but onely of the body of the Church not of the soule to which kynd of members internall vertues at least are necessary and that they are to be resembled to the lesse profitable and but excrementall partes of mans body as the hayres of the head the nayles and other such bad humors Thirdly
Councell consisting of many scores of Fathers so happy a progresse M. Whyte haith made in his profession of corrupting Now for the conueyance though it be not to be paralleled with diuers of the former extensiué as the schoole-men speake in multitude and stoare of wordes corrupted it lying onely in slye transposition of one or two wordes yet intensiué for the art thereof it may be equalled with any This then it is Our minister there pag 344. to ouerthrow the religious vse of Images produceth the 36. Canon of the Councell of Eliberis to wit No picture is to be made in the Church lest that be adored which is paynted on wales The wordes of the Canon are these Placuit picturas in Ecclesia non debere ne quod colitur adoratur in partetibus depingatur It pleased the Councell that pictures should not be in the Church leste that which is worshipped and adored be painted on the wales Be obseruant here Reader and marke the difference which is made of the same wordes by a witty interchange of their place in their translation thou shalt see that my delicate minister here euen transcends him self The Councell saith Images are not to be in the Church lest that be painted on the wales which is worshipped M. Whyte translateth lest that be worshipped which is painted on the wales Thus the difference breefely resteth in this lest that which is worshiped be painted And lest that which is painted be worshipped A small difference in shew of wordes but great in sence For the wordes of the Councell acknowledging the worship of Images maketh the worship due to them to be the cause why they are not to be painted on wales But M. Whyte saith that they are not to be painted on wales because they are not to be worshiped and so maketh the Councell to speake lyke good protestantes Now the reason why the Councell would not haue the wales of Churches to be painted with Images was in reguard of the due respect they bare to them not as M. Whyte falsly suggesteth For being so painted they were subiect to be defaced either by the inuasioÌ„ of the enemies in those tymes or els by the rayne and bad wether whereas Images drawne in Tables of which the former Councell maketh no restraint in that they are portable and remoueable do not lye open to the same daunger Therefore the intention of the CouÌ„cell herein was the same with the intention of that decree by the which it was ordained that in reuerence to the Crucifix no Crosse should be made vpon the plaine ground because it being so made must needes be often irreuerently be tramped with the feete of meÌ„ Thus is M. Whyte in seking to disproue the lawfull vse of an Image become him self a perfect Image of deceate fraude and collusion But here now I make an ende of his corruptions deprauations hasting my self to the second Part of his scene which is his lyes and falshoods Onely I must say that in reguard of the impurity and conse onlesse deportment of him in his whole Treatise I can not but commiserate all such poore credulous soules as do highly Preiudge of his booke as beiug writen in all sincerity and plainesse and free from the least touch or aspersion of any wilfull deprauation And therefore I hould it most strange that M. Purchase a scholer and ingenious though extremely maliuolent should in his owne booke pag. 100. entytle M. Whyte Via Lactea alludinge perhaps both to his name and his supposed candor in wrytinge But since his mistakinge is not iustifiable I will allow to M. Whyte the same tytle though through a differeut reason For as the Via Lactea appeareth to a vulgar sight to be a part of heauen and yet indeede is not being if we follow the iudgment of the auncient Philosophers far lower then the heauens as it is necessarily euicted from the different parallayes and variations thereof taken from seuerall places So is M. Whyte reputed in the comon eye and censure of vnlearned protestantes as a man which in all truth haith much laboured in that heauenly course of dilating the Gospell and faith of Christ whereas we fynd that the contrary is most true as haith fully appeared from his seuerall exorbitant deprauations of so many Catholick Authors and others Wherefore to be short I greatly feare that except hereafter there follow a feeling remorse of this foule and vnchristianlike dealing the wordes of