white DIED BLACK.  
OR A Discovery of many most foul blemishes, impostures, and deceipts, which D. white haith practised in his book entitled The way to the true Church.  

Divided into 3 sorts  
Corruptions, or depravations.  
Lies.  
Impertinencies, or absurd reasonings.   
Written by T. W. P.  
And dedicated to the University of Cambridge.  
Hareticum hominem, post unam & alieram correptionem, devita: sciens, quia subversus est, qui eiusmodi est & delinquit, cum sit proprio judicio condemnatus. Tit. 3,  
Cathedra tibi quid fecit Ecclesiae Romanae, in qua Petrus sedit, & in qua nunc Anastatius (sive Paulus quintus) sedet? Cur appelas Cathedram pestilentiae, Cathedram Apostolicam? August. lib. 2. con. lit. Petil.  
Cum privilegio. 1615.   

TO THE MOST CELEBRIOUS and famous University of Cambridge.  
Ingenious and learned Academians, I do not present this my small about unto you, entreating hereby your patronage thereof. For how can I expect so great a favour since most of you descent from me in that Religion which is here maintained: neither as holding this poor work, for any art therein, worthy your iudiceons view. For I am not only conscious to myself of mine own weakness: but do also grearly admire your piercing and clear eyed indgmentes.  
To you then I exhibit it, as appealing to the Mother (such is my confidence in your impartial and even censures) as judge between her son and myself. For wheareas my designed adversary at this present M. white, (to whom your university haith first given his education for literature, and since hath graced him with the investure of Doctorship) in answer to a Catholic Treatise (first penned by one of my fellow-labourers in the vineyard of Christ) haith written a most virulent and scandalous book, entituling it, The way to the true Church. The which book was found so full of corruptions, untruths, and other such baisse matter, that it was holden in the opinion of many great and learned priests, rather worthy of contempt than answer.  
Nevertheless M. white, not only in the Preface of this said book, but also in divers places of his second work, vaunteth much of his sincere dealing in the first, as particularly pag. 129. where saying that it is the profession of Jesuits in their writing, to rayde books, counterfeit, forge, and lie: he then thus ambitiously concludeth. My adversary 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 have failed.  
Now this idle venditation of ingenuity and upright dealing, haith awakened my sleeping pen, and indeed haith given birth to this short Treatise, whearin I do undertake to make good our former censures, that is, to demonstrate, that the very ground and burden of his first book, is mere corruptions, untruths, and other such impostures, in the evicting of which point I am so secure, that I willingly make yourselves judges both of him and me, being assured, that in a true and serious perusal of this my accusation, you shall sinned no ca●dor in white, nor any of God's spirit in him who styleth himself Gods minister, but rather in regard of your frustrated hope, you shall have just reason to say of this child (who seeming jacob, proveth Esau) Expectavimus lucem, ecce tenebra. Es. 59 which deformities of his, I am not of so rigid a judgement, as to ascribe to your famous university, for at this present, I do not wholly approve that common position of the Civilians, partus sequitur ventrem: And we all observe, that those fair heavenly bodies, sometimes bring forth monsters.  
It is certainly reported, that desire of praise (a windy Meteor engendered in the Region of self conceit) first invited M. white, to support forsooth, with his learned hand, the threatening and falling pillar of his new Church: and thereupon he instantly stepped into the number of writers, having thereby already gained great applause and approbation from the wavering uncertain multitude, in whose weak opinion, he seemeth to have overpassed most of his time and rank: but I doubt not, but by the assistance of him, who In veritate educet judicium, Es. 42. and by the ensuing discovery of his calumnious forgeries, so to pick the swollen bladder of his pride, as that all his frothy ostentation, shall resolve to nothing: and that his writings (like unto new found wells, being commonly of account only for a year or two) which heretofore his favourites have so highly esteemed: shall for ever after remain contemned and neglected: which event may well be expected since it often happeneth, that he who riseth suddenly, fale precipitately.  
