OR A Discouery of many most foule blemishes, im­postures, and deceiptes, which D. Whyte haith practysed in his book entituled The way to the true Church.

Deuyded into 3 sortes
  • Corruptions, or depra­uations.
  • Lyes.
  • Impertinencies, or ab­surd reasoninges.

Written by T. W. P.

And dedicated to the Vniuersity of Cambridge.

Hareticum hominem, post vnam & alieram correptionem, deuita: sciens, quia subuersus est, qui eiusmodi est & delinquit, cum sit proprio iudicio condemnatus. Tit.3,

Cathedra tibi quid fecit Ecclesiae Romanae, in qua Pe­trus sedit, & in qua nunc Anastatius (siue Paulus quin­tus) sedet? Cur appelas Cathedram pestilentiae, Cathe­dram Apostolicam? August. lib. 2. con. lit. Petil.

Cum priuilegio. 1615.

TO THE MOST CELEBRIOVS and famous Vniuersity of Cambridge.

Ingenious and learned Academians, I do not present this my small about vnto you, intreating hereby your patronage thereof. For how can I expect so greate a fauour since most of you dissent from me in that Re­ligion which is here mantayned: neither as houlding this poore worke, for any art therein, worthy your iu­diceons vew. For I am not onely conscious to my self of myne owne weaknes: but do also grearly admyre your pearcing and cleare eyed indgmentes.

To you then I exhibite it, as appealing to the Mo­ther (such is my confidence in your impartiall and euen censures) as Iudg betwene her sonne and my self. For wheareas my designed aduersary at this present M. Whyte, (to whom your vniuersity haith first geuen his education for literature, and since hath graced him with the inuesture of Doctorship) in answear to a Catholic Treatise (first pēned by one of my fellow-labourers in the vineyard of Christ) haith written a most virulent and scandalous booke, entituling it, The way to the true Church. The which booke was fownde so full of corruptions, vntruthes, and other such baisse matter, that it was houlden in the opinion of many great and learned Preistes, rather worthy of contempt then answear.

Neuerthelesse M. Whyte, not onely in the Preface of this said booke, but also in diuers places of his se­cond worke, vaunteth much of his sincere dealing in the first, as particulerly pag. 129. where saying that it is the profession of Iesuites in their wryting, to rayde bookes, counterfeat, forge, and lye: he then thus ambiti­ously [Page] concludeth. My aduersary can not present the Reader with one conclusion (meaning of his first book) one doctrine, one quotation, one lyn [...] on letter, to make him really see wherein I haue fayled.

Now this idle venditation of ingenuity and vpright dealing, haith awakened my sleeping pen, and in­deede haith geuen birth to this short Treatise, whear­in I do vndertake to make good our former censures, that is, to demonstrate, that the very ground and bur­den of his first booke, is mere corruptions, vntruthes, and other such impostures, in the euicting of which poynt I am so secure, that I willingly make your selues Iudges both of him and me, being assured, that in a true and serious perusall of this my accusatiō, you shall synde no ca [...]dor in Whyte, nor any of Gods spirit in him who styleth him self Gods minister, but rather in reguard of your frustrated hope, you shall haue iust reason to say of this childe (who seming Iacob, proueth Esau) Expectauimus lucem, ecce tenebra. Es. 59. which deformities of his, I am not of so rigide a Iudgement, as to ascribe to your famous vniuersity, for at this present, I do not wholly approue that comō position of the Ciuilians, partus sequitur ventrem: And we all obserue, that those faire heauenly bodies, som­times bring forth monsters.

It is certainly reported, that desyre of praise (a win­dy M [...]teor ingendred in the Region of self conceate) first inuyted M. Whyte, to support forsooth, with his learned hand, the threatning and falling piller of his new Church: and thereupon he instantly stept into the number of writers, hauing thereby already gayned great applause and approbation from the wauering vn­certaine multitude, in whose weake opinion, he see­meth to haue ouerpassed most of his tyme and ranck: but I doubt not, but by the assistance of him, who In [Page] veritate educet iudicium, Es. 42. and by the ensuing dis­couery of his calumnious forgeries, so to picke the swolne bladder of his pryde, as that all his frothy os­tentation, shall resolue to nothing: and that his wry­tinges (lyke vnto new found wells, being commonly of acompt onely for a yere or two) which heretofore his fauorites haue so highly estemed: shall for euer af­ter remaine contemned and neglected: which euent may well be expected since it often hapneth, that he who ryseth sodainly, faleth precipitatly.

But as in this following Treatise you shall be fully satisfyed of the want of his sincerity, so here I hould it not inconuenient, to geue some touch of that oppro­brious tongue of his, which casteth most fowle and vndeserued aspersions of contumely and reproch vpon all Preistes and Catholickes. For euen in his Epistles of this his booke impugned by me, he wryteth, that the, Iesuites are the Popes Ianisaryes, that Priests are cunning seducers possessing mens wyues, &c. vsing their goods to swager, and serue their owne luxurious vse, & that since the Harpies were chaced away, and Bet was ouerthrowne, neuer was such a greedy and rauenous Idol as the seminary, and that friars, seminaryes, and Masse Priests, are so many beares and bloody, the Tigars, the fatall enemyes of Princes, &c. that the Papists laity, doth liue in extreame ignorance, and finally that their religion teach­eth to pay no depts, murther Kings, and tendeth cheifly to all bloody conspiracies, &. Our innocency in all which pointes, one daye will discouer, when the valye of each mans actions shalbe drawne awaye, and when all deedes and thoughts shalbe plainly laid open, at what time M. Whyte, for theese and other his most false, iniurious, and vnchristian reproches must render a seuere account; only at this present our retaliation to him shalbe to saye with the Apostle 1 Cor. 4. maledicimur [Page] sed benedicimus, blasphemamur sed obsecramus and tel­ling him, that by these his Phil [...]ppickes and declama­tory inuectiues, he haith worthily gotten the reputa­tion of being counted a good rayler, and hath bene carefull (as it should seeme) to warrant in him self those wordes of the Scripture:Iac. 3. the touge is an vnruly euill, full of deadly poyson.

And now illustrious Academians (whome God hath en­dued with transcendent spiritts, and vnderstandings farr aboue the vulgar) suffer me, before I remit you to this following discourse to present vnto you touch­ing our Catholicke faith, these few admonitions, the which you are not to contemne, as proceeding from me how meane soeuer, but rather herein to remem­ber, that from the earth (the lowest element of all) we best obserue the motions of the heauens.

Make then particuler triall of the cheefe grounds of our Catholicke religion, and looke backe vnto the Continuall practize of Christes Church since it first beinge, & assure your self, that we shall not be found 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 sobe [...] Protestants) [...] us [...] n [...]l [...] par. 1 [...] 74. recur to the ioynt expositions of the pri­mitiue fathers, who liued, when the church was most florishing, and in her full orb [...]; and know, that the leaues of scripture, without the intended sence of the holy Ghost, [...]eil in his [...] sence of the Adology. 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.

[Page]Remember, that the most markable ProtestantsLuth. tom. 2. wittenb. anno. 1551 lib. de se [...]u. ar bitr. pag. 454 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,Beza in his preface vpon the new Testa­ment, dedica­ted to the Prince of Condy anno. 1587. 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,Doctor Hum­frey li. de vita Iewelli. 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 frō that most conspicuous church of Christ, which haith bene promised, Esa. 2.60. Micheas. 4. psalm. 19. Math. 18. 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 certain [...] imaginary inuisibilites, impugned by the fathers, Hiero. E­pist. ad Pam­mach. and your more iudicious wryters: Do [...]t [...]r Hum­frey in Iesui [...]. part. 2. rat. 3 pag. 240. since it being,Athanatius. li. de decret. ni­cen. Sinod. mearly consisteth in a not being.

Suffer not a Heteroclyte sectary,August. lib. 3 de baptismo contra Dona­tum. ca. 2. who reiecteth (though contrary to gods word Hebru. 4. Roman. 10. Iohn. 10. and his owne brethrenDoctor Co­uell in his de­fence of Hoo­ker pag. 86.) 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.

[Page]Finally relinquishe, and abandon that supreame soue­raignty of the priuat reauealing spirit (condemned e­uen by Christs owne 1 Cor. 12. Apostles) it being first cheefly erected, therby to decline the weighty authorityes of the auncient fathers in the exposition of Gods sa­cred wryt,Doctor Saraui­a contra resp. Bez. pag. 360. & 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,Cartwright in his second re­ply part. see. pag. 142. 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,Apoc. c. 2 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,Petr. 2. c. 1 I take my leaue, expect­ing, that my good meaning herein, shall ouer-ballance with you,Iohn. 1. c. 4 my bouldnes, and wishing euen in the bow­els of Christiane charity, that euery one of you weare strong armed with our most aunciēt 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 Tertul. li. de prescript. a­pud cos multum valent, qui in fide non valent.


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 Roman. 1, 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, [Page] 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, redu [...]ing all theese impostures, in which hereafter I intend to insist, to some of them. The heads are these Corrupti­ons, Lyes, and Impertinēcyes. By Corruptiōs, I meane those depraued authorityes of the auncient Fathers, and our own moderne Catholicke authours, which this our Minister (thereby to make thē 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 frō 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 cō ­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 Impertinēces, 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, [Page] 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 [Page] 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 thē 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 [Page] 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 cha [...]geable with such prophane, and wicked deportments: what shall we then censure of other inferiour wryters of his side, Since Math. c 6. if the light be darknes, how great is the darknes: or what may we iudg of th [...] 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 [Page] 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 Rom. 9. all they are not Israell, which are of Israell, himselfe being one of those Act. 13. which will not cease to peruert the way of our Lord.


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.
    • [Page]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.
    • [Page]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 P [...] nance.
    • [Page]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.
  • [Page]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.
  • [Page]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 [...]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.
  • [Page] Pag. 92. lin. 4. for differences, read discoueries.
  • Pag. 97. lin. 28. for musk, read musick.
  • Pag. 114. lin. 24. for proh dolor, read proh pudor.
  • Ibid. lin. 27. for clausure, read closure.
  • Pag. 118. lin. 33. for entertaine, read enteruaine.
  • Pag. 125. lin. 12. for concurre, read recurre.
  • For ingenious, read in sundry places ingenuous.

THE FIRST PARTE. WHEAREIN are discouered Fourty most foule & vn­iustifiable corruptions and deprauations of Au­thors vsed by Doctor Whyte, in his Treatise of the way to the true Church.

Chapter. 1. Conteyning Corruptions concerning workes & Iustification.

Paragr. I. Premonitions geuen to M. W. if he intende to reply vpon this present Treatise.

WE reade (Exod. 13) that the first borne of the people of Israell, was euer consecrated vnto god in regard of a gratefull acknow­ledgment of his innumerable benefites shewed vnto them: and by reason of such his tytle thereto, god (who had a supreme interest in all theire issue) peculi­erly pronounced, This is myne. I feare that M. Whyte (who vaunteth him selfe for a true Israelite) haith not sanctified vnto his diuyne Maiesty, this his child, the first borne of the wombe of his braine, for bookes [Page 2] are faetus ingenii, carying in them selues an inward re­semblance to theire parentes, and withall as perpetua­ting their remembrance, doe extende their lynes be­yond their liues: Nay I am rather perswaded that he haith particulerly deuoted it to Gods and mans ghost­ly enemy. For to whom rather are lyes and impostures (the very burden of his Treatise) to be ascribed, then to him who is the father of lyes? And sure I am that God who is the truth it selfe can not be found herein since no man vseth to gather grapes of thornes, or figgs of thistles. (Mat. 7.) And M. Whyte him selfe con­fesseth that we can not learne truth in the schoole of lyes.

Now to discouer that this worke of his is euen loa­ded with many most foule vntruthes, corruptions, and deceiptes, is my taske voluntarily imposed by my selfe and I hope with thy good patience (gentle reader) to performe the same.

And first according to my former prescribed Me­thode, his perfidious corruptions of fathers & Catho­lique Authoures, thereby to force them to speake in a language and dialect of which they were merely igno­rant, shall begin the Scene.

But because as M. Whyte is pregnant in depra­uing of mens writinges, so also he will no doubt shew him selfe ingenious in fynding some sleighty euasions and answeares, vnder the tecture whereof to shrewde him selfe. Therefore I thinke good now in the front and beginning of this my labour, to set downe by way of preuention, all what may be imagined that he can pretende for his defence and Apology, and to discouer the weaknes thereof, that so his impostures may be ob­serued and perused with greater benefite to the reader, and more shamefull guiltinesse to him selfe.

First then M. Whyte can not transferr the fault v­pon [Page 3] the printer for heare he standes for the most part chargeable either with adding too, or detracting frō the authority alledged (so abastarding it by this meane that the true father thereof would not acknowledg it for his owne) whereas the printers errour comonly resteth in quotations made by figures, or (by mista­king of some letter) in placing one woord for ano­ther, ouer-sightes heare forborne, and indeede vn­worthy to be insisted vpon by any iuditious penne.

Secondly he can not say that his intention in alled­ging such authorities, was onely to alledg the sense of the Authour not tying him selfe to the authoures per­ticuler wordes. Of this euasion he preuenteth him selfe in that he euer vndertaketh to alledg the perti­culer sayings of the Authour, and for that reason doth distinguish them in a different letter from that wher­in his owne wordes are printed (a course amongst writers most certaine and vsuall to know when a man deliuereth the precise wordes or sentences of an other) and which is more for the most part he thus vshereth his testimonies, Bellarmine saith, Thomas Aquinas saith, Austine saith, &c. or putteth their names in the mergent: whereby it is not to be doubted but that he would haue his reader thinke, that the Authorities set downe, are the very wordes of the Authoures them selues, without any variation or chang whatsoeuer.

Now if he will iustify them to be the precise words of the Authoures without any chang either of adding or detracting: then is he to name the perticuler Edi­tions of such bookes which he foloweth, and where­in the testimonies (as they are alledged by him) are to be found.

Thirdly where he is charged to corrupt any Au­thority by concealing for his owne aduantage any part [Page 4] thereof, he can not iustify it by replyinge, that he is not tyed to set downe all which his Authour saith of that poynt, since so his Authorities would grow ouer longe and tedious: this is no sufficient answeare. For although a writer is not bound to set downe all that his alledged Authour saith of such a point: yet is he bound not purposly to omitt any part of the beginning of the middest, or of the ending of the said sentences which he produceth, especially when the wordes con­cealed make for his aduersary, and against the drifte and scope of that meaning wherein the reste of the sen­tence is by him deliuered. And this kind of omission (wherevnto M. Whyte standeth extremely obnoxi­ous, and is in this part folowing so by me charged) is in the iudgment of all writers, a wilfull, vnpardo­nable, & vniustifiable corrupting of mens bookes.

Fourthly it is no excuse to say, touching such authorities as M. Whyte truly alledgeth without adding or detracting (of which kind there are very few if any) that his meaning is onely to set downe the wordes of Catholick Authoures without restrayning them to any perticuler sence which he leaueth to that daungerous and inconuenient exposition which the wordes in the readers eye may best seme to afford. This is most false, for there is no Catholick which he iustifyeth, but he perticularly restraineth the sence of his testimony either to the supporting of some point of protestācy, or els to the manteyning of some absurde and scanda­lous opinion which he obtrudeth vpon vs. And thus much, besides the often answearable entituling of the pages, his owne precedent or subsequent wordes, do, for the most part, imply.

Fyftly, if his pryde would suffer him to descende so low, he can not plaster the marter in acknowledginge [Page 5] that the testimonies heare corrupted, are not of his owne reading, but that he relyed therein vpon the annotations and note-bokes of others of the ministery (a refuge wherunto some of his profession haue bene heretofore driuen) and so as being ouer credulous and confident of his frendes supposed allegations, he was by them mistaken. Of this sily & poore euasion, he haith already precluded him selfe. For in his first Edition (which I here folow) after his Alphabeticall Table in the end of his booke, he haith made an ambitious note to the reader, that he will (to vse his owne wordes) mantaine the quotations for substance to be true &c. And againe, it is one thing if I haue wilfully falsifyed or forged a place, and an other thing if the printer onely haith mista­ken the quotation: the latter may be, but the former is not, as I will be ready to satisfy any that will charge me with it. Thus he. But how mantaineth he the point, or what satisfaction geueth he, if in answere to the corruptions and deprauations wherewith he is heare charged, he reply, that in good sooth so it is that he did not read the testimonies of the Authoures them selues, but onely tooke them vpon the credit and affiance of such of his owne brother-hood as he thought would not haue deceiued him? A graue & sufficient answeare.

And heare I am to preadmonishe M. Whyte, that I doe expect in his answeare (if he doe intende sincerely and truly to free him selfe from these imputa­tions) to answeare all the corruptions and deprauati­ons by them selues as heare they are gathered, and so the lyes and falshoodes seuerally by them selues; as as also the impertinences in like sort, and not promis­cuously to iumble and shuffle them together, now seeking to salue a corruption, next a lye, and so by af­fecting an obscurity, in methode, to bleare the eye of the reader that he shall not discerne what corruptions [Page 6] in his reply he omitteth, and what he maketh shew to iustify; wherefore I say if he make choice of this obscure course after this premonition, he but bewrayes his owne guiltinesse. And though I can not by the lawes of writing impose a methode vpon my aduersa­ries pen: yet seing the reason why M. Whyte should affect an other course then I heare wish him, is seene aforehand, and so him self hereby aduertised thereof, to be onely (by answearing so confusedly) to delude and wrong his reader: therefore euen for his owne ho­nour and credit sake, he can not refuse this desyred methode which heare I requyre, especially seing it is wished onely for manifestation of the truth, as being in it selfe most obuious, facile, & perspicuous.

Thus much I haue thought good (for his greater caution) to instruct the reader with afore-hand; and therefore now I will remitt him to the ensuing depra­uations, still wishing him to haue his eye (whensoe­uer M. Whyte shall vouchsaife to make answeare here­to) intent and fixed vpon the corruption obiected: neither suffer him to turne the question (as before I touched) from the corruption, to the sence & mea­ning of the Authour (a sleight vpon the lyke occasi­on vsed by Plessis against the Bishoppe of Fureux) & so to entertaine the reader with long discourses there­by to diuert his myud from the point in question: but let the reader alwayes remember, that the question heare for the most part immediatly is, whether such a sentence or testimony is truly and faithfully alledged as it is to be found in the Authour him selfe, without any addition or concealement of wordes in M. White his behalfe, and so breefely whether M. Whyte cor­rupteth the place or not, still obseruing that whatso­euer M. Whyte saith, if it do not conclude that the testimony is in noe sort altered and changed from the [Page 7] wordes of the Authour him selfe, is (in respecte of the point here handled) but idly, extrauagantly, & impertinently spoken.

Paragr. 2. The Rhemistes corrupted concerning merite of workes.

BVT now at the last to come to M. Whytes de­prauations the which (for more perspicuity) I will range to certaine heades: the first whereof shall be such as concerne the doctrine of workes and iusti­fication And to begin with one which as it contey­neth in it self many foule and strang corruptions: so the iniury thereby offered is not to one but to many and those men for their learning and vertue, of wor­thiest memory, to wit, the english Doctors of Rhemes who (if we may beleue M. Whyte pag. 238.) feare not to affirme that our workes of their very nature, de­serue eternall lyfe, the reward whereof is a thing equally & iustly answearing to the tyme and weight of the worke rather then a free guift, so that God should be vniust if he gaue it not. And for this he quoteth in his mergent. Rhem. Annot. vpon 1. Cor. 3. 8. & Hebr. 6. 10. But for the plainest and most certaine discouery of this brasen faced minister, I will set downe the true wordes of the Rhemistes, who commenting vpon those of S. Paule (1. Cor. 3. 8) And euery one shall receaue his owne re­ward according to his owne labour, wryte as foloweth. A most plaine text to proue that men by their laboures & by the diuersities thereof shall be diuersly rewarded in heauen: and therefore that by their workes proceding of GRACE, they deserue or merit heauen. Here before I procede any further, I must charge M. Doctor with a dooble cor­ruption, first for omitting the word Grace, the true [Page 8] wordes being workes proceding of Grace, do deserue or merit heauen: secondly, which maketh it more inex­cusable and damnable, for inserting in steed of the word Grace, the word Nature, the which was not so much as dreamed of by the Rhemistes, or by any Catholick Author, yea to defend that workes of their owne na­ture do merite, were to renew the heresy long since condemned in the Pelagians by the Romane Church.

But to goe forward, the Rhemistes in this ministers mouth affirme, that the reward is a thing equally & iust­ly answearing to the tyme and weight of the worke, rather then a free guifte. But in their owne wordes they a­uouch the contrary. And indeede (say they) this word Reward which in our english tongue may signify a voluntary or bountifull guift, doth not so well expresse the nature of the latin word, or the greeke, which are rather the very stipend that the hyred workman or iournay mā couenanteth to haue of him whose worke he doth, and is a thing equally and iust­ly answearing to the tyme and weight of his trauels and wor­kes (in which sence the Scripture saith The worke-man is worthy of his hyre) rather then a free guift: though because faithfull men must acknowledg that their merites be the guiftes and graces of god, they rather vse the word Re­ward, then hyre, stipend, or repayment. &c. Now all that from hence can be gathered are two thinges, first that the Rhemists affirme that the word Reward, in la­tin and greeke, doth rather signify a stipend or hyre then a free guift. Secondly that because faithfull men must ac­knowledg that their merites be the guiftes and graces of god, they rather vse the word Reward then hyre. But now all this whyle I can not fynde this sentence cyted by M. Wh. that the reward of workes is a thing equally & iustly answearing to the tyme and weight of the worke rather then a free guift. Indeede I fynd most of the wordes, but ma­ny of them in seuerall lynes, and vttered vpon seuerall [Page 9] occasions, all which to ioyne and chaine together in one continued lyne or sentence, and thereby to make the Authour speake contrary to him selfe, is a thing ea­sy to performe, but the performance is wicked, shame­lesse, and execrable.