S. Iohn the Euangelist may be more truly applyed to our Sir Iohn the minister Nomen habes quo viuis mortuus es Apoc. 3. The ende of the first part WHYTE DYED BLACK THE SECOND PART Contayning sundry notorious vntruthes or Lyes proued to be such euen by the confession of the most learned Protestantes And first is preuented a weake euation which may be vsed by M. Whyte against this second parte FROM Corruptions good Reader we are next to descend to vntruthes for lying indeede is the second piller which supporteth the whole weight frame of M. Whytes worke This passage I here make distinct from the former For although all the precedent deprauations of the first part do potentially include vutruthes and falshoodes yet our Doctors proteruity therein doth cheifly rest either in corrupting other mens wordes or in alledging them directly against the knowne intention of the Authors whereas here the reduplicatiue formality as I may terme it of his hereticall deportment consisteth in plaine lying to wit in setting downe and instifying certaine most false assertions and positions a course little sorting to one who styleth him self a minister of gods word in that his sacred word is altogether incompatible with falshood The floate of these his vntruthes is so greate as that our Doctor assordeth vnto vs many scoares of this nature yet because he would make shew to mantaine diuers of them vnder some prâ—text either of much reading or in wrasting the sence of such produced authorities if I should fortify the contrary truth from their particuler testimonies of Scripture Fathers Histories c. being a kynd of proofe in reguard of the often suggested doubtfulnes of the true sense directed by many wheeles of inferences and deductions Therefore to the end that I may euâ—n chokingly and irreplyably conuince him of such notorious miscariage I haue thought good to supererogate with him in disprouing his said falshoodes I meane in restrayning my self precysely to such his lyes as the contrary thereto is acknowledged for true euen by his own brethren and these not mâ—n obscure or vulgar but the most eminent and learned protestantes of Christendome and such as haue euer bene accompted starres of the greatest magnitude in their euangelicall Spheare Neither will I alledge so many of them as I could but for the greater expedition I will content my self for the most part with the testimonies of two or three of our learnedst aduersaries Now here I would haue the iudiceous reader to obserue
it self or conference thereof but from the tradition and Authority of the Church such wrytinges are certainly knowne to be the vndoubted word of God most contrary to M. Whyte pag. 47. who saith that The Scripture proueth it self to be the very word of god receaueth not authoritie from the Church To this end we fynde D. Whitakar first reiccting the testimony of the pryuate spirit to say thus Non nego Traditionem ecclesiasticam esse argumentum quo argui et conuinci possit qui libri Canonicâ— sunt qui Canonicâ— non sunt I do not deny but that Ecclesiasticall tradition is an Argument from the which it may be proued which are the Canonicall bookes and which are not In lyke sort M. Hooker assenteth hereto saying In thinges necessary the very cheifest is to know what bookes we are bound to esteeme holy which poynt is confessed impossible for the Scripture it self to teach But what the Scripture teacheth not is by our aduersaries confession a mere Tradition Hookers iudgment in this poynt is iustifyed by Doctor Couell Now if these eminent protestantes do ascrybe onely to the Church the Indgment of discerning which is Scripture and which is not Scripture then we know from the Authority and Tradition of the Church not from the Scripture it self which is the true vndoubted word of God and what bookes are but spurious and adulterated and consequently M. Whyte lyed most grosly in affirming that no part of their faith standes vpon Tradition thus ranging him self amonge those who according to the Scripture mendaciorum funiculis conantur subuertere By the meanes of lyes endeuour to ouerthrow The third vntruth The Third vntruth in proofe of the continuance of the protestantes faith in all ages Our minister labouring to enamell and bewtify his deformed faith with the speceous tytle of antiquity succession pag. 86. vseth these swelling speaches Against all papistes whatsoeuer we make it good that the very faith we now professe haith successiuely continued in all ages since Christ was neuer interrupted so much as one yere month or day and to confesse the contrary were sufficient