But as in this following Treatise you shall be fully satisfied of the want of his sincerity, so here I hold it not inconvenient, to give some touch of that opprobrious tongue of his, which casteth most fowl and undeserved aspersions of contumely and reproach upon all priests and Catholics. For even in his Epistles of this his book impugned by me, he writeth, that the, Jesuits are the Pope's janisaryes, that Priests are cunning seducers possessing men's wives, etc. using their goods to swager, and serve their own luxurious use, & that since the Harpies were chased away, and Bet was overthrown, never was such a greedy and ravenous Idol as the seminary, and that friars, seminaries, and Mass Priests, are so many bears and bloody, the Tigars', the fatal enemies of Princes, etc. that the Papists laity, doth live in extreme ignorance, and finally that their religion teacheth to pay no depts, murder Kings, and tendeth chiefly to all bloody conspiracies, &. Our innocency in all which points, one day will discover, when the valye of each man's actions shallbe drawn away, and when all deeds and thoughts shallbe plainly laid open, at what time M. white, for these and other his most false, injurious, and unchristian reproaches must render a severe account; only at this present our retaliation to him shallbe to say with the Apostle 
c 1 Cor. 4.  maledicimur sed benedicimus, blasphemamur sed obsecramus and telling him, that by these his Philippics and declamatory invectives, he haith worthily gotten the reputation of being counted a good railer, and hath been careful (as it should seem) to warrant in himself those words of the Scripture: 
d jac. 3.  the touge is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.  
And now illustrious Academians (whom God hath endued with transcendent spirits, and understandings far above the vulgar) suffer me, before I remit you to this following discourse to present unto you touching our Catholic faith, these few admonitions, the which you are not to contemn, as proceeding from me how mean soever, but rather herein to remember, that from the earth (the lowest element of all) we best observe the motions of the heavens.  
Make then particular trial of the chief grounds of our Catholic religion, and look back unto the Continual practise of Christ's Church since it first being, & assure yourself, that we shall not be found superstitious and blind (as it pleaseth M. Whyre & others to term us) for how can they be blind, who behold the articles of there faith with the eyes of all antiquity.  
Examine it by the rules of Gods sacred word, & for the true sense of his written word (as following even the iugments of the most dispassionat and sobe● Protestants) 
e 〈…〉 us 〈◊〉 n●l 〈◊〉 par. 1 〈◊〉 74.  recur to the joint expositions of the primitive fathers, who lived, when the church was most flourishing, and in her full orb●; and know, that the leaves of scripture, without the intended sense of the holy Ghost, 
●●●eil in his ● sense of the Adology.  are but leaves without fruit. & as touching his unwritten word, call to mind that saying of Tertulian: Id verius, quod prius, id prius, quod ab initio; id ab initio, quod ab Apostolis.  
Remember, that the most markable Protestants 
f Luth. tom. 2. wittenb. anno. 1551 lib. de se●u. are bitr. pag. 454  for learning, do confess, that those doctors are patrons of our Catholic faith, who lived when the Spouse of Christ was most spotless, chaste, and intemerat: Appoint indeed so evident, as that from their learned monuments we are able to delineat, 
Beza in his preface upon the new Testament, dedicated to the Prince of Condy anno. 1587.  and draw the very Image and face of the present Roman religion; & as for the more obscure passages occurring in them, your ingenuities may suppose them to be the sad colours or dark grounds, serving only to give greater lustre and life to the whole portraiture. Be never persuaded (since it is granted, that the Roman Church was once the true church, 
Doctor Humphrey li. de vita jewelli.  and the time of her supposed revolt cannot be known) that the daughter of Zion, could ever so unespiedly become a Babylonian strumpet.  
Divide not yourselves from that most conspicuous church of Christ, which haith been promised, 
g Esa. 2.60. Micheas. 4. psalm. 19 Math. 18.  that in all ages it should gloriously appear to the eye of the world, lest so in sew thereof, as for the last refuge, you be forced to forge a Mathematical and airy Church, consisting of certain imaginary invisibilites, impugned by the fathers, 
h Hiero. Epist. ad Pammach.  and your more judicious writers: 
i Do●t●r Humphrey in Iesui●. part. 2. rat. 3 pag. 240.  since it being, 
Athanatius. li. de decret. nicen. Synod.  merely consisteth in a not being.  
Suffer not a Heteroclyte sectary, 
August. lib. 3 de baptismo contra Donatum. ca 2.  who rejecteth (though contrary to god's word 
k Hebru. 4. Roman. 10. john. 10.  and his own brethren 
l Doctor Covell 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 souls a new kind of religion never heard of before, till a libidenous Monk by mutual breach of vows, had yoked himself with a lapsed Nun: and be ascertained, that such a novelist must needs be one of those, who say they are Apostles, and are not, but are found liars.  