And geue but this libertie of omitting, inserting, & 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 Psalmi [...]t speaking of your self and other such like saith, T [...]s foole haith said in his heart, there is no god. Now kindly allow him to blott out the word foole, (as you more thē 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 [Page 10] 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 d [...]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 iust [...]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 ch [...]atam renouatio [...]em nostram? Respondemus. Si illud prop­ter significet causam formalem, nos iustificari propter noui tatem nobis inhaerentem, non propter meritum Christi quod iuhae [...]e [...]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 [Page 11] worde propter, do here signify the meritorious cause, then are we iustifyed propter meritum Filii de [...], through the merites of the Sonne of God, & not through any inherent newnes or iustice in vs: And then presently concludeth, ita iustificamur propter v [...]rum (que) &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 [Page 12] 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 mer [...]ta donata est. &c. That is. Iustice is geuen by god to man through the merites of Christ. And then presently thus repi [...]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 moste perfect and the most absolute merites of the Sonne of God.

The 4. Paragraph. Bellarmine againe abused against Merite of workes.

A Gaine to take away the doctrine of the me­rite of workes, M Whyte pag. 236, thus writ­eth. Howsoeuer our aduersaries contend for their merites, yet the learnedest and most iudicious men disalow them &c. houlding that which I haue said to be the sounder doctrine; and so answearably entitleth that page, merite of wor­kes reiected by papistes them selues. Now in proofe that the Catholick Doctors condemne all merite of works, he alledgeth among others the foresaid Cardinall thus writing. By reason of the vncertainty of mans owne right­ousnes, & for feare of vaine glory, it is the saifest way to re­pose our whole confidence in the sole mercy & goodnes of god. But why think you stayeth the man in that place & pas­seth no further? You shall knowe, for the immediate wordes folowing in Bellarmine are these. Explico pro­positionem. Non enim ita accipienda est &c. I explaine this proposition (meaning his former sentence) which is not so to be taken as that a man should not laboure with all his endeuoure to do good workes, and that there were no trust to be put in them, or as if they were not to be accompted as true iustice, or could not endure the iudgment of god: but onely this we say, that it is more saife to forgeate after a sort our good workes, & to cast our eye vpon the sole mercy of god. Thus we see how greedily our minister takes hould of the texte and yet concealeth the comment though geuen by the Author him self. And therefore I appeale to the cen­sure of the iudicious if the whole contexture of this tes­timony, which is vrged for the ouerthrowing of me rites, doth not euen depose the contrary, in positiuely [Page 14] confirming and mantaininge the doctrine of merits. Againe what impudency is it in M. Whyte to produce Bellarmine as denying the doctrine of works, when as the subiect of this very booke (from whence the for­mer wordes are taken as also of diuers other bookes in that tome) is onely to proue that works do merit [...]. Therefore I will onely say that this our Doctor in all d­ging his proofes and Authorities, carieth him self per­fectly minister-like: I neede not further to expresse my meaninge, since among some thinges there is such an inwarde and inseperable association and nearenes, as that but naminge the one, we are supposed withall im­plicitly to vnderstand the other.

The 5 Paragraph. S. Thomas notoriously corrupted against iusti­fication by work.

TO the lyke effect he depraueth a saying of S. Thomas Aquinas. For pag. 26 [...]. we thus find. Workes he not the cause why a man is iust before god, but rather the execution and manif [...]station of his Iust [...]ce, for no man is iustifyed by workes, but by the habi [...]e of faith infused, yea Iustification is done by faith onely. (Aquin. Ro. 3. lect. 4. & Gal. 2. Lect. 4.) Wheare the reader is to know that the place to the Romanes is onely spent by S. Thomas against the Iewes, in coufuting that Iusti­fication is wrought by performinge the ceremoniall workes of the law, or morall preceptes: & therefore he there immediatly before the wordes alledged thus saith (which M. Whyte thought good to conceale) Apostolus loquitur &c. The Apostle doth speake in this Chapiter both of all ce [...]emoniall and morall workes, for workes be not the cause &c. to neither of which the Ca­tholickes ascribe any iustification, but onely to work [...]s [Page 15] done in state of grace, and receauing their vertue from the passion of our Sauiour. In lyke sort in his seconde reference of S. Thomas which is Gal. 3. Lect. 4., we fynde the lyke wordes in sence which our doctor here alledgeth: for there S. Thomas cōmentinge vpon that of the Apostle, I doe think that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the law, thus writeth, Non au [...]em solum sine operibus caerimonialibus &c Man is iustifyed not onely without the ceremoniall workes which did not confer grace, but onely signifyed it: but also he is iustifyed without the workes of morall precep [...]es, according to that to Titus, &c, and then presently foloweth in S. Thomas, ita ta­men qnod hoc intelligat &c. yet so that the Apostle here meaneth, sine operibus praecedentibus iustitiam, non autem sine operibus consequentibus, without workes which goe be­fore iustice, & not without workes folowing iustice, which is the doctrine of all Catholickes, who teach that wor­kes done out of the state of grace (which are those that doe praecedere iustitiam) can not iustify, but onely such as are consequentia, to wit performed after oure first iustification, and so in state of grace. Thus if M. Whyte had vouchsaifed to hau set downe this laste parte of S. Thomas his sentence (which he moste ca­lumniously concealed), the reader would haue easely discerned how impertinently these tes [...]imonies are al­ledged against the Catholick doctrine of Iustification.

The 6. Paragraph. S. Augustine corrupted against Iustification.

The doctor not content to depraue and corrupte moderne and more late writers, exerciseth his fa­culty euen in the monumentes of the auntiente fathers. [Page 16] For pag. 245. the more to depresse mans iustice, he produceth S. Augustine de Ciuitate dei le. 19. [...]. 27. thus writing. All our righteousnes standeth rather in the remission of our sinnes, then in any perfection of Iustice.

The Fathers wordes are these, which I will relate at large in latin for the more full discouery of M. Whites demeanour therein. Ista nostra iustitia (quamnis vera sit propter veri boni finem ad quem refertur) tamen tauta est in hac vita vt potius peccatorum remissione constet, quam perfectione virtutum. This our iustice (though it be true by reason of the end of the true good to which it is re­ferred) yet it is such in this life as that it rather consis­teth of the remissiō of our sinnes thē of the perfection of vertues. Here first our minister addeth the word, all, for greater swelling and fulnes of speach against our doctrine, which is not in S. Augustine: but this we let passe as a smaller fault. Secondly he leaueth owt a parcell of the same sentence, to wit (although our Ius­tice be true by reason of the end of the true good whereunto it is referred) in which wordes S. Augustine acknow­ledgeth the very Catholick doctrine of iustification, to witt, that our Iustice is true Iustice, against which this very place is vrged. Thirdly he falsly translateth (for his owne aduantage) those wordes, quam perfec­tione virtutum, then in any perfection of Iustice, where it shoud be, then in any perfection of vertues. This he did to make S. Augustines wordes sound in an ig­norant eare more clearely against Iustice & Iustificati­on mantayned by Catholickes. For he can not but know that a man may be truly iust, and yet not ex­ercise all vertues in theire highest perfection.

Now that the reader may learne what is the true mea­ning of S. Augustine in this place: he is to conceaue that the drift of that father here is, to sh [...]w that a man can not liue in this lyfe in that perfect and true peace [Page 17] of mynde as to exercyse vertue and flee vice without all sodain reluctatiō of our sensualitie though we geue no assent thereunto: and therefore the tytle of that Chapiter is. De pace seruientium deo &c. Of the peace of such as serue God, whose perfect tranquillity can not be en­ioyed in this temporall lyfe. And according to this his ty­tle, some fewe lynes after the sentence alledged by M. Whyte, he thus writeth. Nam profecto quanquam im­peretur &c. For although reason doth ouerule vyce: yet it doth not ouerrule without some conflict of vyce. And there­fore as longe as it is exercysed in commaunding and ouerru­ling vyce, man haith not perfect peace. But to ende this subiect of Iustification, here you see how dexterously our minister haith borne him selfe, who for the im­pugning of the same, haith seuerall wayes abused the sentences of his Authors, somtimes by insertions of his owne as if they were the Authors wordes: som­times by taking away and concealing what is there plainely set downe: othertimes, though the Authori­ty be truly alledged, yet by violent detortinge and wresting the place from the true intended sence, yea often when the very place strongly fortifyeth that Ca­tholick point or doctrime against which it is theare brought. Thus though M. Whyte in his deprauati­ons vseth seuerall shewes and coloures: yet they all re­taine in them one generall countenance and looke of deceipt and falshoode, so as the Poets sentence here houldeth Facies non omnibus vna, nec diuersa tamen.

Chapiter 2. Concerning the reading of the Scriptures.

The 1 Paragraph. S. Ierome corrupted for the reading of the scrip­tures by the vulgare people: where also vpon occasion geuen by M. Whyte, it is examined whether S. Ierome was a papiste.

IT being a certaine truth that from Scriptures euill vnderstoode procede most heresies, M. Whyte (a faithfull frend thereof) well knowing by dayly experi­ence that no one thing in truth is more auaileable either for the first beginninge or propagation of heresy then generall libertie graunted to the vulgar people of reading, and expounding the sacred Scriptures, doth thereupon much labour in sundry places in profe of his supposed commodity and necessitie thereof: a­mongst which he grosly abuseth the authority & per­son of that great and most Catholick Doctor S. Hie­rome in these wordes. pag. 22. Hierome writes of Pau­la a gentlewoman how shee set her maides to learne the Scrip­ture, and many of his wrytinges (saith Whyte) are directed to women, commending theire labour in the Scripture, & encouraging them thereunto &c. which he would not haue done if he had bene a papist.

Heare Christian reader I must confesse I reste verie doubtfull whether the malice of this minister is more to be detested, or his greate folly to be admyred & pi­tyed: for not contenting him self to corrupt S. Hie­romes wordes and meaning, he will needes inferre [Page 19] hereof that S. Hierome was noe papiste, which how true it is, I will onely for this present appeale vnto this Epitaph of S. Paula writen by this holy Doctor to the Virgin Eustochium and here cyted by our protestant mi­nister: whereby if it do not plainely appeare by sundry pointes of religion there mentioned and practised that S. Hierome, S. Paula, and the Bishops, Preistes, and people of those tymes were of the same Religion or beleefe which Catholickes now professe, and protes­tantes impugne: that then let me be enrolled in the black bill of lying ministers, or coopled in brother­hood with Whyte, as a legitimate sonne of the father of lyes.

First then S. Hierome vndertaking to set downe the blessed lyfe and death of the holy woman S. Paula, in proofe of his sincere proceding therein, maketh this protestation. I call Iesus to witnes and his Sainctes, yea that very Angell who was keeper and companion of this ad­mirable woman, that I will speake nothing in her fauour, or after the maner of flaterers, but for a testimony, and that which is lesse then her merites, whom the whole worlde doth praise, preistes admyre, quiers of virgins desyre, and troupes of Monkes and poore people bewayle. Is the inuocation of Sainctes and Angells which of necessity supposeth their knowledg? is the beleefe of euery mannes proper An­gell to guard him? and quiers or companies of Vir­gins and Monkes, plaine proofes of Catholick or pro­testant religiou?

To procede, S. Hierome describing in perticuler her pilgrimage to the holy lande whereunto he affir­meth that men of all Nations did come; sheweth how that prostrating her selfe before the Crosse, she adored at though she had seene our Lord harging thereupon. Entring the Sepulchre, she kissed the stone of the Resurrection &c. & at one thirsting desyreth waters, she licked with her faithfull [Page 20] mouth the very place of the body wheare our Lord had laid. Then hauing visited the pillour at the which our Lorde was bound and whipped, and the place where the holy Ghost did descend vpon the faithfull: she went to Bethelem, where en­tring our Sauiours caue, and looking at the holy Iune of the Virgin, and the stable, after many other deuout speaches she vttered these wordes. And I wretch and sinner am thought worthy to kisse the manger in which our Lord a litle babe cryed, and to pray in the caue in which the Virgin brought forth our Lord an infant. After this amongst sun­dry other holy places, she went vnto the Sepulchres of the 12 Patriarches where she trembled beinge affrighted with many wonders, for she saw the diuells roare being dy­uersly tormented: and before the sepulchres of the Sainctes she saw men howling lyke wolues, barking lyke dogs, roaringe lyke lyons, hissing lyke serpentes, and belowing lyke buls &c. And is not all this with a protestant papisticall super­stition? Will our Whyte allow of pilgrimage to holy places? or will he with S. Paula prostrate him selfe be­fore the Crosse and worshipe? will he kisse sacred Re­liques? or will he attribute such sanctity to the Sepul­chres of Sainctes that in presence thereof diuells are tormented? I perswade my self he will not. And yet S. Hierome (with him noe papist) relateth the promisses to the commendation of Paula.

But to come nearer the maner of lyfe which S. Pau­la led, her daily practise being best witnes of her be­leefe, hauing visited with greate deuotion all the pla­ces of the holy land, intending to spend her lyfe in holy Bethelem she stayed there in a straite lodging for the space of three yeres vntill she had built Cells, and Monasteries, & Mansions for diuers pilgrimes: where she liued in such humility as, being attended with many virgins, in her ap­parell, speach, habit, and going, she was the least or basest [...] of all. After her husbands death, vntill her owne, slene­ver [Page 21] with any man though she knew him to be holy and a Bishope. Bathes she went not to but in daunger. In her greatest a­gues she vsed not soft beds, but reposed on the hard grounde couered with hayre clothes &c. Thou wouldest haue thought fountaines of teares to haue proceded from her: yea she so bewayled litle sinnes as that thou wouldest haue iudged her guilty of greatest crimes &c. Soft linnens & pretious silkes she changed with a sharpe hayre cloth &c. Her loue of po­uerty was such, as that she desyred she might dye a beg­ger, and not to leaue one peny to her daughter, yea her selfe at her death to be wrapped in an others sheete. And as for her dyet, her abstinence was such, as that (festiuall dayes excepted) she scarce tooke oyle in her meate, by which may be iudged (saith S. Ierome) what she thought of wyne, of any thinges molted, of fish, milke, hony, egs, and the rest which are pleasant to tast. If I should now aske Maister Whyte whether his wyfe for example being no doubt an Euangelicall sister of highest perfection, him self be­ing often absent about preaching of the worde, whe­ther, I say, in his conscience he thinketh her modesty such, as that at such tymes (to speake sparingly) shee doth not often both eate and drinke with his Clarcke and other neighboures: as also whether for the mor­tifying of the flesh and the quickning of the spirit, she changeth a soft bed into the hard ground, or fyne lin­nens into hayre-cloth: and in breife whether without all exceptions of dayes, not fish, milke, or egs, but the daintiest flesh and most delicate wyne, be meates most welcome to him and her? I doubt not but he will answeare me that none of these agreeth with the fashi­on of these tymes. But thereto then must I needes re­ply, that therefore neither must he be much greued if his foresaid yokefelow grow wanton in the lord, hard bed, hayre cloth, and fasting (the best externall pre­seruatiues against such impurities) being vtterly aban­doned. [Page 22] And yet if the lyke question should be pro­posed vnto me in regard of Catholickes, all Christian Countries would answeare with me, that the said aus­terities of B. Paula are not onely imitated & practised by Religious persons, but euen by wiues, widowes, & Virgins which liue in the world.

But to touch yet one point further, wherein I sup­pose all protestantes will disclaime as being incompa­tible with theire new gospels libertie, which was S. Paula her Monasticall lyfe, whereof S. Hierome saith, I will speake of the order of her Monastery &c. Besydes the Monastery of men which she had geuen to men to be gouer­ned, she deuyded the Virgins &c. aswell noble, as of the mea­nest and lowest degree, into three companies and Monas­teries &c. After Alleluia song or sounded, (by which signe they were called to Collect or prayer) it was not lawfull for any of them to stay &c. In the morning, at the Third houre, at the Sixt, the Ninth, Euen song, and Midnight, they song the Psalter by order or course.

And now foloweth Whytes proofe of theire protes­tancy, neither was it lawfull for any of the Sisters to be ig­norant of the Psalmes, or not to learne somthing daily out of the sacred Scriptures. But what is this against vs, who allow not onely Religious women such as these weare, (Whom M. Whyte most fraudulently calleth Paules maydes) but euen the laity to reade the Scriptures, sup­posing they be knowne to be humble, discreete, and vertuous. And yet in what maner S. Paula her self, & her daughter Eustochium being both well learned, did it, S. Hierome a litle after expresseth in these wordes. She forced me that together with her Daughter, she might read the old and new Testament, I declaring it: (me disserente) which in modesty denying, yet through her importunities and often intreaties, I performed, that so I might teach what I had learned, not of my self, that is presumption the worste [Page 23] maister, but of the famous men of the Church. And when in any poynt I doubted and ingeniously confessed my self to be ignorant, yet she would not rest but with dayly intreaty enfor­ced me out of many and diuers sences, to shew that which to me semed most probable.

Would not any man think this minister distracted, thus producing against vs that which confoundeth him self? Do not these Religious women in reading of the Scriptures requyre S. Hierome a Preist for their mai­ster? Doth not he professe to teach them, not what he had learned himself, or from many imaginary spirit, but from the famous men or Doctors of the Church? Yea doth not he plainely and humbly acknowledg his doubting and ignorance in his explication thereof; none of which I am sure is orthodoxall with protestants.

But to returne to S. Paula and her Virgins in the mo­nastery. They had all one habite alyke; Lynnens they vsed onely for wyping of their handes. Their seperation from men was such, as she seuered them euen from Eunuches. Besides sustenance and apparel, she suffered them not to possesse any thing. Such as were talkatyue & vnquiet, she caused (in penance) to pray at the doare of the refectory & to eate alone.

I might recyte many other lyke, but these abundant­ly proue that M. Whytes maides were indeede Nonnes or Religious womē, whereof good store to gods grea­ter glory euen our Counrtie doth as yet daily afforde.

Now for a conclusion I will breefely note what S. Hierome relateth of her death. As first hauing offered vp many deuout prayers vnto god almighty, beinge almost speachlesse, she signed her lippes with the signe of the Crosse, a deuotion also vsed in her lyfe tyme, as impu­ting much vertue thereunto, which S. Hierome be­fore, mentioned in these wordes. When she had signed her mouth and her stomake, endeuoring by the impression of [Page 24] of the Crosse to mitigate her greife. &c. At her deathe were present the Bishopes of Hierusalem, and of other Cities, and an innumerable multitude of Preistes & Leuits, yea all the Monastery was filled with Virgins and Monks, Some of the Bishops caried the Coffin, and the rest goinge before caried Lampes and CANDLES, and Led the Singers. &c. In the Hebrew, Greeke, Latin, and Syrian Language Psalmes were songe, not onely for three dayes, but euen for a whole weeke. And in the end of all, this blessed Doctor as supposing her in heauen, inuocateth saying. a Farewel o Paula, Vale o Paula & Cultoris tui vltimā se nectutem ora tionibus iuua fides & opera [...] [...]ate Chris­to sociant: praesens faci­lius quod pos tulas impe­ [...]rabis. and help with thy prayers the old age of him who worshippeth thee: thy faith and workes doe ioyne thee with Christ, being present thou shalt obtaine more easely what thou askest.

Out of these premisses I may easely inferre that not onely S. Ierome, but euen th Bishopes, Preistes, & people of his tyme, did wholly agree with vs Catho­lickes in the pointes folowing. viz, (1) Worshipping and Inuocation of Sainctes. (2) That euery one haith an Angell guardian or keeper. (3) Pilgrimage to holy places. (4) Adoration of the Crosse: (5) and signing the body with the signe there­of. (6) Kissing and reuerencing of Relickes. (7) Tor­menting of deuils at the Sepulchres of Sainctes (8) Building of Monasteries and profession of Monasticall lyfe. (9) Voluntary pouerty. (10) Wearing of hair­cloth and no linnens at all: and lying vpon the ground in steed of a bed. (11) Abstinence from flesh, wyne, & other dainty meates vpon deuotion. (12) Keping set houres of prayer, as in the morning, at the Third, the Sixt, the Ninth, Evensong, and a Midnight. (13) The difference of litle and greate sinnes. (14) The vnlearned reading the Scriptures hauing a learned mā for their Maister. (15) The learnedst confessing their doubtinge and ignorance in their explication of the [Page 25] Scriptures. (16) Bishopes and Preist [...] a singing & ca­rying of Candles in the day tyme at the burials of the dead. (17) Church seruice song & vsed in the He­brew, Greeke, Latin, and Syrian language [...]. And for the Conclusion as including many thinges in one, re­member S. Ieromes prayer made to S. Paula after her death. Vale o Paula, & Cultoris tui vlt [...]am senectu [...] orationibus iuua: fides & opera tua Christo te sociant, prae­sens facilius quod postulas imp [...]trabis.

And now let any man iudge whether S. Ierome was a papist; as also what wisdome, learning, or honesty M. Whyte sheweth in objecting that which but truly seene and considered, doth manifestly confound and condemne himselfe.

The 2. Paragraph. S. Cyrill of Alexandria abused for the same purpose.

It was the reproch (saith Whyte pag. 22) that Iu­lian the Tpostatalaide on Christians, that their women were medlers with the Scriptures: and from him the papistes haue borrowed it: for which he cyteth Cyril. Alex. Iul. l.6. If our Minister had cyted Iulian reprehending the aun­cient Christians of his tyme for not Adoring Iubiter, & adoring the Crosse, and making the signe thereof in their for­heades, and vpon houses (the lawfulnes and profit wher­of S. Cyrill defendeth) he might haue truly shewed what him self & other heritikes had borrowed from Iu­lian in impugning the worship of the Crosse, and sig­ning therwith: but in that which he obiecteth in the behalf of women medling with Scriptures, him selfe borroweth from Iulian the libertie of lyinge, for Iulian onely reprehendeth Christ and his Apostles, for that [Page 26] for that they propoūded the heauēly preaching vnto all calling vnto their doctrine men and women of baifer sorte, which S Cyrill defendeth, shewing thereby the benig­nity of our Sauiour, but as for mention of the Scrip­tures or women medling therewith, he haith no word at all: our black-whyte haith only inuented it to proue him self a true Apostata.