to prooue vs no part of the Church of god Wordes of brasse but if he be put to the proofe no doubt leaden performance To set downe the Iudgmentes of the learned protestantes touching the interruption of their faith for many seuerall ages since Christes tyme were laboursom and withall needeles since to conuince this bould assertion of falshood it is sufficient to insist in any one age or tyme. Therefore I will content my self with the authorities of two learned protestaÌ„ts touchiÌ„g the very time of Luthers first Apostacy and departing from our Church they graunting that their faith before Luthers reuolt was not to be found in any man liuing which they neuer would haue done if the euidency of the matter did not force them thereto considering how much such a confession doth enaruate and weaken their cause First theÌ„ we finde euen Luther himself to acknowledg this poynt who thus wryteth hereof Ego principio causae meae c. In the beginning of this my cause speaking of his change of religion I had this guift graunted me euen from heauen that I alone should vndertake so great a matter and I did conceaue that it should be made good onely by me neither did I put any confidence in the trust of others Here we see that he graunteth him self to haue bene alone in this his supposed restauration of the Gospell And hereupon it is that Luther in an other place thus vaunteth Christum a nobis primo vulgatum andemus gloriari We dare glory that Christ was first made knowne by vs. In lyke sort M. Iewell no meane Rabbi in our English Sinagoge saith that the truth was vnknowne at that tyme and vnheard of when Martin Luther and Vldrick Zuinglius first came vnto the knowledg and preaching of the Gospell The 4. Vntruth In proofe of the vnity of faith doctrine amongst protestantes Pag 138. For the more iustifying of the protestantes doctrine he thus saith of the booke entituled The Harmony of confessions The Harmony of confessions wherein the particuler Churches set downe and name the articles of their faith if the Iesuite can shew to â—arr in Dogmaticall poyntes of faith I am content you beleue him in all the rest Here the reader haith a bould assertion which as you see the more easely to winne a credulous eare is steeped in muske but I feare M. Doctor the note Diapason which implieth an absolute and generall concord and which is so much commended by all the most skilfull in that science will here be wanting And therefore for the more exact disquisition of that poynt we will refer our selues to that very booke called the Harmony of confessions englished printed at Cambridg by Thomas Thomas 1586. where for the greater expedition I will touch but some few stringes thereof onely to heare how they sound First then we fynde this harmony to teach that sinnes are efâ— sons punished euen in this lyfe at Dauids Manasses and the punishments may be mitigated by good woorkes pag. 229. See here how fully it acknowledgeth the abstensiue nature of penance and satisfaction Againe this obedience towardes the Law is a kind of Iustice marke you this discord and deserueth rewarde pag. 266. Like at the preaching of penance is generall euen so the promise of grace is generall c. Here needeth no disputation of Predestination or such like for the promise is generall pag. 268. 269. As touching priuate Confession c. we affirme that the ceremony of pryuate absolution is to be retayned in the Church and we do constantly retayne it pag. 231. In lyke sort it saith that the Bishops haue inrisdiction to forgeue sinnes pag. 366. Finally not to rest vpon euery perticuler stop thereof we thus fynde there We do not speake of the Church as if we should speake of Platoes Idea but of such a Church as may be seene and heard c. The eternall Father will haue his Sonne to be heard amonge all mankinde pag. 326. A note which must needes sound most harshe with our inuisibilistes Now I referr the matter to M. Whyte him self whether there be in these poyntes any concordance betwene the harmony of Confessions the doctryne of our English protestantes of the Hugonots in France and the Caluenistes in Germany so assured I was that a diligent eare would easely obserue many iarring stringes in the Consort The 5. Vntruth In proofe of the immutability of the present English Religion Page 138. He particulerly insisteth in his supposed constancy of religion here in England and thus wryteth If the Iesuite can shew the Church of England since papistry was first abolished to haue altered one article of the present faith now professed I am content c For the disproofe of this falshood we will conuince the same by discouering the manifould