Finally relinquish, and abandon that supreme sovereignty of the private reavealing spirit (condemned even by Christ's own 
n 1 Cor. 12.  Apostles) it being first chiefly erected, thereby to decline the weighty authorities of the ancient fathers in the exposition of God's sacred wryt, 
Doctor Saravia contra resp. Bez. pag. 360.  & to reduce all things to the most grave (forsooth) and inappealable tribunal of each illiteterate man's empty skull and brains. Thus do the gospelers of these days, 
Cartwright in his second reply part. see. pag. 142.  hold the fanatical revealing Spirit, as their mount Sinai from whence they receive their new evangelical law, it being in deed shadowed with a cloud, 
m Apoc. c. 2  not wherewith to cover it own over glorious infallibility, but with a cloud or mist of pride, ignorance, and uncertainty.  
And thus worthy Academians, leaving you to the censure of your unworthy son, 
Petr. 2. c. 1  I take my leave, expecting, that my good meaning herein, shall overbalance with you, 
john. 1. c. 4  my boldness, and wishing even in the bowels of Christian charity, that every one of you wear strong armed with our most ancient Catholic Roman faith; for than you would easily learn to contemn those poor and weak assaults, which every first appearance of new doctrine doth threaten: it being an acknowledged, & experienced truth that Harese 
o Tertul. li. de prescript.  apud eos multum valent, qui in fide non valent.  Your well willer in Christ jesus T. W. P.  

THE PREFACE TO THE READER  
Good Reader, before I remit thee to the perusal of this ensuing discourse, I here think it good to acquaint thee with the occasion inducing me to write it, and with my method holden therein. And as touching the first, thou art to conceive, that the worthless esteem, which we have had of M. white his book (how soever his own followers do magnify it) as seeing it fraught with such impurity of stuff, haith for these years passed prevailed with most of us so far, that we wear determined to forbear the answering thereof, holding it altogether unworthy of such labour; yet seeing in diverse passages of his late second work, he vaunteth in great exultation, and jollity of words, that this his first book doth not stand chargeable with any wilful corruption, falsification, or other such imposture, and that he confidently provoketh his adversary (if any such be) to set them down: Therefore to control this man's most shameless asseveration (as being one of an obdurate conscience, not caring how falsely he writeth, or how impudently he justifieth it being written) I do here charge his said first treatise with most fowl abuses, falsifications, & other such fraudulent dealing, & will in these few sheets following particularise to thee diverse of them, whereby thou shalt have reason to assure thyself that M. white, in reguarde of his calling in his new Ministry, and his exercise therein, may truly be numbered amongst them 
a Roman. 1,  Qui Commutaverunt veritatem Dei in mendacium, who changed the truth of God onto a lie. Now concerning my method taken, in displaying of his falsehood, and deceit, thou art to be advertised, that my chief project in this treatise being to prove M. white in his writings a most dishonest, conscionles, and faithless man: therefore forbearing to confute the whole course of his book in respect of doctrine (which is already learnedly performed by my fellow A. D. in his reply to M. W. said work) I do here restrain myself to three heads, reducing all these impostures, in which hereafter I intent to insist, to some of them. The heads are these Corruptions, Lies, and Impertinencyes. By Corruptions, I mean those depraved authorities of the ancient Fathers, and our own modern Catholic authors, which this our Minister (thereby to make them to speak in his protestant language and dialect) haith most shamelessly altered, either by inserting, or adding some words of his own, as part of their sentences; or by concealing of some part of their words, which do expound the rest of the testimonies, in a far different sense from that, in which M. white doth urge them, or lastly (though setting down their words truly) by strangely detorting and wresting them from the intended sense of the authors.  
By Lies, I understand false assertions and vast untruths maintained by M. White, whom the more fully, and irrepliably, and for the greater compendiousness, to convince therein, I have made choice of those untruths, as are acknowledged for such by the most learned Protestants, thus making his mother (to wit the University) the judge, and his own Brethren the plaintiffs, between himself and me herein.  