Chapter. 3. Concerning the Church & the Pope.

The 1. Paragraph. Vincentius Li [...]inensis wilfully corrupted in proofe that the true Church may erre.

WE will now take into our consideration his corrupt proceding concerning the supposed generall erring of the whole Church, not remem­bring that in regard of Christes solicitude, care, & af­fection to his Spouse, it is said Cant. 1. My welbe­loued is a cluster of Cypre vnto me in the vyneyardes of En­gaddi. That the vniuersall Church may erre he labo­reth [Page 27] to euict from the testimony of old Vincentius Liri­nensis whom our minister pag. 83. maketh thus to speake Aduers. proph. nouit. ca. 4. Not onely some portion of the Church, but the whole Church it selfe is blot­ted with some new contagion. Obserue the true wordes of this Father, and then you can not but admyre to fynd such Blacknes in Whyte, and such perfidiousnes in him who styleth him self a minister of Gods word, for thus the wordes doe lye in latin. (Quod si) nouella aliqua contagio non iam portiunculam tantum sed toram pariter ec­clesiam commaculare (conetur.) What is to be done if, some contagion (shall endeuour) to blot not any one parte, but the whole Church? then (saith he further) must a mā be carefull to cleeue to antiquity. Now here our D. abu­seth his reader in two sortes: one way in concealing the word Conetur, and so commaculare conetur he trans­lateth is blotted, and consequently making Vincenti­us to confesse (for our minister most impudently saith) that the whole Church is actually blotted with some contagion of heresy, whereas at the most he saith that heresy may endeuour to blott the whole Church. But who knoweth not that euery thing which is endeuored to be effected, is not actually effected? Another way in deliuering these wordes in a Categoricall and absolute Ennuntiation which are Hypotheticall or spoken mere­ly of a supposal as appeareth by the first wordes Quid si, which M. Whyte thought good not to translate. The difference of which two kind of propositions, is very markable as euery yong Sophister knoweth: as for ex­ample if a man do say, what if diuers of Suffolk do re­port that M. Whyte is extremely geuen to his bely & to Epicurisme, and to say. Diuers of Suffolke reporte that M. Whyte is extremely geuen to his bely and to Eicurisme: where we see the first is merely of a doubt­full surmise and supposition, the second is a peremp­tory [Page 28] and absolute proposition that they do so reporte [...] the truth or falshode whereof (notwithstanding any intelligence whatsoeuer) I here quietly passe ouer.

The 2. Paragraph. The Rhemistes corrupted for the Churches inuisibility.

Now to the next point which consisteth in the man­tayning of a Mathematicall, aety, & inuisible Church: for the vphoulding whereof among others he strength­neth his cause with the supposed confession of the Rhe­mistes, thus bringing the whole Colledg of Rhemes v­pon the stage to speake in the dialect of protestantes: and so sorteably thereto he styleth that page 88. and some other pages in this maner. The Papists also say the Church it inuisible. The words wherwith he chargeth thē in this point are these, vpon the 2. Thes. ca. 2. It is very lyke (be it spoken vnder the correction of Gods Church and all learned Catholickes) that this great defection or re­uolt, shall not be onely from the Romane Empyre, but especi­ally from the Romane Church, and withall from most pointes of Christian Religion: for that neare to the tyme of Anti­christ and the consummation of the worlde, there is lyke to be a great reuolt of Kingdomes, People, and Prouinces from the externall open obedience and communion thereof. For the few dayes of Antichrists reigne, the externall state of the Romane Church, and the publick entercourse of the faith­full with the same may cease.

Here good Reader let me entreate thee to arest & stay thyne eye and iudgment a whyle, to obserue what strange corruptions he is forced to practise before he [...] make an Israelite to speake a Babilonians language. This place as you fynd it here vrged, beareth a faire show to [Page 29] proue by the Rhemistes confession, that the Church may somtymes be inuisible: and yet in this very place being truly set downe in their owne wordes, they doe affirme that the Church shall at no tyme be inuisible. Theire true wordes are these. It is very lyke (be it spo­ken vnder correction of Gods Church and all learned Catho­lickes) that this great defection and reuolt, shall not be one­ly from the Romane Empyre, but especially from the Ro­mane Church, and withall from most pointes of Christian re­ligion (not that the Catholick Christians either in the tyme of Antichrist 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 [Page 30] 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 [Page 31] 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 frō 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 sētence, 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 [Page 32] 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. [...].

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, whear [...] 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 (H [...]c est enim ordinaria &c for by this is that ordinary and perpetuall Succession of Bi­shops, Preistes, and Pastors d [...]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 [Page 33] 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 the said booke being to cōfute the Protestants notes) by the said Doc­tors wordes also concealed by M. Whyte, which doe immediatly precede the sentence vrged by him. For there speaking of the preaching of the Gospell, and of the ministration of the Sacraments, he saith. Ad [...] ­menta & ornamenta. These are furthere [...]es & ornaments of the true Church, non ipsius nota & insignia, but not markes or signes therof. Here you see how Ieweshsly M. Whyte haith circumcysed this poore Authority in pa­ring away both the first and latter part thereof. But seing his inexcusable faultines not onely in this place but in most of his deprauationes, is to set downe one part of a testimony and fraudulently to hyde an other part: let him remember the greouous punishment in­flicted by the Apostle vpon Ananias for bringing halfe, and concealing the other halfe. Act.5.

The 5. Paragraph. Gregory Valentia corrupted in behalf of the Pro­testantes markes of the Church.

In proofe of the Protestantes markes of the Church, to wit. Truth of doctrine and administration of the Sacra­ments, M. Whyte pag. 137. alledgeth Valentia Com. Theol. Tom. 3. disp. 1.9.1. punct. 7. parag. 18. saying. Among whomsoeuer the truth of Doctrine and Sa­craments are houlden: thereby it is knowne the Church is there. But for the true displaying of this baise iugling minister, I will set downe the wordes at large as that [Page 34] learned Author deliuered them him self. Nos autem fa­temur (saith he) ne (que) veritate d [...]ctrinae ne (que) legitimo sa­cramentorum vsu Ecclesiam Christi carere posse: & apud quos haec omninó sint salua, exiis constare veram Ecclesiā. Sed negamus tamen veritatem doctrinae, & legitimum sa­cramentorum vsum, idoneas notas esse discernendae Ecclesiae'. But we confesse that the Church of Christ can neither wante truth of doctrine, nor lawfull vse of Sacramentes, and a­mongst whom these are altogether saife (or sincere) of them to consist the true Church. But yet we deny the truth of doctrine and lawfull vse of Sacramentes, to be fit markes of discerning the Church.

Here M. Doctor first I must admire the profundity of your indgment, producing, by an vnknown kind of pollicy, a most famous learned man contradicting him self in one and the same sentence, yea not onely con­tradictinge the tytle of his disputation which is the Marckes of the Church which the sectaries assigne are eui­dently confuted, but euen the many and different profes which for sixe pages he continueth against the said markes assigned by protestantes. But because this so great an ouersight is more then probable, let vs exa­mine brefely your demeanour towardes him. You al­ledg in a different letter as though they were the Au­thors expresse wordes, these folowing. Among whom­soeuer the truth of doctrine and Sacraments are houlden: thereby it is knowne the Church is there. Him self sayeth Apud quos haec omuino sint salna: ex iis constare ve­ram Ecclesiam. Amongst whom these are altogether sin­cere: of them to consist the true Church. That which Va­lentia speaketh of the persons of whom the Church consisteth: your worship pleaseth to apply to the markes by which it is to be knowne, as though there weare no difference betwixt the members of the Church, & the externall badges & tokens whereby the said church [Page 35] is discerned. But peradu [...]nture you will pretend for your excuse, the alledging in the mergēt of your boke these latin wordes, ex us constare veram Ecclesi [...]m. But the truth is this doth rather plead you guilty of grosse ignorance in not knowing how to translate aright, or as I rather think, of laboured and affected malice, who hauing sene and perused the place, would so des­peratly produce it against the manifeste sence of the wordes and the direct intention of the Author. And though the word constare, doth not onely signify to consist or stande, but som-tymes likewise to be manifest or knowne, yet in the place cyted neither the wordes precedent nor subsequent, nor the scope or [...]rift of the Author will permitt it, yea they all conuince and con­clude the contrary. But if it were lawfull for me M. Whyte in wordes Amphibologicall which haue a dou­ble sence, without all respect either to the subiect or matter treated, the intention of the speaker, or other circumstance, to translate or apply the worde onely for myne owne aduauntage: I would easely defend a­gainst your learne [...]st Doctor-ship, sund [...]y of the cele­stiall signes to be liuing and sensible creatures, and so much more to be estee [...]ed t [...]en your self: for I would likewise, vpon the same [...]round, defend your self to be no substance, but a mere accident: Into such grosse absurdities doth your beggerly heres [...]e euer plunge you.

The 6 Paragraph. Bellarmine egregiously corrupted against the Markes of the Church.

M. Whyte desiring to extenuate the worth, and to obscure the splendor of those glorious markes which the Catholick Church as so many cleare rayes moste plentifully affordeth, produceth pag. 137. Cardinal Bellarmine as saying. They make it not euidently true, that is the Church, but euidently probable. Here M. D. as it semes wanted lantorne and candle light: but most certainely he wanted either honesty, or knowledg, or both: in best confirmation whereof, I will onely set downe the wordes of Bellarmine him selfe de notes eccl. lib. 4. ca. 3. Est autem initio obseruandum, Ecclesiam Ca­tholicam esse &c. It is in the beginning to be obserued that the Catholick Church is a Soon which on euery side powreth out the clearest beames of light, so that by them she may most easely be knowne. For she haith many Markes or testimo­nies, and signes which discerneth her from all false religions of Paganes, Iewes, Heritykes. And they do not make it euidently true that she is the true Church of God, but yea they make it euidently `credible: for that is said euidently true that is seene either in it self or in it principles: that is said euidently credible which is not seene either in it selfe or in it principles, yet (which) haith so many, and so graue Testimonies, as that euery wyse man deseruedly ought to be­leue it.

Here the minister, all excuses set apart, must nedes confesse that he haith falsly corrupted the text of Bel­larmine, changing this parcell euidently credible, into euidently probable, betwene which two there is no lesse difference, then betwixt him self and an honest man, which is not small. For example, if but one hundreth of learned and sincere writers, should confesse that D. [Page 37] Whyte had corrupted th [...] bookes in sundry places, this confession would make it euidently credible that D. Whyte were an impostor, or deceauer, a mercionary minister and the lyke: but if onely two or three should auouch it & as many of equall authority deny it, then it were but euidently probable: If the matter were brought to this issue, him self would plainely see the greateste difference betwixt these two. And I dare bouldly say that with lesser labour I will [...]panell an hundreth, who will all geue their verdictes against his soulest for­geries, then 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. [...]. quest 1. ar. 10. The making of a new Crede be­longeth [Page 38] 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 [Page 39] 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 indir [...]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 s [...]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 h [...]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 [Page 40] 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 au [...]henticall interpreta [...]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 [Page 41] 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 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 reprehē ­deth 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 [Page 42] 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 [Page 44] & 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 [Page 45] 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 Religion [...] 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 subsequēt 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 (i [...] 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 [Page 46] 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 [Page 47] 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 the [...] 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 definitiō, 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 nō [Page 48] 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 purpo [...]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 do [...] 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 āswerably 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.

[Page 49]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 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 wryti [...]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 [Page 50] 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 hiddē re­uelations, and answearably hereto the Tytle of this Chapter is, Libris qui Canonic [...] appella [...]tur, verbum dei [Page 51] 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 nota (que) &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 warrāted 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 [Page 52] 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 concealemēts 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 cō ­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 [Page 53] (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 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 [Page 54] 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 traditiō 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 tr [...]huntur, Traditiones non item. Tertuliā 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 reasō of Canus his Iudgmēt 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 [Page 55] be taken from Tradition warranted by the Church.

Thirdly and lastly he abuseth his Reader in concea­ling the aduerbe ferme, in those words aboue, om [...]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, [Page 56] 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) dic [...] possi [...] 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 &c [...] are as it were de corpore, but not de anima Ecclesiae, of the body, not of the soule of the Church, &c. He [Page 57] but sicut capilli, ant 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 [...] ­lia Hierusalem. Ca [...]. 6. And Bellarmine is so farre frō 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 he wrongeth the Cardinall who saith, that a man onely of outward profession, is but aliquo modo pars Ecclesia, meanīg onely in ā imperfect & equiuocall manner of being, whereas our minister con­cealing the wordes aliquo modo, maketh Bellarmine to asscribe to such a one, as perfect a being a member of the Church, as to any other man endewed with all the Theologicall vertues. But M. Whyte (as we haue seene in others of his corruptions, so also in this) haith a great facility, in passing ouer and concealing diuters such wordes, as si ferme, aliquo modo, and the lyke, in any Author that he alledgeth, though they migh­tely alter the meaning of the sentence. It may be per­haps he haith framed to him self a new Accidence, & houlding such poore particles, but as imperfect partes of speach, be accomptes them as vnworthy to be trās­lated or set downe by his learned pen.

The 2. Paragraph. Bellarmine corrupted against the kuowledg of mis­teries of our Faith, & in preferring of ignorance.

Againe, to our more depressing of faith, & our sup­posed aduancing of ignorance: the Doctor telleth his Reader how among vs the lay people are not bound to know, what the matters of their faith be, but that ig­norance is better: and thereupon in his mergent he forti­fyeth him self with a sentence of Bellarmine de Inst. l. 1. ca. 7. in these wordes. Fides melins per ignorantiā, quam per notitiam, definitur. Faith is better defyned by ig­norance, then by knowledg. I think the minister euen for feare of breach of his oath taken (as it should seme) to the contrary, is loth to alledg any one sentence en­tyrely, ingeniously, and truly. For mark here how vn­truly he diuorceth Bellarmines wordes from his owne drift and mynde. For the Cardinall entytuling that Chapiter, Fidem iustificantem non tam esse notitiam, quā assensum. Iustifying Faith, rather to be assent then know­ledg, there proueth, that faith (euen according to the Apostles definition thereof) can not be demōstrated, and that the assent which we geue thereunto (saith he) followeth not rationem & euidentiam rei, a cleare euidēce of the poynt beleued, which is property called notitiā, but it followeth authoritatem proponentia, the authority of the proposer, and therfore it is more properly called fi­des. And then some three lynes after he thus sayeth. (Igitur misteria fides quae rationem superant, credivius, non intelligimus, ac per hoc fides distinguitur contra scien­tiam) & melius per ignorantiam quam per notitiam defini­tur. Therefore we beleue the misteries of faith, which are a­boue reason, we vnderstand them not, and in this respect, [Page 59] (Faith it distinguished against science of knowledg) and i [...] better defyned by ignorance then by euidency of knowledg. Now here I doe demaund euen in sincerity, whether these wordes (with any tecture of colour of possibility) can be wrasted to the supporting of a supine and an af­fected ignorance of the articles of our Faith, as here our minister seeketh to strayne them? Wherefore I say that M. Whyte dealeth vnchristianlyke, and most ir­religiously with Bellarmine herein. For first he inues­teth his wordes (which are spoken onely of the nature of faith) with a new construction neuer dreamed of: and therefore you see the minister (besides his passing ouer the ground and reason of his sentence) purpos­ly omitteth in his translation, the beginning of the sē ­tence alledged, though it doth expound the wordes following, to wit, Therefore we beleue the misteries of Faith (which are aboue reason) we vnderstand them not, and in this respect Faith is distinguished against science.

Secondly he taketh aduauntage in translating the word notitia, which though it signifyeth in large con­struction knowledg in generall (in which sence he for­saw the ignorant reader would take it) yet with the schoolemen it is restrayned, as Bellarmine here ex­presly noteth, to that kynd of knowledg which is pro­perly Scientia, which procedeth out of a demonstra­ble euidency of the thing knowen, and consequently it is incompatible with Faith.

For shame of your owne credit M. Whyte, and for the feare that you owe to God, forbeare to seduce a­ny longer the ignorant by these deceauable meanes: and making your benesyte of these my trendly admoni­tions, which indeede procede from Christian Charity, remember that meliora sunt vulnera diligentis, quā frau­dulente oscula. prou. 27.

The 3 Paragraph. Nauar corrupted concerning the sinne committed by the Laity in disputing of matters of Faith.

Now next let vs come to one or two deprauations consisting of the word heresy, where pag. 6. to inti­mate that we hould it no lesser offence then heresy, for a Lay man to argue of matters of Religion, as though the Church barred them in any sort whatsoeuer, not to speake thereof, he alledgeth Nauar, Manual. ea. 11. nu. 26. It is heresy for a Lay man to dispute in a point of Faith. Nauars wordes are these. Quinto, qui disputat de fide cum sit Laicus, sciens Laicis esse prohibitum sub ex­communicationis paena, de tlla disputare. Fiftly, who being a Lay man, disputeth of Faith, knowing that Lay men are forbidden vnder payne of excommunication to dispute there­of. Here you see there is no mention of heresy, and in­deede without reference to some other wordes, the sense is here imperfect; therefore the Reader is to vn­derstand, that the Tytle of this Chapiter in Nauar, is this. Modivsitatiores peccandi mortaliter, contra praecep­tum de rectè colendo & honorando Deo &c. The seuerall more accustomed kindes of sinning mortally against the pre­cept of worshiping and honoring God aright &c. and so answearably to this tytle, he setteth downe dyuers wayes of sinninge mortally in that sort, keping the methode of primo secundo &c. and so comming to quin­to, he sheweth in what manner a man sinneth therein [...] therefore the offence here committed is not heresy (as our minister falsly saith) but it is a mortall sinne, which yet is so to be vnderstoode, as when a Lay person per­tinaceously without subiecting his Iudgment to the [Page 61] Church, wauereth in disputatiō in any point of the Ca­tholick faith: and thus much of M. Whytes fynding the word heresy, in Nauar. But I may well say he is a man of a very strange, and (as I may terme it) imper­fect perfect eye-sight, since he can not see wordes in testimonies which euery other man doth see: and yet seeth other wordes in them which no man els can see.

Chapter 6. Concerning mariage of Pre [...]stes: Fasting: and Miracles.

The 1 Paragraph. Sinesius impudently abused concerning his owne mariage.

The next corruption shall be touching mariage of Preistes, the lawfulnes whereof this our yoked mi­nister is more willing to iustify, in that such as professe voluntary Chastity, are (according to the principles of his faith) accompted noe better then superstitious, & wilfull Eunuches. Now then for the warranting there­of page 343. he produceth a testimony from Sinesitus Bishop of Ptolemais, who in his Epistle to a frend cal­led Euopius, thus writeth of him self. The sacred hand of Theophilus haith geuen me a wyse, and hereupon I testify to all men, that I will neither for sake her, nor yet priuily as an adulterer kepe her company, but I will pray to God to send me by her many & good children. This Authority, as you see, maketh a speceous show, but examine it truly, & you shall confesse, that it is M. Whytes proper scene to acte the falsary and corrupter, so notoriously haith he behaued him self herein. For the better vnderstan­ding [Page 62] therefore of this soule imposture, thou art to con­ceaue (good Reader) that this Epistle of Sinesius, out of which our M. taketh this Authority, is set downe at large by Nicephorus Eccl. his. lib. 14. ca. 55. And that at the tyme when it was writen, Sinesius was but a Lay man, yet very eminent for diuers kyndes of good literature, and in reguard of such his partes, he was much solicited by many to vndertake the function of Preisthood: he a longe tyme yelded not to their per­swasions, and did wryte this very Epistle to Euopius, (who was one that wished him to that course) to iustify hereby his resolution not to make him self Preist. And in this Epistle amonge other of his reasons, as his loue to humane studies, and his temporall pleasures diuer­ting him from that course, he alledgeth the wordes here set downe by M. Whyte, to wit, that in reguard he was a maried man, and intending to continue and liue in a wedlock state with his wyfe, he was not to en­ter into that sacred function. Thus doth Sinesius ac­knowledg euen in this Epistle (which by our minister is wrested to the mantaining of the contrary) that ma­riage (with a determination not to leaue the company of his wyfe) is a sufficient barre or let to Preisthood.

Now it hapned that some reasonable tyme after the wryting of his former Epistle, he was ouer-perswaded, and so assenting to his frendes importunity, was made Preist, and then after created Bishop of Ptolemais, & liued for all the tyme after, euer seperated from the company of his wyfe. Here then our ministers incre­dible deceipt (of which he is to him self most conscious) lyeth in applying the wordes spoken by Sinesius when he was a lay man, to him as he was after Proist and Bi­shop, and so by the wilfull confusion of these two seue­rall tymes, doubted not but to bleare the weake iudg­ment of his ignorant reader. Good Reader, if thou vn­derstandest [Page 63] latin, I could wish thee to see the Epistle of Sinesius, in the aboue noted place of Nicephorus, where­in thou shalt fynd it most euident, that at that tyme, Sinesius was not Preist, for euen there (besides many o­ther passages) he saith of him self. Ego sanè qui meipsū noui, ineptiorem comperio, quam vt sacerdotali dignitati ge­rende idoneus sin [...]. I who am priuie to mine owne weakenes, doe fynde that I am not fit to vndertake the dignity of Preist­hood. In lyke sort euen at the end of this Epistle, Nice­phorus him self thus concludeth. Sinesius haec scribens, apertè sacerdotalem dignitatem auersatus est &c. Sinesius wryting these thinges, was clearely vnwilling of the dignity of Preisthood: So as it is most vndoubted and perspicu­ous, that at the wryting of this Epistle (out of which M. Whyte did take the former wordes) he was not then Preist, much lesse Bishop of Ptolemais, as our. M. subtlly styleth him.