in the tyme of Christianity there are no Traditions but the Scripture of the old Testament it the onely rule of Faith Againe Remember the Law of Moyses my seruant which I commaunded him in Horeb for all Israell with the statutes iudgments Therefore no Traditions Lastly The brethren of the rich glutton had Moyses and the Prophets Therefore no pointes of Christian Faith are to be proued froÌ„ any Traditions of the Church Strangly wildly most exorbitantly concluded for what reference haue these textes with the rule of Faith the which is not so much as glaunced at in any one of them or graunting that they had why should the old Testament be a paterne for the Faith professed in the new Testament since all Christians do graunt that the time of Grace is enriched with many priuiledges and immunities whereof the old Law was altogether depriued After these and such like textes of Scripture he descendeth to proue the soresaid point from the testimonies of the auncient Fathers as to omitt diuers others he alledgeth Tertulian saying The Scripture is the rule of Faith which we graunt for we teach that it is Regula partialis fidei a Rule of our faith in part yet hence it followeth not which is the point here onely to be proued that it is Regula totalis an entyre sole rule of Faith without the help of any Traditions and as large in extent as our faith is Also S. Augustine thus wryting This controuersy depending betwene vs requyres a Iudg let Christ therefore iudg and let the Apostle Paule iudg with him because Christ also speaketh in his Apostle As if Christ his Apostles could not aswell speake in Traditions as in writinges or because graunting that that particuler controuersie there ment by S. Augustine was proued from the wrytinges of S. Paule therefore all other Articles of Christian Religion should thence also receaue their sole proofe Againe Gregory Nyssen tearming the Scripture a strait and inflexible Rule as in that the Scriptute is inflexible and inchangeable for those pointes which it proueth therefore it alone and no Apostolicall traditions is to proue any article of our Faith Lastly he introduâ—eth S. Austine againe saying Whatsoeuer thing it be that a man learnes out of the Scripture if it be hurtfull there it is condemned if it be profitable there it is found Which place particulerly concerning conuersation of life as vertue and vyce of both which the Scripture most fully discourseth how it may condemne Apostolicall traditions which may deliuer supernaturall and high misteries of Christian faith I leaue to the censure of any iudceous man This done he next falleth to the sentences of more late Catholick writers as first of S. Thomas Aquinas saying The doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets is Canonicall because it is the Rule of our vnderstanding But what do these wordes force onely in the behalfe of Scripture and against Apostolicall Traditions since in leede they do not peculierly concerne the Scripture but as the wordes litterally import that the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets in generall whether it be written or vnwritten is Canonicall Againe he vrgeth S. Thomas the second tyme Our Faith resteâ—h and stâ—eth it self vpon the reuelation geuen to the Apostles and Prophets which write the Canonicall bookes and not vpon reuelation if any such haue bene made to any other Doctors But who denies that the prophets Apostles did write the canonicall bookes Or who reacheth that our Faith ought to rest vpon the reuelation of any other Doctors then the Prophets the Apostles Or shew any reason which is the cheif point in this sentence to be shewed why the reuelations of the Prophets and especially the Apostles may not aswell comprehend traditions as the writen word In like sort he bringeth in Gerson saying Scripture is the Rule of our faith which being well vnderstoode noe authority of men is to be admitted against it As I haue said before we do teach that the Scripture is the Rule of Faith but not the sole Rule which M. Whyte ought to proue Againe we willingly acknowledg that no authority of man is to stand against the Scripture but what doth this impeach Apostolicall traditions which are nomore the bare authority of man then the Scripture it self both equally proceding froÌ„ God by the assistance of the holy Ghost Finally he comes in with Perisius wryting that The Authority of no Sainct is of infallible truth for S. Augustine geues that honour onely to the sacred Scriptures But here the question is not touching