Now what do you say to this M. Whyte, do you not think that this your persidious dealing being once made knowen, will becom odious, not onely to Ca­tholickes, but euen to all ingenious and welmeaninge protestantes, though hitherto with extraordinary ap­plause and allowance, they haue much admyred you? no doubt it will: and therefore seing you can not other­wise warrant (for your owne interest) the mariage of the Cleargy, but onely by such dishonest meanes: I hope that the fortune of Acteon, before your deathe, will happen vnto you, (feare not man, I presse not the word in any disloyall sence) in being maligned, afflic­ted, and bayted, euen by your owne frendes and fol­lowers.

The 2. Paragraph. Paphnutius acused concerning the mariage of Preistes.

[Page 64]For his further patronizing of Preistes mariage, he pag. 343. vrgeth that often obtruded place of Sainct Paule Heb. 13. Mariage is honourable among all men. and at these wordes cyteth in the mergent Sozomen. li. 1. ca. 22. as wryting that Paphnutius mantayned the protestantes construction of that place, so as that Preistes might absolutely at any tyme mary. In the dis­couery of his deprauation here vsed, I will not much in­sist in displaying his corruption of this text of Scrip­ture, by adding the wordes, is, and, men, (the which he borroweth from the english false translatiō) for nei­ther in the Geeke text can we fynd the verbe, is, of the Indicatiue moode, neither the worde, men, that place being thus according to the greeke, mariage is honou­rable in all: which worde, all, may aswell haue reference to all respectes or endes of mariage, as to all men. But I will cheifely relye, in shewing how small reason he haith to alledg Sozomen or Paphnutius in this poynt, and how litle their true meaning doth sort to our mi­nisters drift: for M. Whyte vndertaketh in this place to proue, that Preistes may take wyues at any tyme, (meaning aswell after their consecration as before), and so answearably in generall styleth the former page Preistes mariage, and lyke wise thus beginneth that very Paragraph, wherein the former wordes of S. Paule are alledged, Fourthly touching the mariage of ministers, &c. Now if we looke into the former quotation of Sozomene touching Paphnutius, we shall fynde that he re­cordeth, how the Councell of Nyce, did onely tolle­rate and permit the mariage of Preistes, before theire entrance into preisthood, but not after their consecra­tion: which doth absolutely crosse the scope of M. W. intention in this place. For first this is the tytle of the quoted Chapiter of Sozomen. De Canonibus quas Con­cilium posuit: & quod cum Ca [...]onem statuere voluerat, vt [Page 65] quicun (que) ad sacerdori [...] dignitatem euecti essent, [...]um [...]xori­ [...]us, quas antequam sacris in [...]tiati eram, duxarant, non dor [...]irent: in medium preferens Paphnutius quidem Confessor intercede [...]at. Of the Carrons of the Councell (meaning of Nyce) and their whereas the Councell determined to decree, that euen those who were called to the dignity of preisthood, should not liue with those their wyues, whom they had ma­ried before they were ordeyned Preistes: one Paphnutius a Confessour being amonge the Councell, began to plead the contrary. But if the Councell thought it once conueni­ent to decree, that such Preistes as were maried before theire entrance into Preisthood, should not liue toge­ther with their wyues in state of matrimony, then a for­tiori, it did vtterly condemne the mariage of Preistes after they be made Preistes, which is the contrary whereunto is here che [...]fe [...]y defended by M. Whyte. This poynt is further confinned out of the wordes of Sozomen, euen in the foresaid quoted Chapiter, for there Sozomen doth thus wryte. Veterem Ec [...]lesiu [...]ae­ditionem esse, vt qu? Cas [...]ties gradum sacerdo [...]em cons [...]eu­ti fuisseur, postea minime vxores duderen [...] qui autem post nuptias, adteum or dinem vocati essent, hit ab vxoribus quas habeba [...] minime separarentur, & [...]ta quidem lice [...] Coniu­glie p [...]rs, f [...]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 ta [...]e to them selues any wyues: But those who being afore maried, and after arceal­led to that order, should not be therefore seperated frō 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 [Page 66] 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, mult [...]s exercere di­d [...]ci. I haue learned that many Monkes did practise euē incredible fastes) he thus wryteth touching forbearāce 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 (qu [...]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, [Page 67] 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, [Page 68] that these were no miracles, by impos­tures, and sleightes onely: For thus he wryteth before. Quaenam autem hat fuer [...]t, [...]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 nūbred the said supposed miracles, he thus instantly concludeth. Hueus (que) de Simonis impostu­ris, quibus haec per imaginem oste [...]debat, & visum, cum nulla verita [...]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 [...]andor and sincerity M. Whyte could produce part of the sentence of Baronius (omitting both the beginning and endinge) [...] 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 Eucha [...]l [...] and Pennance.

The 1. Paragraph [...]armine corrupted against Transubstantiation.

OVR Doctor pag. 24. haith a soule deprauati­on touching the doctrine of Transubstantiatiō, alledging Bellarmine saving, de Euch. lib 2. ca. 2.3 That it may iustly be doubted, whether the text be clea [...]e e­nough [...]o infe [...] Transubsta [...]tiatio [...], seing men sharpe & lear­ned, such as Scotus was, ha [...]e thought the contrary. The [Page 69] Reader shall see the whole periode of Bellarmine at large, and so may discerne how strongly both he & Sco­tus impugne transubstantiatiō, as they are here by our M. traduced to doe. Thus then. Scotus dicit [...]on ex­ [...]are &c. Scotus saith, that there is no place of Scripture so expresse, which (fi [...]e Ecclesiae declaratiore) without the [...] ­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, s [...]me so cleare [...], that it is able to conuince ho­minem [...]on pro [...]eru [...], a man not obstinate) neuerthelesse whether it do so or no, i [...] may i [...] [...]l [...] be doubted of, seing that learned and sharp men (such as Scotus was) haue, thought the contrary. But Scotus [...]dd [...]h, that s [...]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 Chu [...]ch, transu [...]st [...]tiation is manifestly proued. Thus far [...] Bellarmine. Now I doe a [...]ke, that if we consider the whole cōtexture 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 teacheth, that the text is e [...]ident enough to conu [...]nce any man that is not froward or obstinate: and Scotus (as we fynde here, grauntes, that transub­stantiation is manifestly proued from the Scripture, be­ing so already expounded by a generall Councell: wherefore our ministers sleight resteth, in nakedly set­tinge downe the former parcell of Bellarmine, and in concealing the wordes afore, sine declaratione Ecclesia, & againe, hominem non proteruum, to both which, the sentence alledged haith a necessary reference: So as if M. Whyte would haue deliuered Bellarmines true mea­ninge here, he must haue deliuered it in this sort: It may be iustly doubted, whether the Text without the decla­ration [Page 70] of the Church, be cleare enough to conuince an obsti­nate man in the poynt of transubstantiation, seing men sharp & learned, such at Scotus &c. But this deportment had bene ouer candid & sincere, and in no manner sortinge to the calumnious proiect of our deprauing minister, who by his perfidious dealinge throughout his whole booke, semeth to haue made ship-wrack of all morall honesty, reputation, religion, and shame. periere mo­res, ius, decus, pietas, fides: & quiredire nescit, cum perit pudor. Seneca. in Agam.

The 2. Paragraph. The Maister of sentences corrupted against confessi­on to a Preist.

In this next place we will descend to the Sacrament of Penance, prophaned by this our Doctors deprauati­ons: and first to beare the reader in hand, that by the acknowledgment of Catholickes, auricular Confessi­on, and other partes of this Sacrament, are not neces­sary, he, pag. 254. produceth the M. of Sentences li 4. d. 17. saying. By contrition onely without Confession, or payment of outward punishment (or liberality of the pre­late, or paynes in purgatory) I may goe straight to heauen. The wordes of this Author are these. Sanè dici potest, quod sine confessione oris, & solutione paenae exterioris, pecca­ta delentur per contritionem & humilitatem. Verily it may be said, that sinnes are remitted by contrition & humility, without confession of the mouth, or payment of exteriour pu­nishment. Where we fynde, first these wordes, or libera­lity of the prelate, or paynes in purgatory, to be added by M. Whyte, though set downe in a peculiar character, & letter of the Author: but this our minister did, to make the confession of this Author, more full & swel­linge: [Page 71] neuerthelesse to passe ouer this, I affirme that the sentence is fraudulently alledged, to take away auricu­ler confession. And therefore the reader ought to con­ceaue, that though all Catholickes teach, that perfect contrition is of force to blot owt a mans sinnes [...] yet they houlde, that this contrition can not be without confession, at least in voto, as the schoole-men speake, that is, that the party haith a desire to coufesse his sinnes to a preist, when opportunity shall serue. And that this is the very meaning of the Maister of the sen­tences in this place, appeareth, first out of his owne wordes, euen in the said paragraph or distinctiō where he saith. Non est veré pe [...]tens, qui confessionis v [...]tums non habes: he is not truly penitent, who haith not a desire to con­fesse his sinnes. Which poynt is also further made cleare by the tytle of the next paragraph sauinge one of this Author, which is this, quod non sufficit soli Deo coufiteri, si tempu [...] ad [...]it, si tamen homini possit. That it is not suffici­ent onely to confesse our sinne to God, if so we haue tyme or opportunity, to confesse to man. Thus it appeareth what reason our Doctor had, to alledg the Authority of the Maister of the sentences, for the absolute abolishing of the Sacrament of Confession: whereas he meaneth that onely in tyme of necessity, and when opportunity is not to confesse them to man, then with a true contri­tion, the sinnes may be remitted without Confession. Such you see is the proceding of our minister through­out his booke, euer inuesting his doctrine and asserti­ons, with most foule and stained deprauations, wel dis­couering the spotted guiltines of his owne soule where fore for the tyme hereafter, I could wish M. Whyte (that so his mynde might be appareled answearably to his name) to follow the admonition of the Euangelist, Get thee a whyte garment (to wit, of repentance and fu­ture integrity) that thou maist be clothed, and that thy [Page 72] thy filthy nakednes doe not (further) app [...]. Apo [...] 3.

The 3 Paragraph. Bellarmine corrupted against Satisfaction.

Lastly touching the Sacrament of Penance, where­of Satisfaction is on part, to make the Catholick doc­trine thereof become [...]ame [...]ngracefull, he, pag. 249. produceth Bellarmine, li. 1. depur. ca. 14. thus wri­ting. Christer satisfaction it self, taketh not away the pu­nishment due [...] vs, but it removeth it so farr forth, as we haue grace from thence, to make our owne satisfaction of power. For the better apprehending of Bellarmines due meaning in this places, the Reader is to conceaue that the Cardinall here handleth a schoole poynte which being no meter of Faith, but a poynt of [...]adi [...] ­ferency, is seuerally defen led by Catholick wryters. The poynt is this: th [...] seing all the force of our satis­faction, is originally [...]i y [...]d, and recoa [...]teth it fore, (as all Catholickes do ground) from the passion and satisfaction of Christ: whether therefore this satisfac­tion of Christes and ours, may be tearmed but one sa­tisfaction or two satisfactions: Bellarmine houldeth that it is but one satisfaction, and that farmaliter, ours, and thereupō wryteth [...]the alledged place. Vna tan­tum est [...]tual is satisfactio &c. There is here but one actu­all satisfaction, and the same ours: neither by this it exclu­ded Christe or his satisfaction: for by his satisfaction, we haue grace from whence we doe s [...]tisfy & in this sense the satisfaction [...] Christ is [...] be appledr [...] vs, non quod [...] ipsa ti is satisfactio, tollan penam temp malem no­bis [...] sed quod mediat eam tollat, quate ius videli­ce [...] [...] g [...]atiam [...] themes, sine qua, nihil valeret nostrae satisfactio. Not th [...] his satisfaction immedeatly taketh a­way [Page 73] the punishment due vnto vs: but that it taketh it away mediatly, in so much as from his satisfaction, we receaue Grace, without the which our satisfaction would be of noe force.

Here all men may see, that Bellarmine doth in noe sort detract from the passion or satisfaction of Christ, for he saith, that Christes satisfaction is not excluded by our satisfaction: that by his satisfaction, we haue grace to satisfy: that our satisfaction applyeth Christes satis­faction to vs: Finally, that without Christes satisfac­tion, ours can be of no force. But before I ende, I will be the Readers remembrancer of two or three sleightes vsed by you M. Whyte, in this one testimo­ny. First in these wordes, Not that Christes satisfacti­on (immediatly) taketh away the punishment due vnto vs, you conceale in your translation, the word, immediat­ly, and so makes vs to say, that Christes satisfaction doth not at all take away the punishment due vnto vs, which to affirme, is no lesse then a monstrous blasphe­my. Secondly in those wordes, sed quod mediaté eam tol­lat, which you translate not in that naturall sense which the wordes import, but onely thus, but that Christes satisfaction remoueth the punishment: so by your feeble translation, making vs in an ignorant eare, to ascribe lesse to Christes satisfaction then we doe. Thirdly in that last parcell of the sentence, sine qua nihil valeret nostra satisfactio. Without which grace of Christ, our satisf. were of noe force. Which wordes as soundinge fully in our acknowledgment of the valew of Christes passion, you also haue fully translated in a more remisse phraze and tenour of speach, to wit, from which grace, our satisfaction is made of power. Thus well knowinge that (according to the rules of Rhetorick) different phra­ses bearing one and the same sence, doe make a diffe­rent (and so more or lesse) impression in the hearers [Page 74] eares. But you doe well, and in one sense we will not much complaine of you, since this persideous deport­ment in your wrytinges (as necessarily discoueringe that you are conscious and guilty of your owne bad cause) doth much aduantage your aduersaries.

The 5. Paragraph. S. Thomas corrupted concerning the remission of veniall sinnes.

Touching veniall sinnes, pag. 246. and how they are remitted, our minister extremely corrupteth a say­ing in S. Thomas par. 3. q. 87 ar. 3. making him thus, without any further illustration of the poynte, to speake, Veniall sinnes may be forgeuen by knocking of the breast, going into the Church, receauing of holy water, or the Bishopes blessing, or crossing our self, or by any such work of Charity, though we do not think actually of them.

Tell me M. Wh. when must we expect at your handes one pertinent allegation without any deprauation or imposture? I do think euen then (and not before) when, as the poet wrytes.

Terra feret stellas, calum scindetur ara [...]ro. Ouid. l.
Vnda dabit slammas, & dabit ignis aquas. 1 de tre.

For, according to your accustomed vaine, you haue most fowly wronged S. Thomas, and so your self here (by wilfully satisfying the doctrine of veniall sinnes) haith committed a mortall sinne. For he in the place al­ledged showing how veniall sinnes are remitted, either by an act of detestation of sinne, or an act of reuerence towardes god, thus concludeth. Manifestum est gene­rali confessione &c. It is manifest, that veniall sinnes are remitted by a generall confession, knocking of the breast, & saying of our Lordes prayer (quatenus cum detestatione pec­cati [Page 75] siunt, as these actions are done with a detestation of sinne) as also by the Bishopes blessing, by sprincling of holy water, and other such actions (quatent [...]s cum dei reuerentia exercentur, as they are performed with a reuerence towards god.) Here you see first, how you haue most fraudulent­ly discarded these two parcels of the sentence, to wit, quatēus cū detestatione [...] fius, & quatenus cum dei reue­rentia exercentur, as they are done with a detestatiō of sinne, & as they are performed with reuerence to god, which par­cels do enleuen and season the whole. For we do not hould that these actions, except they be accompany­ed either with a detestation of sinne, or reuerence to­wardes god, do remitt veniall sinnes. But your inten­ded calumny and deceipt here, was to make your cre­dulous reader thinke, that the superstitious papists (as you tearme them in your rayling and calumnious lan­guage) do beleue that these externall actions of them selues alone, are as it were certaine spells or charmes to extinguish and dryue away all veniall sinnes what­soeuer. Secondly touching the last part of the sentēce as it is set downe by you, vz, or by any worke of Charity, though we doe not think actually of them, is not in this third article, but afore in the first article of 87. ques­tion, and is onely an obiection of S. Thomas, vrged for forme sake, (according to his Methode) and then afterwardes answeared by him self.

Chapiter 8. Concerning the author of sinne, & reprobation.

The 1 Paragraph. Bellarmine egregiously falsifyed, in proofe that god is the Author of sinne.

TO the iustifying that Catholicks are as far inga­ged in defendinge that blasphemous and horri­ble doctrine, that god is the Author of sinne, as the protestantes are, pag. 271. he alledgeth Bellarmine de amis. gra. l. 2. ca. 13. thus wryting. God by a figure commendeth sinne, and excyteth men vnto it, as a huntsman setteth a dog vpon a hare, by letting goe the slippe that held the dog. God therefore doth not onely permit the wicked to do many euils, neither doth he onely forsake the god­ly, that they may be constrayned to suffer the thinges done a­gainst them by the wicked, but he also ouerseeth their euill willes, and ruleth & gouerneth them, & boweth & bendeth them, by working inuisibly in them. And not onely inclyneth euill willes to one euill rather then to an other, by permitting them to be caried into one euill, & not permitting them to be caried into an other: but also positiuely he bendeth them, by inclyning to one euill, & turning them from an other, occasionally & morally &c.

Thus our minister alledgeth Bellarmine, and then triumphantly thus concludeth. Let our aduersaries looke well into these speaches, & they shall fynde that we say in effect nomore. Your aduersaries, M. Whyte, haue lo­ked well into these speaches, and they do fynde and say in effect, that you are a most faith-lesse, dishonest, and corrupt wryter, and indeede one of those whom the spanish phraze calls vnhombre de salmad [...], a fellow [Page 77] without a soule, for if you either feared god, had a true cōceate of any Religion, or thought that the soule were immortall, to answear for what it performes in this lyfe: you would neuer depraue this Author as you do, making the Catholickes to be patrones of that blasphemy which in their soules they damne to the pit of hell. Wherefore good Reader, I am to intreate thy patience, if I insist somwhat longe in the full disco­uering of this corruption. Well then Bellarmine in the Chapiter alledged, sheweth how that God may be said seuerall wayes to inclyne a man to euill: And there upon saith. Primus modus esset, si Dens per se & proprié &c. The first way should be, if god by him self and properly either physicé, phisically and naturally by mouing the will immediatly, or moraliter, to wit, by truly and properly com­maunding the will, should impell it to euill: but this kind is manifestly false, impious and blasphemous against God. Therefore this kind as wicked being omitted, a second way as that we may vnderstand god to be said in the Scriptures, to excyte and prouoke some vnto euill, or to commaunde that they work wickedly, and to vse them as instrumentes be­cause he permitteth them to do euill, although euery one that permitteth any thing, can not be rightly said to com­maund it, that it may be done, neither to excite or prouoke an other thereto. Notwithstanding god (without whose permission nothing can be done) when as he suffereth any thing to be done, to the obtayning of some certayne ende of hit: may rightly be said by a certaine figure, to commaund that, and to incite one thereto: euen as vsually we say, the dog was set vpon the hare by the hunter, when as he onely loosed the slippe wherewith he was tyed. And then some three paragraphes after, deus non so [...]um permittit &c. god doth not onely permitte the wicked to doe much wicked­nesse, neither doth onely leaue the godly that they may be forced to suffer wronges of the wicked, but ouerseeth the euill [Page 78] willes, and doth gouerne and rule them, and bend them, working in them inuisibly: So as though theire willes be e­uill through their owne default, yet they are inclyned by di­uine prouidence, rather to one euill then to an other (non positiué, sed permissiué, not positiuely, but by permission.) And then in an other paragraph after. Deum no [...]i solum inclinare &c. god doth not onely inclyne wicked willes to one euill rather then to an other, by suffering them that they shall be caried into one euill, and not suffering them that they shall be caried into an other (as Hugo rightly teacheth) but also by positiuely inclyning them to one euill, and auer­ting them from an other (non quidem per se et physicé mo­uendo voluntatem ad vuum et remouendo ab alto, quod li­bertati arbitrii preiudicare videretur, not by him selfe and physically or naturally in mouing the will to one euill and remouing it from an other, which may seme to be againste the liberty of the will) sed occasionaliter, et moraliter, but occasionally and morally, as S.. Thomas speaketh (to wit, in sending some one good thought, from the which the wicked man (though his owne fault may take occasion, that it is better to hurt this man, then that man, to yeld to this sinne rather then to that sinne.

Thus farre doth Bellarmine literally wryte. Now we will see what amount of imposlures and deceiptes our minister haith heaped vp in producing of this one Authority. First he omitteth altogether (without the least intimation of it, or Bellarmines dislyke thereof) the first kynde or manner how god may be said to im­pell man to sinne, to wit, properly and immediatly, which Bellarmine calleth impious and blasphemous, & yet M. Whyte endeuoreth throughout all the passage here vrged, to charge him therewith. Secondly for the more engaging of Bellarmine herein, he immediatly applyeth that example of a hunter letting [...] goe the slip, to gods commaundinge & excyting men to sin, which [Page 79] Bellarmine onely by illation, applyeth thereto. Third­ly where Bellarmine saith that wicked men by diuine prouidence, are inclyned to one euill rather then to an other, non positiuê, sed permissiué, not positiuely, but by permissiō: the minister haith left out these wordes, non positiue, sed permissiué, though in them lyeth all the solution of the doubt here controuerted. Fourthly when Bellar­mine after saith, that god inclynes also the will of the wic­ked to one euill rather then to an other, positiué, non quidem per se et phisicé mouendo voluntatem ad vnum, et remouen­do ab alio, quod libertati arbitru praeiudicare videtur: sed occasionaliter et moraliter, positiuely, yet not by him selfe and phisically, mouing the will of the wicked to one sinne, & withdrawing it from an other, which may seeme to be a­gainst the freedome of the will, but occasionally & morally &c. Our minister subtily taking hould of the word po­sitiuê, doth leaue out all the rest, wherein is expressed how the word positiuè, is to be vnderstoode, and ioy­neth it immediatly with the wordes occasionaliter, et mo­raliter. Fiftly he purposly forbeareth the example wher in Bellarmine immediatly doth interprete the wordes occasionaliter & moraliter, to wit, in sending a good thought, but not an euill thought, as M. Whyte by his wilfull omission thereof, would seme to pretende.

And thus far of this testimony, where you see I haue as it were dissected, all the perticular vaines & sinewes wherein lyeth the very lyfe and strength of the mini­sters fraude and collusion herein: onely good Reader I would wish thee for thy fuller satisfaction, to vew the place in Bellarmine him self, and then geue vp thy true iudgment, whether M. Whyte or I deale sincere­ly herein.

The 2. Paragraph. S. Augustine abused concerning reprobation.

Our minister to proue his blasphemous doctrine of reprobation or damnation pag. 9. doth shrowd him self vnder an abused testimony of S. Augustine Epist. 107. ad. Vital. med. whom he thus cyteth. It is a ma­nifest truth, that many can not be saued, not because them selues will not, but because god will not. The wordes of S. Augustine are these. Multi salui non fiant, non quia ip fi, sed quia dens non vult, (quod sine vlla caligine manifes­tatur in parnulis. Many are not saued, not because they will not, but because god will not: Which without all obscuri­ty is manifested in infantes. These latter wordes, which without all obscurity is manifested in infantes, are fraudu­lently left out by the minister, because they expresse S. Augustines mynde herein: for S. Augustine here one­ly speaketh of the damnation of infantes, who dye be­fore they receaue baptisme, which M. Whyte well knowing, thought good to omitt the latter Part of this sentence, and therefore this testimony is wrong­fully stretched to such as be of capacity and type yeres. That this Place of S. Augustine is onely intended of infants not baptised before their death, is also manifested (besides the proofe taken from the former wordes) by that which this Father wryteth some two or three lines afore this place, where he maketh the question con­cerning reprobation and perticulerly restraineth this speach to infantes in these wordes, Quomod [...] deus vuls &c. How faleth it owt, that god would haue all men sa­ued, seeing that infantes who haue no will contrary or re­pugning to their saluation, do not pertake of gods will in [Page 81] this poynt, in that diuers of them do dye without the grace ge­uen in baptisme? Thus our Doctor after his vsuall man­ner abuseth this auncient father, by concealing a part of the sentence alledged, wherein his mynde is mani­fested. Neither can M. Whyte salue the matter in an­swearing, that in an other place after vpon the like occasion, he haith alledged this sentence without con­cealement: this I say aduauntageth him nothing. For though perhaps not in the other cytation, yet in this it is cleare that his intention was to deceaue the reader: but it is expected from the pen of a man of integrity, to deale sincerely not in one onely, but in all the pas­sages of his wrytinges, since a wryters case herein, may seme, in some sort, to beare a resemblance to an acte morally vertuous, which is vitiated by any one bad circumstance, but perfected by the concurrency of all due circumstances.

Chapiter 9. Concerning the honour to be geuen to Sainctes and their Images.

The 1. Paragraph. S. Epiphanius corrupted in dishonour of the blessed Virgin Mary.

WHereas, according to Catholick doctrine, different degrees of honour are to be exhibi­ted to god and his blessed Angels and Sainctes: as to the first Adoration, and to the other in a far lower de­gree: not onely damned spirites, but damnable be­ritykes (their painefull schollers) as enuious emula­tors of glorious Sainctes, do euer labour by many sub­tiltyes, [Page 82] to rob them quyte of all deserued veneration. In which kynd M. Whyte willing to acte his part, euen against the B. Virgin the Mother of God, & modele of all piety, for better shadowing of his enuy, pag. 344, he alledgeth Epiphanius. c. her. l. 3. haer, 79. c. Collyridianos. saying. The Virgin Mary was a virgin and honorable, but not geuen for vs to worship, but her self worshipped him that tooke flesh of her: But for the cleares reuealing of this illusion, it is to be obserued, that Epi­phanius wryteth here purposly against certaine women who adoring a Chariot, or foure squared seate, and coue­ring the same with linnen cloath, did at one solemne tyme of the yeare, bring forth bread, and offer the same vp in the name of Mary, which he proueth at large to be vnlaw­full, in that it was neuer permitted to women, to offer vp sacrifice, as also in that sacrfice is an honour onely peculiar to god, yea he maketh an expresse difference betwene adoration and honour or woorship, attribu­ting the first onely to god, and the second with vs Catholickes, to the blessed Virgin, and Sainctes, which is further manifest euen by the wordes obiected being truly translated, which are these. Verily the body of Mary was holy, but yet not God, Verily the Virgin was a Virgin and honorable, but not geuen vnto vs for adorati­on, but her self adored him, who was borne of her flesh. As also, Let Mary be honoured, and the Father and Sōne and the holy Ghost adored. Let no man adore Mary &c. This mistery is due to God And againe, Though Mary be must excellent, and holy, and honourable, yet not for a­doration: And sundry other such lyke, all which do eui­dently conuince, that S. Epiphanius alloweth woor­ship, and honour to be geuen to the B. Virgin, but not adoration, to wit with sacrifice, which is an ho­nour Peculiar onely to God.

The 2. Paragraph S. Gregory notoriously corrupted against the woor­shiping of Images.

Speaking against Images pag. 152. he affirmeth that the Church of Rome forbade the woorship of them, us appeareth (saith he) by the Epistle of Gregory to Sere­nus, which he noteth in the margent to be Epist, 109. li. 7. It is this ministers euill hap, by most of his cita­tations, to manifest to the world, his foly and fals­hood. For who not distracted, would vrge that against his aduersary which impugneth him self, and that in such a maner, as will easely conuince him of fraude and wilfull malice. For fiirst S. Gregory in the place cy­ted, reproueth Serenus for breaking & casting downe of Images which were set vp in Churches, though the said Serenus did the same through zeale, by reason of some who committed Idolatry thereby, affirming fur­ther, that therefore Pictures are vsed in Churches, that those which know not letters, at least should reade by seeing in the wales, those thinges which they could not reade in bookes. And then he concludeth. Thy brotherhood there­fore ought to haue preserued the pictures, and to haue hin­dred the people from their adoration, that so the ignorant might haue from whence to gather knowledg of the history, and the people not sinne in adoration of the picture:

Here S. Gregory alloweth the vse of pictures in Chur­ches, shewing the commodity arrisinge thereby, and withall reprehendeth Serenus, though through zeale, for breaking and casting them downe: what may we thinke then he would haue said against Whyte and o­ther his brethren, who through heresy and malice, prohibite all vse or place thereof in Churches, if they [Page 84] had bene then extant and made knowen vnto him. But though with Catholickes he allow the pla­cing of them in Churches, yet M. Whyte will vrge, that he forbiddeth their woorship. The woorship which he forbiddeth according to his owne wordes is adoration, which word the Fathers frequently vse for that honour which is onely proper to God. And that S. Gregory ment no other, is manifest by an other E­pistle writen to the said Serenus, Ep. 9. l. 9. vpon the self same occasion, where hauing repeated the for­said vtility of pictures, and adding that not without cause antiquity admitted Histories to be painted in the ve­nerable places, or Churches, of Sainctes, he directethe Serenus & in him all pastors how to instruct the people in theire lawfull vse, as shewing them by testimonies of sa­cred scriptures, that nothing made with hand, ought to be a­dored, seing it is writen, Luc. 4. The Lord thy god thou shalt adore &c. As also, By sight of the thing done, or the history, let them conceaue the feruour of compunction, and let them be humbly prostrated in the adoration of the onely omnipotent holy Trinity. By which it is most ma­nifest, that the woorship here forbidden by S. Grego­ry to Images, is onely that adoration which is proper to god.

And that otherwise he thought Images duly to be worshipped, appeareth by his 7. booke and 5. Epi­stle, wheare wryting to Bishop Ianuarius concerning one Peter lately conuerted from Iudaisine to Christi­anity, who violently had taken a Sinagoug from the Iewes, and placed therein the Image of the Mother of God and our Lord, and the venerable Crosse &c. In re­dresse whereof he exhortethe the said Bishope, that the Image and the Crosse taken away againe from thence, with that veneration (or reuerence) which it meete, to re­store that which was violently taken away, to wit the Si­nagouge. [Page 85] So that in steed of impugning due worship to Images, these poyntes folowing may all heritikes learne of S. Gregory. First, that he proueth the vse thereof from antiquity. Secondly, that he alloweth the placing thereof in Churches, and impugneth the breakers or pullers of them downe, though their ex­cuse or pretence, be feare of Idolatry in the People. Thirdly that the same, in steed of hurt, do much pro­fit the ignorant that can not reade. And lastly that in plaine tearmes he calleth the Crosse, Crucem veneran dam, Venerable. And directeth, that both the Image of our B. Lady, and the Crosse, should be remoued, cum ea qua dignum est veneratione, with that worship which is meete, or they deserue. So that I could wish our needy minister, to be better aduysed hereafter in his citinge of S. Gregory against Catholick religion.

The 5 Paragraph. The Councell of Eliberis corrupted against Images.

Here now I am come to the last corruption, which I intende to display, the which I haue purposly reser­ued, therewith to close vp the taist of my Reader: so notorious it is for the Authors depraued, and so pregnant and dextrous in the conueyance.

As touching the first, whearas euery one of the for­mer deprauations (those of the Rhemistes onely excep­ted) resteth in abusing the authority of some one par­ticuler man, this stryketh at a whole 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 [Page 86] 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 inuasiō of the enemies in those tymes, or els by the rayne and [Page 87] 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 Coū ­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 mē. 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 [Page 88] 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.

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, [Page 90] 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 pr [...]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 eu [...]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 m [...]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 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 [Page 91] 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 prot [...]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 [...]sti [...]i [...]atioA [...]s pros [...]rt.

But to make this poynt more perspicuous to the rea­der by example, our minister in one place (which hereafter shall be alledged) anouch [...]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 [Page 92] 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 th [...]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 se [...]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 Iudgmēts 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,In vita Iuelli. printed at London. pag. 212. 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. Cont. Dur. Lib. 6. pag. 423. 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. Tom. 2. Wittenberg. The Fathers of so many ages (speaking of [Page 94] 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. Anno 1551. Lib. de seruo a [...]bitrio. pag. 434. 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, Seneca, in Agam. 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 n [...]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 [Page 95] from the wordes of learned protestantes, who teach, that not from our pryuate spirit, or scripture 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. Aduers. Stapl. pag. 298. Non nego Traditionem ecclesiasticam esse argumentum, quo ar­gui et conuinci possit, qui libri Canonic [...] sunt, qui Cano­nic [...] 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, Eccl. Pol. lib. 3. pag. 146. 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 In his def. of Hookers 5. booke. pa. 31. 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,Hefler. ca. 16. 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 protestāts touchīg 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 thē we finde euen Luther himself to acknowledg this poynt, who thus wryteth hereof. Epist. ad Arguitinenses. 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 [Page 97] 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. Loc. com. class. 4. p. 51. 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, In the Apo­logy of the Church of En­glande. par. 4. ca. 4. 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 [...]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 [Page 98] few stringes thereof onely, to heare how they sound.

First then we fynde this harmony to teach, that sinnes are ef [...] 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 [Page 99] 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 & weigh­tiest alterations of our publick English Lyturgy, since the first entrance of protestancy into England.

And first it is euident that the Lyturgy of the Church of England in King Edwardes tyme, (at which tyme there was an euident bringing in of protestancy) pu­blished by Crammer, Peter Martir, & Bucer: and ap­proued by the authority of the Parleament, kept al­most all the prayers and ceremonies of the Masse (the reall presence onely reiected) with crossing of both their Sacramentes, and the accustomed rites of Bap­tisme, as a formall consecration of the water of Bap­tisme with the signe of the Crosse, the vsing of Chrisme and the annoynting of the child.

Againe, it retayned prayer for the dead, and the offering of our prayers by the intercession of Angels.

But when Quen Elizabeth came to reigne, the said Lyturgy was so altered, as that it is needles to reste long in the discouery thereof: for it tooke away pray­er for the dead, and prayer to Angels, besides most of the former Ceremonies vsed in King Edwards time. In lyke sort in the Communion booke of K. Edward we fynde confirmed, baptisme by lay persons in tyme of necessity, and grace geuen in that Sacrament, the Confirmation of children, and strength geuen there­by, the Preist blessing the Bryde grome and the bryde euen with the signe of the Crosse. The Preistes ab­solution [Page 100] of the sick penitent by these wordes. By the authority committed to me, I absolue thee of all thy sinnes. The speciall confession of the sick penitent, and final­ly the annoynting of the sick. Of all which particu­lers, see the Communion booke of K. Edward prin­ted in fol. by Edward whitchurch cum priuilegio ad imprimendum solum. An. 1549. All which (dyuers of them including poyntes of faith and doctrine) are now vtterly left out in the Communion booke published in Q. Elizabeths tyme: In so much as Parker an en­glish protestāt, thus writeth thereof. Against Simbolizing. par. 2. ca. 5. The day starr was not risen so high in their dayes, when as yet Q. Eli­zabeth reformed the defects of K. Edwardes Communiō booke. Answearably hereto wryteth Cartwright saying. Iesuit. par. 2. rat. 5. p. 5. & 627. The Church of England changed the booke of Common prayer twyce or thryce, after it had receaued the know­ledg of the Gospell. Thus Cartwright in his 2. Reply, par. 1. pa. 41. who in that very booke laboureth yet for a fourth change. And thus is M. Whyte not af­frayd to suggest to the world euen in printe (fonde man that could not be idle enough in pryuate talke) such vnwarrantable vntruthes: which course of his, if it proceded from his owne inaduertency and ouersight as not hauing seene the Common prayer booke of K. Edward declaring the contrary, then were it more pardonable, but this I think him self, out of his pryde and shew of much reading, will not acknowledge, & therefore we may probably ascribe it to his mere wil­full forgery, who to defend his owne heterogeneous and mongerell faith (which mantayneth at different tymes different doctrines) dare aduenture to broach falshoodes though neuer so eminent. But let him re­member that by so doing, he (with disauantage to his cause) vainly spendeth his labour, for Qui nititur men­daci [...] [Page 101] hic pascit ventos. Who trusteth to lyes, feedeth the wyndes.

The 6. Vntruth. In proofe of the Romane Churches mutability in matters of Faith.

Page 150, he confidently auerreth, that The Church of Rome is varied from her self in matters of Faith, since she began to be the seate of Antichrist: Thus charging our Church with great mutability of beleefe, as be­fore he laboured to grace and adorne his owne Si­nagouge with all speceous constancy in the same.

Now for the better ouerthrowing of this vntruth, it is necessary to recurr to those first supposed tymes of Antichristes being, perusing the doctrine then taught, to see if the Church of Rome haith made at this day any change thereof in any matters of Faith, for euen so far doth the minister stretch out his lye.

First then the most receaued opinion of the pro­testantes touching Antichrist his coming (for they are most various amonge them selues therein) is, that S. Gregory the great, was the first Antichrist. Now to obserue what his Religion was, will be made eui­dent by taking vew of the Religion which S. Augus­tine (being a Monke of the Church of Rome, and sent by this S. Gregory) did here plant in England.

For the tryall of which poynt, I will first produce D. Humfrey, who thus writeth hereof. Iesuit. par. 2. rat. 5. p. 5. & 627. In Ecclesi­am verò &c. What did Gregory & Augustine bring into the Church? &c. A burden of Ceremonies &c. They brought in the Pall for the Archbishop in celebrating of Masse, and purgatory &c. They brought in the oblation of the healthfull Hoast, and prayer for the deade &c. [Page 102] Relickes &c. Transubstantiation &c. A new consecrati­on of Churches &c. From all the which, what other thing is gathered, then that Indulgences, Monachisme, the Pa­pacy, and all the rest, confusion of the Popes superstition, was then erected: all which thinges, Augustine the greate Monk, and taught by Gregory a Monk, brought to vs English men. Thus farr D. Humfrey.

In lyke sort the Triumuiri of Magdeburg (whose censuring pennes haue controuled more ages, then e­uer the Romanes Triumuiri gouerned Prouinces) I meane the 3 Century wryters in the Index, or Alpha­beticall Table of the 6. Century, after the first Editi­on thereof at the word Gregory, do relate the parti­culer doctrine of S. Gregory, as popish and erroneous: For thus they here note with particuler references to the places of S. Gregories writinges prouing the same Eiusdem error &c. The same (Gregories) errour of good workes, of Confession, of Wedlock, of the Inuocation of Sainctes, of hell, of Iustification, of Free will, of purga­tory, of Penance, of Satisfaction.

Now this former doctrine contayning the cheife pointes wherein we differ from the sectaries of this tyme, being acknowledged to be the Faith of Gre­gory, who is supposed to be the first Antichrist, & most articulatly at this day beleued of all Romane Ca­tholickes: I would aske M. Whyte with what forhead he can auouch his former wordes, to wit, that the Church of Rome is vari [...]d from her self in matters of faith, since she began to be the seate of Antichrist. But all this ryseth from an inward repugning of the Min. against our Church, in reguard of the vnchangeable certainty and constancy of faith professed by her: whereas the want thereof in our aduersaries religion is most no­torious, as appeareth not onely from their seuerall [Page 103] confessions, one euer impugning an other; but also from their different translations of their Bybles, still made to sort to the faith of their last Edition; so as in respect of their wonderfull mutability, and vari­ance among them selues, whereby indeede they in­dignify and wrong the nature of true faith; we haue reason to demaund of any of the professors, of what thinking he is, rather then of what faith.

The 7. Vntruth. In proofe of the protestantes concord in matters of Religion.

Page. 139. To proue that protestantes haue true vnity, he sheweth, that the diuisions among them, are either falsly layd to their charge through ignorance & fury of their enemies &c. or els they are not iars of the Church, but the defectes of some few therein, whereof the Church is not guilty, or lastly, not dissertions in thi [...]ges of faith, but stryfe about Ceremonies &c. Thus doth the D. Apologize for his discording brethren. Now to conuince this, the Reader shall heare what some of their owne brethren do acknowledge there­in.

First then Doctor Willet, rehearsing seuerall opi­nions of Hooker and D. Couell, of which Willet pre­suming that they can not stand with true protestan­cy thus wryteth. Willet in his medit. vpon the .122. ps. From this fountaine haue sprong forth these and such other whirle-pointes, and bubles of new doc­tryne, as that Christ is not originally God. That Scrip­tures are not meanes concerning God, of all that profita­bly we know &c. That mannes will is apt naturally with­out Grace, to take any perticuler obiect whatsoeuer presen­ted [Page 104] vnto it, and so consequently beleue, that mennes nae­turall workes, or to do that Which nature telleth us (with­out grace) must needes be acceptable to God &c. Thus haue some bene bould to teach and wryte, as some Scisma­tikes (meaning the puritanes) haue disturbed the peace of the Church, one way, in externall matters concerning discipline: these haue troubled the Church an other way, in opposing them selues by new quirkes and deuyces to the sound­nes of doctrine amongst protestantes. But if the positi­on here ment be against the foundnes of doctrine, then can it not be restrained onely to ceremonies.

Doctor Whitaker speaking of the contentions a­mong the protestantes, saith. de Eccl. con. Bellar. contr. 2. q. 5. pa. 327. Nostrae contentiones (si quae sint) sunt piae, et modestae, et propter fidem & religionem &c. Our contentions (if there be any) are pi­ous, and modest, and for religion. From which wordes if followeth, that they are not personall, or onely a­bout ceremonies, as M. Whyte pretendeth.

Now if we further take a vew of the intemperate speaches geuen by Luther against the Zuinglians, it may satisfy any one, that the differences were not in small points of gouernment or ceremonies. Thus thē Luther speaketh. Con. Loua. Thes. 27. to. 2. Wittemb. fol 503. We censure in earnest the Zningli­ans, & all the Sacramentaries, for heritykes, and aliena­ted from the Church of God, And in an other place. To. 7. Wit­temb. fo. 381 & 382. Cursed be the Charity and concord of Sacramentaries for euer and euer, to all eternity. As also in the 3. place. de Caenado. To n. 2. Ger. fol. 174. I hauing now one of my feete in the graue, will carry this testimony and glory to the tribunall of God, that I will with all my heart condemne aud eschew Carolostadius, Zuin­glius, Oecolampadius, and their schollers, nor will haue with any of them familiarity, either by letters or writinges. &c. And thus farr of this point. From all which may be inferred, that dissentions among the protestantes [Page 105] are not merely personall, or but pointes adiaphorous, indifferent, being as it were but peccant humors, and not true or formed diseases in their church, but they do concerne most profound doubtes of their religion, since otherwaies they would neuer anathematize, or condemne one an other with such acerbity of wordes. Which irreuocable contentions among the protestāts, (being most preiudiceous to them selues) is aduanta­geous to vs, for bellum haereticorum, est pax Ecclesiae. The warr of heritykes, is the peace of Gods Church, none otherwise then the reciprocall stryfe and reluc­tation of the 4. humors, kepes the whole body in a pea­ceable & healthfull state.

The 8. Vntruth. Against the vnity of Catholickes in matters of Faith.

Page. 153. The Doctor seing his owne sinagogue torne in sonder with diuisions and contentions (how­soeuer he slubered the matter ouer before with his faire pretence of concord) and well knowing how preiudiciall the want of vnity is to the true Religion of Christ. 1. Cor. 15. For God is not a God of dissention, but of peace; doth maliceously endeuour, to cast the lyke as­persion vpon our Catholick Church in these wordes. These which know Rome and papistry, are sufficiently satis­fyed in this matter, to wit, that the papistes liue not in that vnity which is pretended. & thē p. 156. he telleth of what kynd these disagreementes are saying. The contentions of our aduersaries touch the faith. And pag. 159, he concludeth in these wordes. Thus are the pa­pistes deuyded about the principall articles of their faith. [Page 106] Vpon which subiect, he then after with much ear­nestnes, vainely and idly spendeth dyuers leaues, brin­ging therein euen obtorto cullo, whatsoeuer he haith read or heard touching the least disagreement among the Catholickes, which labour of his, will serue no doubt, to a iudiceous eye, lyke to the spyders web, painfully wrought, but to no purpose.