the tradition of any other Sainctes then onely of our Sauiour his Apostles and the whole Church yet we see Peresius here speaking of Sainctes must needes meane only of Particuler Sainctes or holy men since the tymes of the Apostles seing otherwise he should teach which were most wicked that the authority of the Apostles and the Euangelistes are not of infallible truth Besides S. Augustine in that place restrayneth without any reference at all to Traditions his meaning onely to the writinges of priuate Doctors in respect of the sacred Scripture and in this reguard still speaking of bookes written we all graunt that the Scripture is of an infallible truth Such vnprofitable and wast testimonies M. Whyte is accustomed to heape together in his booke the which that they shall not so easely be espied he subtilly for the most part mingleth them with other Authorities more pertinent at least in outward for the c shew of wordes lyke a good Captaine who rangeth his worst weakest souldiers in the middest thâ—ong of the more experienced so making those formes to serue onely to encrease in the enemies eye the number though not their force The 2. Paragraph Wherein are discussed certaine Arguments drawne from Scriptures and Fathers in proofe that the sacred Scriptures the true sense there of are made sufficiently known vnto vs without any approbation or explication of the Church The next subiect of his loose kind of Inferences wherein I will insist partly conspireth with the former and is touching the absolute and supreme soueraigâ—ty of the Scriptures in determining of controuersies without any needefull explicatioÌ„ of gods Church this assertion being indeede a head Theoreme or principle with the sectaries of this age For page 4â— M. Whyte thus writeth Digressio 11. prouing that The Scripture it self haith that outward authority whereupon our faith is built and not the Church Now here for the better vindicating and freeing vs from all contumelious calumnies touching our supposed contempt of the Scriptures as also for the more manifest discouery of M. Whytes weake arguing herein the Reader is to take notice that the Catholicks do ascribe all due reuerence estimation and respect to the Scripture whatsoeuer acknowledging it to be gods embassadour which vnfouldeth vnto man vpon earth the sacred will and pleasure of our heauenly King as also that it is the spirituall
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
continentur nihil est notins nihil certius vt stultissimum esse necesse sit qui illis fidem esse habendam neget There is nothing more knowen nothing more certaine then the holy Scriptures which are contayned in the wrytiâ—ges of the Prophets Apostles in so much that it were a most foolishe thing for any man to deny them Here first to make Bellarmine insinuate that he houldeth the authority of the Church in any thing to be doubtfull and vncertaine our minister of his owne brayne haith added these wordes other meanes may deceane me whereas there is not a fillable thereof in Bellarmine Secondly this place as we see is produced by him against the authority of the Church whereas indeede it is directed against the Swink feldians who denying the Scriptures relyed vpon their priuate illuminations as hereafter shall appeare by displaying a strang corruption and wresting of Bellarmines saying practised by M. Whyte in pag. 17. at the letter q. of which place of Bellarmine this here alledged is a parcell Thus our minister extremely strayneth euery Authority that he setteth downe till at the length it burst out into an open and inexcusable corruption The 2 Paragraph Bellarmine corrupted in proofe that the Scriptures are the onely rule of Faith Againe pag 17. to proue that all poyntes in controuersy must definitiuely be determined by the writen word alone without any respect to the Churches Authority in the explication thereof he marcheth owte once againe making Bellarmine his buckler thereupon alledgeth these wordes of his The rule of Faith must be certaine and knowen for if it be not certaine it is no rule at all If it be not knowen it is no rule to vs but but nothing is more certaine nothing better knowen then the sacred Scriptures contayned in the writinges of the Prophets and Apostles wherefore the sacred Scripture is the rule of Faith most certaine and most saife and God haith taught by corporall letters which we might see read what he would haue vs beleue concerning him Obserue here the refractory and incorrigible frowardnes of our minister and how artificiall and exact he sheweth him self in his art of corrupting