Wherefore I will breefly make plaine how free we are from all breach of faith euen by the acknowledg­ment of the protestantes them selues. First then D. Whitaker wounding him self and his cause by his con­fession, saith. de Eccl. cont. Bell. contro. 2. q. 5. p 227. Nostrae contentiones (si quae sint) sunt piae, et modestae, propter fidem, & propter religionem &c. Contentiones papistarum sunt friuolae & futiles, de fig­mentis et commentis sui cerebri. Our contentions (if there be any) are godly and modest, touching faith and religion: wheras the contentions of the papistes, are but tryflinge, concerning the fictions of their owne brayne. Thus graun­ting the dissentions of the protestantes more nearly to concerue faith and religion, then the dissentions among the Catholickes do.

Doctor Fulke saith of our vnity in this sort. Againste [...]. Sand. &c. 295. As for the consent of the popish Church, it proueth nothing but that the deuill then had all thinges at his will and might sleepe; So acknowledging our vnity truly; but falsly and absurdly ascrybing it to the deuill who is the de­signed enemy to vnity.

To be short Duditius a famous protestant and high­ly respected by Beza, doth no lesse acknowledg the vnity of our Catholick Church, for thus doth Beza Beza in Ep. theol. ad An­draeam Dudit. Fp. 1. pa. 13 relate Duditius his woordes. Etsi (inquis) multa ea (que) horrenda propugnantur in Romana Ecclesia &c. Although many dreadfull thinges are defended in the Romane Church, which are buylded vpon a weake and rotten foundation, not­withstanding [Page 107] that Church is not deuyded with many dissen­tions: for it haith the plausible shew of reuerent Antiqui­ty, ordinary s [...]ccession, and perpetuall consent &c.

Thus Duditius related by Beza, and not impug­ned herein by him.

Now here we are to note, that the testimonies of these and other protestantes (here omitted) acknow­ledging our vnity and consent, must necessarily be vn­derstoode touching vnity in the misteries, and other fundamentall poyntes of our Religion, which is the thing onely that we are here to mantaine, since if v­nity alone about pointes of indifferency, or of thinges not defyned should be ment by them, then in reguard of many such disputable questions yet among the schole men; the former iudgmentes of our aduersaries should be false and not iustifiable. And thus much for this poynt; from whence the Doctor may learne that a­mong those which are true Catholickes, vnity of doc­trine is most 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 [Page 108] 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. As appea­reth out of his Maiesties wor­des touching the same, in the summe of the conference before his Ma­iesty. pag. 97

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 Reply 2. part. 1 p. 501 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. Reply part. 1. p. 502. 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 Ep. 57. ad Damasum. P Ego nul­lum primum nisi Christum sequens beatitudini tuae, id est Cathedrae Petri communione consocior: super illam Pe­tram Ecclesiam edificatam scio, quicun (que) extra hanc do­mum Aguxm commederit, prophanus est &c. quicun (que) [Page 107] tecum non colligit, spargit,

In lyke sort touching appeales to Rome, (an es­sentiall poynt of Ecclesiasticall Supremacy) we finde that the Centurists Cent. 5. Col. 1013. 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 Cent. 5. Col. 663. 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 Column [...]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, [Page 011] 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. de Eccl. lib 2. ca. 10.

But now that S. Gregory did both claime and prac­tise the Primacy, is acknowledged by our aduersaries, for the Centuristes write Cent. 6. Col. 425. 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, Ibidem. that he chalenged to him self power to commaund Archbishops: To ordaine or depose Bishops at his pleasure: that Col. 427. 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 Col. 427 such and such Bishops: That in their Prouinces Col. 428. 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 Ibidem. 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, [Page 111] 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, [Page 110] 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 his owne religion? Dom. 26. post Trin. Before when we were seduced by the Pope, euery man did willingly follow good woorkes: and now euery man nei­ther saith nor knoweth any thing, but how to get all to him self by exactions, pillage: theft, and vsury, &c.

In lyke sort he confesseth more saying thus. In Postilla super Euang. Domin. 1. Aduen. The world groweth daily worse, men are more reuengfull, contentious, licenceous, then euer they were before in the pa­pacy. And yet Luther. In sermon. coniuialibus. Ger. fol. 55. It is a wonderfull thing, & full of scandall, that from the tyme in which the pure doc­trine of the Gospell was first recalled to light: the worlde should daily grow worse. See here the acknowledged fruites of his owne Gospell. In lyke manner Iacobus And [...]as a very learned protestaut, thus confesseth of his owne religion. Conc. 4. in c. 21. L [...]c. Mandat serió Deus in verbo su [...], &c. God earnestly commaundeth in his word, and exacteth of Christians, seriam et Christianam disciplinam, a seri­ous and Christian discipline: but these thinges are accomp­ted by vs, nouns papatus, nouus (que) Monachismus, a new papacy, and a new Monachisme: for thus they dispute. Didicimus modò per solam fi [...]em in Christum saluari &c. We haue now learned to be saued in Christ onely by faith, &c. Wherefore suffer us to omitt all such workes of disci­plyne, seing that by other meanes we may be saued by Christ. And that the whole world may not acknowledg these to be papistes nor to trust in their good workes: they do not exer­cyse any one of the said good workes, for in steed of fasting, they spend both day and night in drinking &c. their praying is turned into swearing &c.

So this learned protestant, who also termeth this kynd of lyfe the Euangelicall instruction, thus making protestancy a good disposition to draw on all wicked­nesse: [Page 111] Where you see that the gospellers (euen in this mans iudgment being a gospeller him self) are so ge­uen ouer to licenceousnes of manners, as they may be said to hold it onely a sinne not to sinne, and a vertue, to abandon all vertue; since they make their faith & Religion (contrary to which they be bound not to do) to be the foundation or sanctuary of their prophane and heathnish comportment.

But now seeing that by laying contraries together, the one often receaueth much force from the other in the apprehension of our iudgment; let vs a litle enter more perticulerly into the courses of such our ministers as from whom we are to expect the greatest satisfac­tion in this poynte, that so in an euen libration of the matter, the Reader may rest more fully satisfyed, and M. Whyte more clearly and irrepliably conuinced of his former vntruth.

Forbearing therefore at this tyme all other testimo­nies, I will content my self onely with the example of Zuinglius and other ministers confederated with him in Heluetia, who preaching our new euangelicall doc­trine to that common wealth: exhibited certaine petitions to the state, the tenour whereof, is here euen literally taken from Zuinglius, and the other ministers owne writinges, bearing this tytle.Tom. 1. fol. 115 Pietate & pruden­tiae insigni Heluetiorum Reipub. Huldericus Zuinglius, ali [...] (que) Euangelicae doctrinae ministri, gratiam & pacem a Deo. Now we fynd in this former booke, that they thus first petitioned. Hoc vero summis praecibus con­tendimns &c. We earnestly request that the vse of mariage be not denyed vnto vs, who feeling the infirmity of the flesh, perceaue that the loue of chastity is not geuen to vs by god: For if We consider the wordes of the Apostle, we shall fynd with him none other cause of mariage, (marke [Page 112] what a spirituall scholia these illuminated brethren do geue) then to satisfy the lustfull desires of the flesh, which to burne in vs, we may not deny, seing that by meanes thereof, we are made infamous before the Congregati­ons.

Would any man beleue this, were it not that their own certaine wrytings are yet extant to vpbraide them withall? And in an other place they thus renew their petition. Ib. fo. 119 Non carnis libidine, for the loue, not of lust, but of chastity, lest that the soules committed to our charg by example of our sensuality, should be any longer offended. Thus they euen confesse, that till this tyme, their for­mer licenceous lyfe, had much scandalized their folow­ers, And further yet. Ibidem Quarê cum carnis nostrae in­firmitatem nobis non semel (proh dolor) &c. Wherefore seing we haue made tryall, that the infirmity and weak­nes of our flesh, haith bene (o the greife) the cause of our often falling &c. The same Zuinglius with other 8 ministers, in their Epistle to the Bishop of Constance, subscrybed with their owne handes to the lyke pur­pose, thus wryteth. Zuinglius. Tom 1. fol 121. Hitherto we haue tryed, that the guift of chastity haith bene denyed vs. And yet further, Ibid. fol. 122. Arsimus (proh dolor) tantoperé, vt muha ind [...]coré ges­serimus. We haue hurned (o the shame) so greatly, that many thinges we haue committed very vnsemely.

And for the clausure of all, they thus salue the mat­ter. Ib. fol. 123 Non vs (que) adcò inciuilibus moribus sumus &c. To speake truly. we are not otherwise of such vnciuill con­uersation, that we should be euill spoken of among the people committed to our charge, for any wickednesse, Hoc vno ex­cepto, this one point excepted.

Here you haue the wordes of our holy and spiritu­alized s [...]ctmaisters, who you may well perceaue in­sisted further touching the same poynt, with the Hel­uetians [Page 113] and the former Bishop, in or the lyke dialect & phrase of expostulation.

Since according to the doctrine of our reuerend father Luther, Lutherus in Prouerb. 31 [...] (which we are bound both to teach and prac­tise) Nothing is more sweete and louing vpon the earth, then is the loue of a woman: Alas why should we, who haue of late reuealed the gospell of Christ heretofore so longe eclipsed, be recompensed therefore with the want of that most delightfull and naturall comfort of a woman. be­ing forced to imitate the superstitious papist in embracing a votary and barren lyfe. Or why should the Heluetian state so seuerely exact at our handes, that we who onely preach vncorruptedly the Christian faith, should onely be depryued herein of our Christian liberty. Heu quanta patimur. Libidenous and goatish ministers, whose very penn [...] spumant venerem, and with whom euen to meditate of a woman, is the center of your most serious thoughts: well may you vse your int [...]riections of proh dolor, proh pudor. o greife, o shame, as the burden to your sen­suall and lasciuious wrytinges. For what can be a grea­ter shame and greif vnto you (if you be sensible of ei­ther) then you who venditate your selues, for the re­storers of the gospell so long hidden, to be (to the dis­edifying of your owne followers) thus wholly absorpt in such lustfull and fleshly cogitations. But we par­don you, for we know Io. ca. 3. quod natumest ex carne ca­ro est: So great, each man sees, is the disparity be­twene our euangelicall ministers (who enioying the primitias of the spirit, were in reason obliged to war­rant 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 whō there is much Zuinglius) when he affirmed that the pro­testantes were as holy as the papistes. But I feare that [Page 114] 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 Confessiō, he saith, that the Primitiue Church knew it not.

For the discouery of this falshood, we fynd, that the Centuristes do confessse, Cen. 3. c. 6. Col. 27. that in the tymes of Ciprian and Tertulian, priuate Confession was vsed, euen of thoughtes, and lesser sinnes: And which is more, they acknowledge, Ibid. that it was then Commaunded, and thought necessary, And D. Whytaker writeth con. Camp. rat. 5. pag. 78. 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, Terent. in Adelh. Eru­buit, salua res est.

The 13. Vntruth. Against Fasting.

[Page 117]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. In his answer to a counter­fait Catholick p. 45. 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, Con. Dur. lib. 9. p. 830 By Pantaleon, In Chrono­graphia. p. 28. and Osiander. Epitom. Cent. 4. pag. 424. 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. Cartwright in Whitgiftes defence. 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 118]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 Eccl. Pol. lib. 5. Sect. 72. p 29. the Montaristes were condemned for bringing in sundry vnac [...]stomed dayes of fasting, continued their fastes a great deale l [...]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, reiect [...]th the former idle asserti­on in these wordes.pag 110. 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 119]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 Tom. 1. de prouid. dei. fol. 366. 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 In his display of popish practises. 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 Lib. 2. Inst. ca. 4. 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 thē 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. [Page 120] 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, doth charge & condemne the protestant, for teaching that God is the author of sinne. But as in the former vntruthes, so particulerly in this, we see how Antipodes-lyke, & oppositly, our Doctor treadeth to the feete of his owne brethren.

The 16. Vntruth. In proofe that S. Bernard was no papist.

Page. 298. He is not affrayd to publish by his pen, that Bernard was a papist in none of the principall poyntes of their religion. And then he addeth. He stoode against the pryde of the Pope. &c. Good Reader, here is no lying: for whosoeuer will but obserue what is confes­sed by the protestantes, must acknowledg that impu­dency it self would be ashamed to haue mantained such a groundlesse vntruth.

For first it is graunted by Symond de Voyon a protes­tant, Vpon the Cataloge. that he was Abbot of Clareiuaux. And Osi­ander saith of Bernard in Epitom. cent. 12. pag. 309. that Centum et quadraginta Monasteriorum author fuisse creditur. He was thought [Page 121] to be the Author of a hundreth & 40 Monasteries.

In lyke sort S. Bernard was so great a Patron of the Popes Primacy, that the Centuristes wryte of him Cen. 12. 10. Coluit deum Maozim &c. Bernard did worshipp e­uen to the last end of his lyfe, the god Maozim, he was a most eager defender of the seate of Antichrist. Apoint so cleare, that he is charged by D. Fulke, Against the Rhem. Test. in Luc. 22. fol. 133. and D. Whytaker lib. cont. Dur. pag. 154. for defending the Popes Ecclesiasticall Authority, and yet if we beleeue M. Whyte he stoode against the pryde of the Pope, so euident you see is this made by the free acknowledgment of the protestantes, whose censures are passed vpon S. Bernardes Reli­gion and faith in generall. And therefore we may well inferr, that if they had thought S. Bernard to haue bene but in part a catholick (or as the terme is a pa­pist) and in other poyntes a protestant, they would haue bene glad to haue chalenged him to them selues in the supposed pointes of his protestancy.

Thus M. Whyte we still obserue, that the Reader is euer entertayned by you with nought but falshoods, but no meruell, for it is your owne position, In M. W. his booke. pag. 1. that a man can not hope to learne truth in the schoole of lyes.

The 17. Vntruth. Against the miracles wrought by S. Bernard & S. Francis.

Page 299 Talking of the miracles of the former S. Bernard, of S. Francis, and others: he thus con­cludeth. What is reported of Bernard, and Francis &c. are lyes and deuyses. This is spoken to dishonour the Romane Faith, diuers of whose professours through Gods omnipotency, and for the manifestation, and [Page 122] strengthning of his truth, haue in all tymes bene a­ble to exhibite diuers great miracles, the remēbrance of which prerogatiue resting onely in our Church, is most displeasing to our minister, in whose nyce nose­thrilles, nothing well sauoreth, that tasteth of the praise of our Catholick Religion.

But now let vs see, whether the miracles recor­d [...]d of the former Sainctes, be lyes or no, as the D. fondly suggesteth. One most remarkable miracle of S. Bernard, is recorded by Godfridus in the lyfe of S. Bernard. It was wrought in proofe of certaine Catholick Articles denied in those dayes by the heri­tykes Apostolici or Henriciani, as at this instant they are denyed by the protestantes. The miracle was done in the Country of Tolousa in France, and consisted in S. Bernardes blessing of certaine loaues of bread, of which loaues (for proofe of the truth of our Catholick doctrine then preached by S. Bernard) whosoeuer, be­ing in any sort diseased of body, should eate, should be healed of their sicknes: whereupon infinite people eating of the same, were cured most miraculously of all kind of diseases. This miracle was so illustrious and markable, that Osiander, one of the Century writers, Epitom. Cent. 12. lib. ca. 6. pag. 310. doth not say it is a lye and forged, as M. Whyte doth, but graunting the thing as true, doth ascribe it to the power and working of the deuill, as the wic­ked Iewes did the miracles of our blessed Sauiour, vn­to Belzabub.

In lyke sort Mathew Paris in his history which is printed by the protestantes at Tigur. 1589. whose booke is by the said protestantes highly commended in their Preface annexed thereunto, and who him self is reckoned for his defence of certaine poyntes of pro­testancy, in the number of protestantes by Illiricus. In his Cata­logue of the witnesses of truth.

[Page 123]This man now most seriously recordeth, that before S. Francis death, there appeared certain [...] woundes in his handes and feete, and his syde, freshly bleeding, such as were seene in our Sauiour when he suffered on the Crosse. The reason of which appearance was (as S. Francis said) to shew that he did truly preach the mistery of the Crosse: and that in further demonstra­tion of the same, he tould them before, that presently after death, the former woundes should be healed & coherent lyke to the rest of his flesh: the which ac­cordingly did fall forth. And thus much but of these for breuity sake instanced in these two Sainctes, from whence we may confidently affirme, that it is a lye to say with M. Whyte, that these Sainctes Mira­kles are but lyes.

The 18. Vntruth. In proofe of the protestantes Churches euer visibility.

Page 225. and 226. In defence of the continu­ance of his owne Church, he thus saith. The learned among vs confesse and proue against all that contradict it, that euer since Christes tyme [...] there haith bene a company of men visibly professing the same faith that we do, though the Church of Rome a genera­ting into the seate of Antichrist, pers [...]cut [...]d them, and so many tymes draue them [...]wt of the sight of the world, that to it they were not visible. Thus he.

But before we conuince this, I would demaunde where our ministers head peece was, when he thus wrote, since these few lynes do inuolue an irrecon­ciliable contradiction: A company of men visibly pro­fessing &c. yet to the world not visible. O strang & ne­uer before heard of Inuisible-uisible: aswell he might [Page 124] mantaine whyte, remayning whyte, to be black, or the moone in her greatest eclipse, to shyne, as the Church euer to be visible, and yet latent: and latent to whō? to the world: still good, as if it were to be seene on­ly by some who are out of the world.

But now to the falshood, the lyke whereof he ven­tilated before, and haith accordingly bene before re­felled. Yet because for the honour of his Church he insisteth much in the visibility and want of all inter­ruption of his faith, it will not be amisse to repell such an idle suggestion with the testimonies and acknow­ledgmentes of seuerall learned protestantes.

And first Napper wryteth vpon the Reuelat. prop. 37. pag. 68. that betwene the yere of Christ 300, and 1316. the Antichristian and Papis­ticall reigne began, reigning vniuersally, and without any debateable contradiction 1260 yeares, gods true Church most certainly abyding latent and inuisible.

Sebastianus Francus a famous protestant in lyke sort saith. In Ep. de abrogandis in vniuersum om nibus statut. Ecclesiast. For certaine through the worke of Antichrist, the externall Church, together with the faith and Sacra­mentes, uanished away presently after the Apostles depar­ture: and that for these thousand four hundreth yeres, the Church 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, In his answ. to a counterf. Catholick. pag. 16. 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 [Page 125] 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 In his 2. Reply part. 1. p. 485. 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 editiō 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. Exam. part. 3 p. 50. Lastly Chemni [...]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 [Page 126] 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, Cent. ca. 10. 108. that Lac­tantius (who lyued in the fourth Century or age) af­firmeth many superstitious thinges concerning the efficacy of Christes Image. Doctor Fulke affirmeth, Against H [...]lk [...]ns. &c. p. 672. 675. 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 Cent. 4. col. 302. that Ambrosius multa comm [...]morat superstitios [...] de cruce inu [...]nta. The said Centuristes also affirme Cent. 3. Col. 121. 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 far [...] did M. W. erre from the truth in affirming, that touching Images, The Church of Rome bouldeth contrary to that which was formerly houl­den. [Page 127] 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, Cent 4. Col. 496. that Chrisostomus transubstantiatiorem vid tur con­firmare. Chrisostem is thought to confirme transubstan­tiation. In lyke sort by the Iudgment of other pro­testantes Visinus in his commone facti­o cuirsd [...]m Theologi. pag. 211. Theophilactus, & Dama ce [...]us, plane in­clinant ad transubstantiatiorem. Theophilact & D. mas­cen, do euidently incl [...]ne to Transubstantiation.

Answearable hereto Occolampadius lib Epist. O [...]c [...]lamp. & Zu [...]ng. lib. 3. doth charge Damascen with the said doctrine. Finally D. H [...]m­frey writeth, Humfr. Iesuit. part. 2. rat. 5. that Gregory the great brought in Trans [...]bstantiation. In Ecclsiam verò (saith he speaking of our conuersion) quid inuexerunt Gregorius et Au­gustinus? Int [...]l [...]runt &c. Transubstantiationem.

Now I would demaund of our minister with what countenance he can au [...]rre, that in the doctrine of Trā ­substantiation, we haue altered the faith of the auncient fa­thers, if he obserue what is taught to the contrary [Page 128] 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 ouerual [...]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 fit [...] 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, fi [...]st that supposing he d [...]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 passag [...], to wit touching Augustines conn [...]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 [Page 129] 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 mā 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.Iesu [...]t. part. 2. [...]at. 5. 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, a [...]d Praiers for the dead &c. they brought in Re­lickes [Page 130] 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 fa [...]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 Esa. 60. 62. & 49. pf. 2. & 102. 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 [Page 131] 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, cons [...]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) De rat. in­te [...]pr. li. 1. q. 62. writing of the accomplish­ment of the prophesies of conuerting of kingdomes, saith thus. Equidem a [...]t haec futura fatendum est &c.

[Page 132] In his Pre­face of [...] great la [...] By­ble dedicated to K [...]g Ed­ward the 6. 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 obser [...]e it the same performed, howsoeuer the said Prophets be vnde [...]stoode.

To conclude this point, the prophecies deliuered by Esay and others the Prophets, for the spreading of Gods Ch [...]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 ha [...]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 Hol­lāder, See the His­tory of Dauid Georg painted at [...]ntwerpe 1563. & first published by the Dinynes of Basill. & 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: [Page 133] 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 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 aunciēt Church it was otherwise. In this poynt, for the more com­pendiousnes thereof, I will insist onely in the fourth [Page 134] and fifth Century after Christ, both being within the circuite of the primitiue Church.

First then we fynd, that D: Whitaker confesseth de Con [...]l. 9. 2. p. 42. an Ecclesiasticall Canon to be in the fourth Cen­tury, that Noe Councell should be celebrated, without the Bishop of Rome. He also further acknowledgeth, Ibid. p. 4. 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. Resp. ad Bel. par. 1. p. 595. 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. Cent. 5. Col. 781. 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 Ibidem 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 bego [...] 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. Cent. 5. Col. 1178. Chrisastome handleth impurely the doctrine of Iustification, and attributeth merite to workes.

Luther In Galat. c. 4. calleth Ierome, Ambrose, and Augvstine, Iusticiarios Iustice-workers of the ould Papacy.

Finally D. Humfrey Iesuit. part. 2. p. 530. 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 [Page 136] of the Catholick Church, teaching what is mā ­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. Ierem. 5. 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 [Page 137] 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 f [...]nd Caluin to wryte of them in ge­nerall lib. de ve­ra Ecclesiae re­form. extant. in Tract. The ol. Caluin. p. 389. 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. inst. l. 4. ca. 18. Sect. 11. Veteres quo (que) 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. In his Sa­cram. l. 1. Ca. 6. p. 20 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, Epist. de a­brog. in vni­uersum omni­bus stat., Eccl. Statimpost Aposto­los &c. Presently after the Apostles, all thinges were tur­ned [Page 138] upside downe, cana domini in sacrificium transforma­ta &c. The Lordes supper is turned into a Sacrifice.

To conclude, M. Bacon a great prot [...]stant here in England, thus confesseth. In his Treatise entituled, The relickes of Rome, p. 344 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. Aug. li. 4. de T [...]n. ca. 14. Quid g [...]atius offerri (faith one Fa. aut daripotest, quam caro sacrifici [...] nostri, corpus effectū 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 [Page 139] 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. n [...]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, In his true defence. part. 4. p. 566. 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. Whyteg. def. p. 593. It was a wafer-cake brought in by Pope Alexander: which Pope euen by the testimony of Osia [...]der, Cent. 2 p. 10 [...] 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 pers [...]sting in his serpentyne and v [...]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, f [...] Christ, by Honorius the third. &c,

That Adoration followeth vpon the beleefe of the reall presence, it is gra [...] [...]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.

[Page 140]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, Against Hes­kins. &c. p. 235. and D. Sa [...]liffe. In his Sur­uey of popery. p. 295. But to ascend to higher times, the Centuristes speaking of the prayers of S. Ambrose, Cent. 4. Col. 43. in his booke entituled, Orat. praeparat. ad Massam. do thus write, Continent adorationem panis in Sacramen­to. Those prayers do conte [...]ne the Adoration of the bread in the sacrament. Chem [...]tius produceth diuers sen­tences of Augustine, Ambrose, and Naz [...]anzen, which sentences in Chem [...]tius his Iudgment, do affirme the Adoration of the Sacrament. Exam. part. 2. p. 92.

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 [Page 141] 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 [Page 142] 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 [...]i [...]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 & Doctoribus.

Doctor Fulke doth in like manner ingeniously ac­knowledg the same in these wordes. You can name the notable persons in all ages, in their gouernment and mini­stery, and especially the Succession of the Popes, you can rehearse in order vpon your fingers. Thus writeth he in his answear to A counterfait Catholick, p. 27. And the lyke doth he write in his Reioynder to Bristoes re­ply p. 343.

Thus do our aduersaries acknowledg in our behalfe touching Succession, which Caluin flatly denyeth to be found in his owne Church, who plainely teacheth Institut. li. 4. ca. 3. Sect. 4. that with them, the true succession of ordination, was broke of: so daungerously wounding him self with that sentence of S. Augustine. tom. 7. cont. Epist. Manich. c. 4. In Ecclesia gremio me iustiss mé tenet ab ipsa sede Petri &c. vs (que) ad presentem Ep scopatum: successio Sacerdotum.

To conclude, the vninterrupted descent and cur­rent of Succession in the Catholick Church, is infal­libly euicted from our aduersaries acknowledgment, of the continuall visiblenes thereof, since the one doth reciprocally imply the other. For if our Church was euer visible, and the doctrine thereof neuer suffered [Page 143] any disparition or vanishing away: then were the Bi­shops and Pastors in lyke sort euer visible, since with­out Pastors to minister the word and Sacraments, and to gouerne the flock: the Church like a maist­lesse shippe, can not for any tyme subs [...]st or bee.

And thus far of this point. Wherein our minister by denying Succession to be in our Church, and fals­ly ascribing it to his owne new congregation, doth thus in aduancing the one aboue the other, make in­nouation, to take the wall of true Antiquity, & heresy of true Religion.

The 30 Vntruth. In defence of Martyn Luthers lyfe and manners.

From page 425. to 433. The D. becometh Luthers Encomiast, and much laboureth to free his life, and death, from all obloquy, and infamy, often affir­ming, that what soeuer touching his lyfe may seeme worthy of reprehension, is onely forged by his aduer­saries, meaning the Catholickes: and therefore in his table in the end of his booke, at the word Luther, he thus saith. Luthers lyfe iustifyed, against the maliceous re­portes of the papists.

Now to conuince this shamelesse vntruth, I will (forbearing herein the credible reportes of Catho­lickes) alledg onely the confession of Luther him self deliuered in his owne wordes, or els the testimonies of learned protestantes; so shall we see that our mi­nister here perfectly acted his part, in bouldly man­tayning against such euident testimonies, that what may seeme to detract from Luthers honesty, and in­tegrity, are but the fictions of his enemies. [Page 144] And here for greater compendiousnes, I will insiste onely in two pointes, first in displaying in part his Sensuality: Secondly his Pryde.

And first touching his sayinges of lust and incon­tinency, he thus admonisheth. Sermo de Matrimonio. Si non vult vxor, aut non possit, veniat ancilla. If the wyfe will not or can not, let the maid come. Againe he thus writeth. Tom. 5. wittem. ser. de Matrim. fol. 119. As it is not in my power that I should be no man: so it is not in my power that I should be without a woman. And there after. It is not in our power either that it should be stayed or omitted, but it is as necessary, as that I should be a man, and more necessary then to eat, drink, purge, make cleane the nose &c. And yet more fully he spea­keth of his owne incontinency in these wordes. De colloq. mens. fol. 526. I am almost mad through the rage of lust and desire of wo­men. As also he thus further confesseth. To. 1. Ep. fol. 334. Ep. ad Philippá. I am bur­ned with the great flame of my vntamed flesh: I who ought to be feruent in spirit, am feruent in the flesh, in lust, slouth, &c. Eight dayes are now past, wherein I neither write, pray, nor study, being uexed partly with temptation of the flesh, partly with other trouble.

This point is so euident, that Benedict Morgenstern a protestant writer saith of the Caluenistes, when they intend at any tyme to geue assent or prouocation to nature: Non verentur inter se dicere, hodie Lutheranicè vinemus. They were not afraid to say among them selues, to day we will liue after the manner of Luther. Tract. de Eccl. p. 221. Thus vsing the name of Luther, the more fully to expresse the libidenous lyfe and custome of Luther.

Now to all these confessions of his owne & other protestantes, it can not be replyed that him self did write thus when he was a papist, aud before his reuolt: for of his lyfe during his stay in the papacy, you shall heare his owne report, that Vpon the Epistle to the Galathians in engl. in ca. 1. fol. 35. he honoured the Pope [Page 145] of mere conscience, kept chastity, pouerty, and obedience, and whatsoeuer (saith he) I did, I did it with a single heart, of good zeale, and for the glory of god, fearing greauous­ly the last day, and desireous to be saued from the bothom of my heart. Thus he confesseth of the integrity of his mind and intention, during the tyme of his continu­ing a catholick. And thus much of his inclination to lust and wantonnes.

Now touching Luthers pryde (forbearing his owne sayinges deliuered most insolently, in contempt of the auncient Fathers, and of King Henry the eight) I will content my self with the testimonies onely of protes­tants, who particulerly inueighed against him for his pryde. Zuinglius, in reguard of his insupportable pryde, thus saith of him. To 2. Res. ad confes. Luth. fol. 478 En vt totum &c. Be­hould how Sathan laboureth wholly to possesse this man. And OEcolampadius admonisheth Luther, In resp. ad confes. Luth. to be­ware, lest being puffed vp by arogancy and pryde, he be se­duced by Sathan. Answearably hereto Conradus Regius a learned and famous protestant, thus writeth of him. In libro German. con. Io. Hos. de caena Domini. Deus propter peccatum superbiae &c. God, by reason of the sinne of pryde wherewith Luther was puffed vp (as many of his owne writinges do witnes) haith taken away his true spirit f [...]om him, as he did from the Prophets 3. Reg. 22. and in place thereof, haith geuen him a proud, angry, and lying spirit.

To conclude, omitting diuers other learned pro­testantes testimonies, the Diuines of Tigur being Cal­uenistes, thus censure Luthers booke writen against the Sacramentaries, and Zuinglians, that it was In confes. Germanicè im pressa, Tigur [...]. An 1544. in 8. fol. 3. Liber plenus demoniis, plenus impudici [...] dicteriis: scatet tracundia et furore. And thus we fynd in what height of spirit, and elation of mind, he did write against his owne brethren, and how for the same he was rebu­ked by them.

[Page 146]Now hauing displaid in part Luthers deportment, and this, either from his owne mouth, or from the confessions of his owne brethren: I refer two thinges to the Readers consideration, one, whether our D. did auer an vntruth or no, in iustifiing, that what­soeuer could be produced against Luthers life & con­uersation, was malignantly forged onely by vs his enemies.

The second (and that much more importing) whe­ther it standeth with probability of reason, or the ac­customed course of Gods proceding (who euer elec­teth meanes sutable and proportionable to their ēdes) to make choice, for the restoring and replanting the truth of his Gospell and Religion (supposing it was then decayed) of a man whose course of lyfe, writings, and doctrine, do euen breath onely pryde, contuma­cy, sensuality, Sardanapalisme, and luxury.

Here now M. Whyte I haue thought good in the enumeration of your lyes, to end with Luther, as o­riginally from him, you first did suck your lyinge doctrine. Onely I will conclude with this, that since you are entred with our vulgar multitude (who cheif­ly rest vpon the outward graine and appearance of thinges) into the number and catologue of our new Euangelicall Prophets: I would wish such your folow­ers, to entertaine an impartiall vew and considera­tion of this and other your forgeries and sleightes, which if they do, doubtlesse they shall in the ende fynde and acknowledg, that you are guided therein euen by that ghostly enemy of mannes soule, who once said: 3. Reg. 22. Egrediar, & ero spiritus mendaex in ore omnium Prophetarum eiu [...]. I will go forth, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his Prophets.

THE THIRD PART. Contayning diuers impertinences or absurd Illa­tions, or reasoninges, drawne from Maister Whyte his alledged Authorities.

The 1. Paragraph. Werein are discouered strange Illations or argu­inges, in proofe that the Scriptures are the sole rule of Faith, & against Tra­ditions.

HAuing in the two precedent partes set downe many corruptions and lyes practised by M. Whyte: it now followeth according to my former in­tended Methode, that I also display diuers of his im­pertinent and absurde inferences and argumentes (for these three pointes, to wit, corrupting, lying, & idly or absurdly disputing, are the three seuerall threedes whereof the whole worke of his Treatise is wouen. In all which (though different in them selues) he still retayneth one and the same intention of deceipt, like the loade-stone, which though often changeth his place, yet neuer changeth it center.

Now touchinge those his impertinences and loose illations, the Reader is to conceaue, that they consist [Page 148] in his alledging of such testimonies both of Scrip­tures, Fathers, and Catholick writers, as being tru­ly set downe, do not neuerth [...]l [...]sse impugne that point of our Catholick doctrine, against which they were by him so vrged. Which course of writing, whether it may be ascrybed to our Doctors ignorance & want of learning, or rather (which is more probable) to his malice against the Catholick Faith, and desire to de­ceaue the simple and vnlearned, or lastly to the beg­gery of his cause, being deuoide of better arguments, I leaue to him self to decide. But howsoeuer it is, here I am to aduertise the Reader, that in perusing of such authorities produced by M. Whyte, he would euer recurr to the true state of the question, and par­ticulerly that he would apply the said sentences, to that verie point or touch wherein the life of the ques­tion consisteth, and then he shall find how rouingly, & wandringly they are directed, still glauncing by, vpon some ignorant or wilfull mistaking or other, ne­uer reaching the mark intended. And so he may ap­ply the wordes of Tertulian, though in a different sense, to the loose writinges of M. Whyte and such others Quemcun (que) conceperint ventum argumentationis scorpii isti, quocun (que) se acumine impegerint, vna tam line­a ista: Tertull. ad­uers. Gnost. to wit the lyne drawne from our vnderstanding to the mayne point in controuersy.

And here M. Whyte can not say, in excuse of him self, that such testimonies of this nature are produced by him onely to proue so much and no more, as the wordes in their litterall and acknowledged sense, do imme­diatly import: Which euasion is insufficient for two respects.

First because the proof [...] of that which litterally & plainely they signify, is not in controuersy betwene [Page 149] the protestantes and vs, and therefore the iustifiing of so much being not denied by any learned Catho­lick, is needelesly vndertaken.

Secondly in that M. Whyte doth most labourious­ly, painefully, and purposly, alledg the said testimo­nies, to conuince, and impugne, some one Catho­lick poynt or other, taught by vs, and denyed by the protestantes, and this his drift and scope is ma­nifested, either by his answearable entituling of the leaues wherein such authorities are found, or els by his owne wordes precedent or subsequent to the said sentences.

But to detayne the Reader no longer from these his allegations: The first point of this kynde which presenteth it self, is as touching the Rule of Faith, & reiecting of all Apostolicall Traditions: For pag. 13. we thus read, digres. 3. Wherein by the Scriptures, Fathers, Reasons, and papistes owne confessions, it is shew­ed, that the Scripture is the rule of Faith: As likewise he entituleth that leafe and some others following, in this manner. The Scripture onely, is tho iudg & rule of Faith. And so answearably hereto, pag. 17. bea­ting the former tytle, he thus saith. Shall the Liber­tynes be recalled from their blind reuelations, to their wri­ten text: and shall not the papistes be reuoked from their vncertaine Traditions to the same rule?

But that we may the better behould how valiantly our minister impugneth all Traditions, by erectinge the Scripture as sole rule of Faith: we are here to call vnto mind what the Catholick Church teacheth in this poynt.

It then teacheth, that the word of God is to li­mit and confine our Faith, and that nothing is to be accompted as matter of faith, which receaueth not it [Page 150] proofe from thence. Hereupon it teacheth further, that this word is either writen, which is commonly called the Scripture, or els deliuered by Christ & his Church, and this comprehendeth Traditions. Both these we beleue to be of infallible authority, since the true and inward reason why the word of God is the word of God, is not because it is writen, rather then deliuered by speach, (for this is merely extrinsicall to the point) but because the said word proceded from them, who were infallibly and immediatly directed therein by the assistance of the holy Ghost.

This supposed, let vs see how M. Whyte proueth that the writen word is onely the rule of Faith, and consequētly that there are no Traditions of the Church which may also in part be a rule thereof,

First then our Doctor vrgeth to this end seuerall places of Scripture, as (among others) that of Salo­mon. prou. 2. 1. The scripture will make a man vnderstand righ­teousnes, and iudgment, and equity, & euery good path. Againe that of Esay. Esa. 8. We must repaire to the Law, to the testimony: if any speake not according to that word, there is no light in him. Also out of Malachy. Malach. 4. Remember the Law of Moyses my seruant, which I com­maunded him in Horeb for all Israell, with the statutes & Iudgmentes. In lyke sort he alledgeth, that Abraham answearing the rich glutton, said, that Luc. 16. his bre­thren had Moyses and the Prophets.

Now that the Reader may see, how well these texts are to the point controuerted, I will set some of them downe in forme of Argument, and so apply them to M. Whytes purpose. As first thus. Salomon said of the Scriptures of the old Testament. The Scripture will make a man vnderstand righteousnes, and Iudgment, and equity, and euery good path: Ergo now in the tyme of [Page 151] 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 frō 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. cont. Her­mog. 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 De nupr. & concup. ad Valer. l. 2. ca. 33. 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 [Page 152] Articles of Christian Religion, should thence also re­ceaue their sole proofe. Againe Gregory Nyssen tear­ming the Scripture, Orat. de iis qui adeunt Hietos. 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 introdu [...]eth S. Austine againe saying.De doct. chris. li. 2. ca. 42. 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. Lect. 1. in 1. Tim. 6. 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 1. q. Art. 8. Our Faith re­ste [...]h and st [...]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 [Page 153] 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. de com. sub vtr. spec. 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 frō God, by the assistance of the holy Ghost?

Finally he comes in with Perisius, wryting that de ration. Co [...]. l. 2. ca. 19. 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 [Page 154] (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 & th [...]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 soue­raig [...]ty of the Scriptures in determining of controuer­sies, without any needefull explicatiō of gods Church, this assertion being indeede a head Theoreme or prin­ciple with the sectaries of this age. For page 4 [...]. 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 [Page 155] 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 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 1. Tim. 3. Mat. 18. 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 1. Pet. 1. Immor. all seede. The 1. Cor. [...]. demonstration of the Spi [...]it & power. that it is Heb. 4. [Page 156] Liuely & powerfull: that Luc. 24. it maketh our bear [...] to burne within vs. that Io. 6. It geueth a greater testimony to Christ, then Iohn Baptist could geue. that 2. Pet. 1. A voice from heauen is not so sure as it. that 1. Io. 5. It is the spirit which beareth witnes to the truth thereof. that Ibid. If we receaue the witnes of men, the witnes of God is greater, Lastly he alledgeth those wordes of Christ. Io 5. 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, For so is M. Wh. cyted by Purchase in his late booke. 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. Lib. [...] de p [...]ncip. sid. doct. cap. 20. 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 [Page 157] 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. l. 5. Ep. 11. Let God him self teach me them [...] 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. l. 3. da Prouid. 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. Contra Faust. l. 32. ca. 19. You see this is your endevour [...] 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 [Page 158] 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 Io. 20. The Scriptures are written that we may beleue in him. A­gaine. 1. Io. 5. He that beleueth in him, haith a witnes in him selfe. Thirdly Ephe [...]. 2. 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 what end he mustereth all these sentences of Scripture god him self knoweth: for neither do they [Page 159] derogate any thing frō the Churches Authority, since indeede they do not concerne it, neither do they as­cribe any more to Christ, then all Catholickes doe acknowledg and beleue. But it semeth M. Whyte thought it good pollicy thus to lead serth in triumph, whole squadrons of textes, and other humaine testi­monies, that so they might seeme powerfull and ter­rible (how weake soeuer otherwise through his mis­applications they were) against the Churches Autho­rity, the eye of the vnlearned. But to end this Para­graph, here the Reader may see, in how many imper­tinent allegatiōs M. Whyte haith insisted, euen with­in the reading of two leaues together, and all implicit­ly directed to charg the Catholickes with their disua­luing the Scriptures, through their acknowledging the Churches lawfull authority, as if to contemne the church of God, were an argument with him, the more to admire the word of god. Thus he semeth to pertake (though in a different example [...] with a certaine man recorded by Sulpitius, Sulpitius Seuerus Epist. Hist. Eccl. so writeth of Ithacius. with whom euery one stu­dious of vertue or abstinence, was suspected with the heresy of the Priscilianistes.

The 3. Paragraph. Wherein are examined some of M. Whytes preofes a­gainst the Churches visibility.

An other passage whereupon our minister spendeth his frothy and immateriall proofes, is touching the in­uisiblenes of the Church: first bearing the Reader in hand that by inuisibility he meaneth not an vtter ex­tinction or disparition of the true Church, and faith: yet after in effect he recalleth the same and thus wri­teth. [Page 160] pag. 87. When we say the Church is inuisible, we meane that all the externall gouernment thereof, may come to decay, in that the locall and personall succession of pastors may be interrupted, the discipline hindred, the preachers scattered, and all the outward exercise and gouernment of religion suspended, whereby it shall come to passe, that in all the world you can not see any one particuler Church profes­sing the true faith whereunto you may sa [...]fly ioyne your self, by reason persecution and heresyes, shall haue ouerflowed all Churches, as Noes flood did the world &c. Thus you see how liberally and fully he here deliuereth (though in the beginning of that Chapter he speaketh more mincingly thereof.) Now if the discipline may be hin­dred, the preachers scattered &c. then shall not the word be preached, nor the Sacramentes ministred, which are (at least by our aduersaries principles) in­seperable markes of the true Church, and consequent­ly, they being taken away, the Church for the tyme, must be vtterly extinct.

This being the true meaning of M. Whyte, he vn­dertaketh to proue that the Catholickes do general­ly teach, the like inuisibility of Gods Church, and therefore he thus styleth those leaues, The papistes say the Church is inuisible, which inuisibility to be taught by the Catholickes, that he may proue, he haileth in all sayinges of any one Catholick Doctor or other, which shew only that the Church of God, is more cō ­spicuous at one time then an other, which we all graūt, yet from thence it can not be enforced, that therefore by the Catholick doctrine, it may be somtimes so la­tent, as that it can not be knowne where it is.

But to fortify this his false assertion, he alledgeth Pererius in these wordes. In Daniel. pag. 714. In the ryme of Antiehrist there shall be no Sacrament in publick places, neither shall [Page 161] [...]ay publick honour be geuen it, but priuatly and priuily shall it be kept and honoured. In the same manner he vrgeth Ouandus, Breuiloq. in 4. sent. d 18. p. 602. that the masse in the time of Antichrist shall be celebrated but in very few places, so that it shall seeme to be ceased. Now (to omitt that if the masse shall be celebrated in few places, then must it be in some places, & if in some places, then is the Church visible euen in those places) what illation is this?

The Eucharist or the masse, shall not be publickly honou­red or celebrated in Antichrists tyme, but onely in priuate or in secret: therefore then the Church shall be inuisible and unknowne. The silynes of which argument is controu­led euen by the wofull experience of our owne country at this present, where the world seeth that the Masse and other Catholick Sacramentes, are exercysed one­ly in priuate howses, and not in publick Churches; & yet who will from hence conclude, that the Catholick Church here in England, is latent and inuisible, since the immoueable constancy and perseuerance of English Catholickes, haith made them knowne and remarkable to all the partes of Christendome.