For Bellarmine in this Chapter as is aboue touched writeth against the Swinkfeldians who denyed the Scripture to be the worde of God and rested onely vpon their priuate and hiddeÌ„ reuelations and answearably hereto the Tytle of this Chapter is Libris qui Canonicâ— appellaâ—tur verbum dei contineri That the word of God is contayned in those bookes which are called Canonicall Now the wordes at large are thus in Bellarmine Regula fides certa notaque c. The Rule of faith ought to be certaine and knowen for if it be not knowen it can be no Rule to vs and if it be not certaine it can be no Rule at all But the reuelation of the priuate spirit although in it self it might be certayne yet to vs it can no way be certaine except haply it be warraÌ„ted with diuyne testimonies to wit true miracles And then some sixe lynes after At sacris Scripturis c. But nothing is more knowen nothing more certaine then the sacred Scriptures which are contayned in the bookes of the Prophets Apostles And some fourtie or fiftie lynes after Quare cum sacra Scriptura Regula crodendi c. Wherefore seing the holy Scripture is a most certaine and a most secure rule of beleefe doubtlesse he can not be wyse who neglecting the same committeth him self to the iudgment of the priuate spirit which is often deceiptfull but euer vncertayne And againe some twenty lynes after Non igitur omnes vulgó c. Teerefore God teacheth not all men by internall inspirations what he wonld haue the faithfull to beleue of him or what they are to doe but it is his pleasure to instruct vs by corporall letters which we might see and reade Here now I referre this point to the most earneste protestant in England if he be Candid and ingenious with what face M. Whyte could alledg Bellarmine in this place to proue from him that the Scripture onely is the Iudg Rule of Faith for so doth the minister entytle that page thereby to make Bellarmine to reiect all Authority of the Church in exposition thereof all Apostolicall Traditions where we see vpon what different occasion from that he writeth in this Chapter against the Swinkfeldians Now here let vs note the particuler sleightes vsed in this corruption First M. Whyte you tye together without any c. or other word or note signifying the contrary seuerall sentences of Bellarmine for your greater aduantage as though one did immediatly folow the other though they lye in Bellarmine distinct by interposition of many lynes Secondly you haue concealed three seuerall parcels of different sentences expressing Bel. true mynde herein and all these parcels are euen partes and therefore the fowler fault of the sentences alledged by you Your concealemeÌ„ts are these Porro priuati Spiritus reuelatio et si in se certa sit nobis tamen nota nullo modo potest nisi forte diuinis testimoniis id est veris miraculis confirmetur And againe Sanus profecto non erit qui ea neglecta vz. the Scripture spiritus interui saepe fallacis semper incerti iudicio se coÌ„miserit And finally Non igitur omnes vulgoó per internum afflatum Deus docet All which your omissions are impaled and marked in the said english authority O how happy M. Whyte were you if you neuer had bene scholler since the tyme will come that you shall say with the Romane Emprour after he had subscribed to an vniust cause Vtinam literas nescirem For good thinges as learning are most perniceous to him who declyneth the true vse of them as you doe And in this respect you are to remember that the Arcke which was a blessing to the Israelites was yet a curse and hurt to the Philistians that abused it The 3. Paragraph Eckius fouly abused concerning the Authority of the Church and Traditions As heretofore he laboured to ouerthrow the doctrine of traditions from the corrupted testimonies of Catholicks and auncient Fathers so heare he endeuoreth from their lyke abused testimonies to intimate that we ascribe to them a greater perfection then we doe And to this end pag. 145. thereby the rather to cast vpon vs an vnworthy aspersion of vnderualewing the Scriptures he bringeth in Eckius in Enchirid. ca. 1. saying The Scripture receaueth all the authority it haith from the Church and from Tradition The wordes of this Author are these Scriptura non est authentica sine authoritate Ecclesiae whereby we see the wordes and from Tradition are falsly inserted by our deprauing minister making vs thereby to geue with we doe not a greater prerogatiue to Tradition then to Scripture And though perhaps he could light vpon those wordes and from Tradition in some other place or Chapter in Ecckius though in a different