He next alledgeth diuers Catholickes, ioyntly tea­ching, Bosius de sig. Eccl. l. 24. ca. 9. Dom. a Soro 2. d. 46. q. 1. art. 1. that in the tyme of Antichrist, The Sacri­fice of the Eucharist shall be taken away, which point be­ing graunted, yet proueth not that the true faith of Christ shall so fall away, that none can then be named who shall professe the same. For seing that the cele­brating of the Eucharist, is an externall worshippe of god, which though it be suspended for the time, yet it is not necessarily accompanied with an inuisibility of the Church, and a vanishing away of the true Faith of Christ, euen in reguard of the persons who should performe the same. For this point is likwise made ma­nifest by the imprisōed Preistes here in England, whose [Page 162] publick exercise of their Religion, though it be prohi­bited and restrained, yet are they well knowne to the state, by professing them selues in these times of pres­sures (through a true heroicall and spirituall forti­tude) members of the Catholick Church.

Next to the former testimonies, he marshalleth Gre­gory De Valentia thus writing. Anal. fid. l. 6. ca. 4. When we say, the Church is alwaies conspicuous, this must not be taken, as if we thought it might at euery season be discerned a­like easily. For we know that it is som-times tossed with the waues of erroures, schismes, and persecutions, that to such as are vnskilfull, and do not discreetly euough weygh the circumstances of tymes and thinges, it shall be very hard to be knowne &c. Therefore we deny not, but that it will be harder to discerne the Church at some tymes, then at other some: yet this we auouch, that it alwaies migt be discerned, by such as could wisly esteeme thinges. Thus this Catho­lick Author wirh whom D. Stapleton is alledged Relect. contr. 1. q. 3. p. 30. by M. Whyte, to conspire herein. Now what doth this testimony make against vs, since it chiefly pro­ueth, that the splendour of Gods Church, is more ra­diant and shyning, at one tyme, then at an other (which we willingly graunt) but it is impertinently vrged to proue that it should be absolutly eclipsed, (the point that ought to be euicted) nay it clearly con­uinceth the contrary. For first the former wordes say that the Church is alwaies conspicuous. Secondly, that the Church is alwaies discerned by those who wysely esteeme of thinges, therefore to such it is alwaies vi­sible: And thus doth M. Whytes owne testimony, re­coyle with great force vpon him self.

After our Doctor haith ended with Catholick mo­derne wrvters, he beginneth to proue the inuisibility of the Church, from the authority of the auncient Fa­thers, [Page 163] 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 [Page 164] 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, Io. 10. My sheepe here my voice. And againe. Mat. 18. 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. Mat. 7. You shall know the false prophets by their frutes. And finally that saying of S. Paule, Gal. 6. 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. Ephe. 2. 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 2. Pet. 1. 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 [Page 165] 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 li. 2. haer. ca. 48. This man is found altogether different from the holy Scriptures &c. If then he be dissenting from them, he [Page 166] 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 th [...]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. Resert. Possen. They do not moue, they do not perswade, but they enforce vs, they dry [...]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 [Page 167] 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 [Page 168] 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, 1. Thes. 5. Try all thinges, & hould that which is good. As also those of our Sau. Io. 7. 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. 1. Io. 4. Derely beloued beleue not euery spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God. In like sort those wordes of Christ. Mat. 7. Beware of false prophets, by their frutes you shall know them. And final­ly (besides the example of the men of Beraea search­ing the Scriptures,Act. 17.) he vrgeth that where the Apostle counseleth the Hebrewes, that Hebr. 5. Through longe custome, they should haue their wittes exercised both to discerne good and euill. But for greater perspi­cuity, [Page 169] 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 Ezech. 33. 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, [Page 170] 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. Eph. 4. 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. Chrisost. in Act. ho. 33. 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 [Page 171] 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 reduced onely to the written word, their owne priuate spirit onely, must finally decree, how the said word is to be vnderstoode, either for the im­pugning or defending, of any such pointes contro­uerted.

The 6. Paragraph Wherein are examined sundry argumentes framed by M. W. against the vnity of Catho­lickes, in matters of Religion.

Not many leafes after, M. Whyte, as well know­ing the force of vnity in Faith, since it is true, that God Cor. 14. Non est dissensionis Deus, sed pacis, goeth a­bout to shew, that the Catholickes enioy not any vni­ty and concord in their doctrine, and therefore he thus stileth those leafes. The p [...]pistes haue no vnity in doctrine. And page .156. he further saith. The papistes agree in nothing wherein they dissent from vs. If either M. W. or any other can proue so much, I must graunt that he greatly aduauntageth his cause, seeing those wordes of the Prophet Isay. 19. Concurrere faciam Aegiptios contra Aegiptios, are tipically vnderstoode of the intestine warres and dissentions mantained by the professors of false doctrine. This his vaunt he beginneth to exem­plify in diuers particulers, in the proofe whereof, the iudiceous Reader shall fynde, that this our imparti­nent minister (for so he may well be tearmed, since he [Page 172] altogether insisteth in such vnnecessary and immateri­all stuffe) endeuoreth most calumniously to bleare the iudgmentes of the ignorant, they not being able at the first sight, to perceaue the very tuch of any doubt or question betwene the protestants and vs. Many authorities of Catholickes he produceth to this ende, the sense and meaning of which, he most strangely peruer­teth from the true intention of the writer, which re­ceaue their full satisfaction, from the circumstances of the place.

But now here I am (according to my former pre­scribed methode) to display the weaknes of such te­stimonies, which being acknowledged in their true & natiue sense and construction, do nothing at all con­tradict the Catholick doctrine against which they are vrged, and consequently do not conuince any wante of vnity in doctrine amonge the Catholickes. First thē he alledgeth against prayer in an vnknowne tongue, Cōtarenus. Christ. In­struct. p. 212 The prayers which men vnderstand not, want the frute which they should reape if they vnderstoode them: for they might both specially intend their myndes to god, for the obtayning euen in speciall of that, which with their mouthes they beg: and also through their pyous sense of their praier then vttered, they should be more edefyed. They want therefore this frute. Thus farre Contarenus.

Now here M. W. is to know, that Contarenus doth not here absolutely condemne prayer in a strange tongue (which is the lyfe of this controuersy betwene the protestantes and vs, since they say it is merely vn­lawfull, and we hould it lawfull) but onely seemes to preferre praier in a vulgar and knowne tongue before it, which in reguard onely of the particuler frute a­boue specifyed, is in the iudgment of most (if not all Catholickes) more profitable then the other, though [Page 173] the other haue certaine peculier helpes and aduanta­ges to it self: But what is this to the lawfulnes or vn­lawfulnes of praying in a strange tongue? or what kind of logick is this: Prayer for some particuler reasons, is better in a vulgar tongue then in a strang tongue: there­fore it is absolutely vnlawfull in a strange tongue? In lyke sort, touching latin seruice, he bringeth in S. Tho­mas of Aquine, & Caietaine, affirming that it were better for the edification of the Church, if such Prayer were in a vulgar tongue. In [...]. Cor. 14. What Catholick deny­eth this, if he haue onely respect to the edification & instruction of the hearers, and of nothing els? But seing the publick Liturgies and prayers of the Church, are principally directed to other endes, then to the in­struction of the standers by, what doth this testimo­ny force against the contrary practise of the Church therein?

Againe for the euacuating of the force and opera­tion of confession of sinnes, he bringeth in Caietane teaching that 3. Tho. q. 8. art. 4. A man by contrition without any confession, is made cleane, & a formall member of the Church. which indeede is the generall doctrine of all Catho­lickes: and therefore the receaued position with them in the schooles is, that Attrition (being a greeuing for our sinnes in a lower degree) with Confession, is answearable to Contrition, without actuall Confession.

Yet here is to be noted, that true Contrition (which is a repenting for our sinnes in the highest degree, one­ly for the loue of God) can not be without Confes­sion, at least in voto, and desire, seing he can not be truly and perfectly penitent, who neglecteth the or­dinary meanes (if opportunity serue for the obtayning of them) appointed by God for the expiation of sinne. Now who seeth not the independency of this [Page 174] inference, Sinne is remitted by Contrition without Con­fession: therefore Confession is absolutely to be taken away. Most demonstratiuely concluded, as if euery man had true and perfect Contrition, or hauing it, were in­fallibly assured thereof: and yet this is M. Whytes trysting kinde of arguing.

In like sort touching Iustification by workes, which (according to our Catholick doctrine) are to be done in state of grace, and not by force of nature, and de­riue their worth, not from the worker, but both from the promise of God, as also from the passion of our Sauiour, (in the blood whereof they receaue a new tincture) the Doctor idly introduceth S. Thomas A­quinas thus teaching. In Galat. 3. Lect. 4. No workes, either Ceremo­niall, or Morall, are the cause why any man is iust before God &c. And in an other place the same S. Thomas, In Rom. 3. Lect. 4. The Apostle sheweth Iustification to be wrought by faith onely: there is in the woork of the Law, no hope of iustifica­tion, but by faith onely. As if the question were, whe­ther Ceremoniall, Iudaicall, and Legall workes, did iustify (which all Catholickes deny) and not workes now in the new Testament, as is aboue explaned.

Finally as vnwilling to be ouer laboursome & pain­full, in setting dowe more of M. Whytes trifling & childish stuffe of this nature, seeing in this sense, that saying houldeth. Absurdum est res fu [...]les, nimis seriò redarguere: I will therefore (forbearing diuers others) conclude with the testimony which, against the merit of workes he vrgeth out of C. Bellarmine (a place be­fore alledged, being a wilfull corruption, in concea­ling the wordes immediatly following explayning the sense, but here vrged as a mere impertinency, though taking the wordes in that very sense wherin M. W. pretendeth) his wordes are these. de Iustif. l. 5. ca. 7. In reguarde of [Page 175] the vncertainty of our owne righteousnes, and because of the daunger of vaine-glory: The saifest way is to put our confidence in the sole mercy of God. Now wherein doth he impugne the Catholick doctrine of merit, who tea­cheth (for the greater humbling of our selues, and by reason of our manifould sinnes committed against god, and of our vncertainty of knowing whether the works done by vs, be performed in such sort, as they are truly pleasing to God) that we should for greater se­curity, ascribe nothing to our selues, but onely like the Centurion, should slie to the boundlesse and infi­nite mercy of his diuine Maiesty. Wherefore M. W. can not dispute thus from the Cardinals wordes. In reguard of the vncertainty of our owne righteousnes, and because of the daunger of vaine glory, the saifest way is to put our sole confidence in the sole mercy of God: Therefore workes in generall do not merite, or therefore workes done in true humility, and proceding from one that is righteous, donot merite. For the doubt here which Bellarmine in­timateth, resteth not in the doctrine of merite, but in the vncertainty of our doing of them, to wit, whe­ther th [...]y are performed by vs in that state, and with all those due circumstances, as are requisite for them that they may merite. But it seemeth that M. W. can not fall vpon any obscure sentences of Catholicks, but instantly he striueth to turne them as if they were the sayinges of his owne brethren, like the fyre which coueteth to conuert euery thing it toucheth into it self.

This done M. Whyte page 159. descendeth to shew the different opinions of Catholickes touching some pointes of the reall presence, as first whether (after the bread and wyne being changed by the words of Consecration into the body and bloud of Christ) [Page 176] the accidences do remaine without a subiect, or that they haue their inherence in the quantity, or that the body of Christ sustaineth them, or the lyke.

Secondly, how the accidents remaining after con­secration, haue power to nourish, to wit, whether the thing nourished therewith, procede from the quan­tity, or that the substance of bread and wyne retur­neth againe, and so it causeth the nutrition, or that the accidences by Gods power, are changed into the thing nourished, or some such lyke manner.

Thus our minister goeth on discoursing very sober­ly, how it appeareth from these and the like exam­ples, that the papistes agree not in their doctrine; and further thus saith. You may see by these few examples, how the papistes are deuided about the principall articles of their faith &c. But here the iudiceous Reader may see, that touching the fust sort of Catholick testimo­nies aboue explayned, we finde no difference of iudg­ment at all, betwene the Catholickes by him alled­ged, and other Catholickes. And as concerning their seuerall opinions about those secondary questions of the blessed Sacrament, they are onely pointes of in­differency, and do not at all imply any disunion in matter of faith. For touching the B. Sacrament, that which is principally an Article of our faith is, whe­ther bread and wyne, be really, and truly changed by the wordes of consecration, into the Body and bloud of Christ, the which all Catholickes whatsoeuer do iointly and constantly beleue. And as concerning those other doubtes resulting out of the former confes­sed Article. and vrged here by M. Whyte, they are onely indifferences, and philosophicall questions dis­puted in the schooles, and by seuerall men, seuerally mantained, without any breach of faith. But here I should make bould (on the contrary part) to put M. [Page 177] M. Whyte in mynd touching the diuision in doctrine among the protestantes (a point heretofore touched in this Treatise) that they are such, euen by the acknow­ledgment of them selues, as do wound the soundnes of Christian faith: I think the displaying thereof would be litle pleasing vnto him, gratefull to his cause. But for this present I will forbeare, and will onely adde hereto (for the greater disaduantage of our ad­uersaries, that when a Catholick obstinatly, and per­tinaceously, mantaineth any heresy (for such accomp­ted by the Church) he, ipso facto, deuideth him self from the Church, and so seaceth to be a member there of, as seuerall tymes we graunt it hapneth: But the case is otherwise among the protestants. For albe­it each of them doth defend his seuerall opinions in the weightiest pointes of faith: yet they neuerthelesse accompt one an other, as members of one and the same Church, as we see by experience it faleth out, not on­ly betwene the Lutherans and the Caluenistes, but al­so betwene our English protestantes, and the puri­tanes, who (notwithstanding the great disparity of faith and doctrine amonge them) do in their owne o­pinions, make vp one and the same protestants Church: and do still repute each other, as faithfull brethren of the said Church, and zealous professoures of the gos­pell.

Here now I will close vp this third and last part of this small Treatise, wherein I trust I haue discouered M. Whytes disioynted and loose kynd of writing, all which his reasoninges and authorities (seruing onely as a taist to the Reader, what more he may expect in this kind, if the ministers whole booke should be iu­dicially perused) are taken out (deuiding his booke into three partes) onely of the first part, and fewer [...] [Page 176] [...] [Page 177] [Page 178] then twenty leafes of the said part, affordeth them all. Many other scores there are, which are scattered here and there, by one or two, as incidentally he taketh occasion to write, but all such I haue omitted, and purposly made choice of such passages, within the for­mer small compasse of his booke, as do minister seue­rall and diuers testimonies of this nature, of one and the same subiect. It were ouer laboursome to examine his whole book in this sort, since indede it is through­out euen loaded with an o [...]ercharg of the like boote­lesse testimonies, he still filling vp many blankes and spaces thereof, with such idle impertinēcies, the which [...], may seeme to crosse our Catholick doctrine, yet indeede the transparency of them is such, as they cause not so much as any re­flection in the eye and vnderstanding of the iudiceons, but in reguard of their emptines and want of force, they may be resembled (to speake in S. Peters wordes 2. Pet. 2.) to wells without water, and cloudes carried about with tempestes.

THE Conclusion.

WOrthy and iudiceous Academians, here now I am to geue a f [...]ll stop vnto my pen, since I hope (ac­cording to my vndertaken taske) I haue discouered such stoare of impostures in this my aduersaries booke, as that they may in reason be sufficient to disopinion you of his supposed worth and estimation. He is I graunt your sonne, in respect whereof I know you can not but with a motherly and compassionate eye, be­hould his blemishes, and inwardly lament to see your Whyte thus soyled. Notwithstanding it resteth on your part (euen for the saluing of your owne honoures) to withdraw hereafter your fauoures from so vnde­seruing a branch; since pittie it is, that learning, in­genuity, and integrity (whereunto your selues deser­uedly pretend) should become a sanctuary to collusion, falshood, and impurity.

And now seeing here I haue vntwisted the cheife threedes whereupon the whole loome of his Treatise is wouen: I doubt not but out of your owne cleare-eyd Iudgmentes, you will immediatly looke vpon the same, as it is in it self fraughted with such vnworthy stuffe, and not as it haith receaued light and grace from the weake opinion of the ignorant, and seduced multitude: which I rather expect peculiarly at your handes, since your selnes know, that in a true vew of any thing, refracted beames neuer afford a perfecte sight. And thus to your owne censure and chastis­ment I remitt M. Whyte, whom not without iuste cause, I may well range in the Catalogue of those, of whom God by his Prophet saith Non misi eos, & ip­si prophetabant in nomine meo mandaciter. Ier. 27.

And next to come to thee (good reader) here thou [Page 180] seest what scarres do remaine vpon the face of this our ministers reputation, him self first playing the cor­rupter, then a lyer, and then a tryfling writer. But seeing thou art now partly instructed of the ministers foule deportment herein, I appeale euen to thine owne conscience, whether thou art inwardly perswaded, that he haith any honesty, any faith, any Religion, finally, any feare of God, who is not affraid thus shame­lesly, prophanely, and heathnishly, to handle the highest misteries of Christianity. And if thou seest reason to be induced so to thinke, what stupor and dulnes of vnderstanding, yea what madnes then is it in thy self, to aduenture thy soules euerlasting salua­tion, or damnation vpon the bare affiance and credit of so persideous and corrupt a writer. Therefore let this mans want of sincerity and true dealing, awa­ken thy iudgment in the disquisition of gods infalli­ble truth. Make triall by thine owne particuler search, whether these deceiptes, wherewith I charge the Doc­tor, be true or no: and if thou findest that he standes guilty thereof, then retyre back, and instantly cast of both him and his doctrine, assuring thy self, that the cause which he iustifieth is wrong, in that God (who ones said psal. 100. Ambulans in via immaculata, hi [...] mihi mi­nistrabat) will not suffer his sacred will to be reuealed by such impostors and deceiuers. Let not the alrea­dy conceaued opinion of his learning, ouer-sway thy Iudgment, but rather say with thy self, that faith must needes be erroneous, which can not sufficiently be mā ­tained by learning, except withall it be mantained with lying, seeing truth nedeth not the support of falshood. Be assured that though for the tyme M. W. or any other of our aduersaries, see [...]e to make good their cause by their much writing, whereby in a vul­gare [Page 181] eye, they vent out good stoare of litterature and reading, yet after such their workes are diligently perused and answeared, by laying open their fals­hoodes, corruptions, and such other collusions: the Catholick cause (as experience haith taught) is great­ly aduauntaged thereby, them selues by this meanes running into greater dis [...]stimation and contempt euen of their owne followers: Such is the sweetnes of gods prouidence, that the Israelites of the Catholick Church are euer in the ende deliuered from the handes of the Egiptians, and see their enemies drowned in the red sea of shame and confusion ps. 121. Non commouebitur in a [...]ernum qui habitat in Ierusalem.

But now lastly M. Whyte to come more nearly to your self, with whom I must in a word or two take leaue: Tell me euen betwene god and your owne conscience (if as yet you retaine any touch of con­science) did you not write this your booke with a fearefull trembling hande, in remembring, that as god (according to his Iustice) doth euer punish all kinde of sinnes: so particulerly he poureth out his vyols of wrath and indignation in greater aboundance, vpon those who seduce the ignorant by such deceauable meanes? How many poore soules shall ryse against you at the most dreadfull day, who shall continew in e­ternall torments, for being misled by this your most poysenous, corrupt, and lying writinges? Are not your owne personall sinnes sufficient to draw on your perdition, but you must be loaded with the euerlas­ting ouerthrow of diuers others soules to further the same? If seuere punishmentes be to be inflicted vpon them, who will expunge or deface, any one publick record of ciuill and temporall matters: what confu­sion then are they to vndergoe, who not once, not [Page 182] twice, but many scoares of tymes, haue wickedly cor­raded, corrupted, and belyed (of which your selfe is found most guilty) the auncient monumentes of the primitiue Fathers, and the writinges of other most learned Doctors, wherein (next to the holy Scrip­tures) is contained the spirituall tenure of our Chri­stian faith, and by the producing whereof, we make good our tytle, to the rich inheritance of mannes saluation. Reflect vpon your owne case (you, euen you) who remaines in Act. 8. the gaull of bi [...]ternes, & in the bond of iniquity. Your state yet is remediable, since so longe as you haue tyme of repentance, so longe Io. 11. your sicknes is not vnto death. Wherefore make vse of that short remnant, and suffer not earthly considerations of preferment, ambition, and the like, any longer to interpose them selues, betwene your sight and the truth. I shall be glad (as the light ap­peared to Adam to bewray his sinne and shame) if this my discouery, may be of force to dispell that spi­rituall darknesse of your malice against the Catholick Church, so repentingly acknowledging your inex­cusable faultines in your former worke. Be not agre­ued at these my sharpe admonitions (since the more seuere, the more medicinable) but remember that the sight of Toby was restored, by the bitter gaule of the fishe. I can not but bewaile your incorrigiblenes, if this my councell, proceding onely from Charity shall be so farre from winning you to a better course, that (as in some natures it hapneth) it may be found to raise your malice hereafter against Gods Church, to a highe [...] strayne, like vnto some medicines, which (as the Phisitions say) if they do not purge the humour intended: them selues doe turne into the said hu­mour.

[Page 183]But to conclude, M. Whyte (howsoeuer you en­tertaine my wordes) fare well, feare hell, feare dam­nation, and do not thus precipitately and desperat­ly runne vpon the dinte of gods most dreadfull com­minations & threates, him self thundring, Ezech. 13. Erit­manus mea super P [...]ophetas &c M [...]handes shall be vpō the Prophets that see v [...]ne thinges, and diuine a lye: in the Councell of my people they shall not be, & in the Scripture of the house of Israell, they shall not be written, neither shall they enter into the Lande of Israell: And you shall know that I am the Lord God, for that they haue decea­ued my people saying, Peace, & there is no peace.

Laus Deo, & B. Virgini Mariae.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.