By Impertinences, I conceive his idle and fruitless aledging either of scripture, fathers, or Catholic writers, to disprove thereby some point of our religion; where my meaning is, that allowing the sense and constructions to those authorities, which the words necessarily and truly import, yet they do in no sort disable & weaken the catholic point, for the impugning whereof they are there by our Minister produced, so that it followeth, that his illations drawn from those testimonies, to the question intended, are most absurd, incongruous, and inconsequent. These three now are the several particular deliveries of our minister, in his so much applauded work, himself in this his scene, sometimes acting one part, sometimes an other, agreeable to the former heads, but we less marvel, since eich man knows that white is successively capable of several tinctures. Now touching the number of these his impostures, thou art (good reader) further to understand that my meaning is not to display all those with which his book is stored, for this would require too painful a labour, and rising to an over great volume, would be less fitting to be printed and divulged. Besides, seeing my main proiecte here is to decipher the dishonest dealing of our minister, every clear judgement will acknowledge, that the true charging him even with a few wilful and uniustifiable corruptions, doth condemn and prove him for such a man: and every one knoweth, that who is found out of malice to corrupt some few places, would in like sort deprave as many authorities as opportunity might licence him. Therefore touching his Corruptions or depravations, I have contented myself only with forty, which forty, are taken out of about some twenty different writers, having in truth no more books alleged by him, wherewith to examine it: from which circumstance thou mayst thus conclude, that if, restraining myself only to twenty authors more or less, I can find forty most notorious corruptions of their testimonies, how many scores in all likelihood of such like depravations might be found in all the rest of the authors alleged by him, which amount nere-hand to a hundred, if diligent search wear made of them: & the rather considering, that many books produced by him, but omitted by me, are most to be gotten, and therefore he might corrupt their sayings more securely, and with greater boldness, as presuming beforehand, that such his corruptions through want of the books themselves, could not easily be espied.  
In like sort concerning his lies, I have made choice only of such as are all of them acknowledged for untruths by his own learned brethren. From which point thou mayst also thus infer; if M. white his book, doth minister sundry such gross lies against our catholic faith, as that the most learned protestants, that ever writ, are forced (though to their own disadvantage) to confess them for such: How many other untruths might be found therein, which through some show, or culour of answer, and evasion, are such, (as though being lies indeed) will not yet be so acknowledged by our adversaries, who are loath to confess more in favour of our catholic religion, than the unavoidable evidence and clearness of the truth itself constraineth them.  
Lastly all his impertinencies, or weak absurd reasons hereafter set down, are taken out of less than twenty leaves of his book, from which thou mayst in like manner thus collect, that if twenty leaves, and these in the first part of his book (dividing the whole into three parts) do afford such a boundance of impertinent allegations, and authorities, how many hundreds then in all probability of like nature, are dispersed throughout his whole treatise, it containing above two hundred leaves. And the rather, seeing that divers authors do commonly fortify and strengthen the first part of their writings, with more forcible proofs and authorities than the latter part, both thereby the sooner, and with greater speed to invade the judgement of the reader, as also knowing, that many do peruse the beginnings of books, who through a wearisome carelessness do never read the latter part of them.  
And thus much of my method in this my treatise. Here now thou seest (courteous reader) what I undertake to perform, that is to make evident, that M. white his first book is stored with most shameless falsifications, lies, and other such collusions: the which if I do not effect, I am content to become a reproach, and shame, not only to my particular profession (the sacred function whereof I hold my chiefest honour) but also to the Catholic cause in general; for here I protest in the sight of god, and as I shall answer the truth or falsehood of this my protestation at the most dreadful day, that I never perused book of this quantity, wherein I did find more unanswereable corruptions, lies, and impertinencies, then in this work of M. Whytes. And if so eminent a man (as he is presumed by many to be) doth stand cha●geable with such profane, and wicked deportments: what shall we then censure of other inferior writers of his side, Since 
b Math. c 6.  if the light be darkness, how great is the darkness: or what may we judge of th● justness of their cause seeing the faith of Christ is of that force, as it scorneth to be uphoulden with the weak supporters of such deceitful means, it being no better, than an impious devotion, or irreligious godliness, to deferred truth with falsehood, or to blaze forth the light of the gospel, by the works of darkness? And as touching his second book, which is fraughted with all base scurrility of words, and railing, I will only say, that seeing there hath not been as yet sufficient opportunity for the particular examining of it, yet I am assured, that who shall impose that labour to himself, shall find the same to stand chargeable with no less store of impostures, than this his other: for if this his book impugned by me (being the strength and first borne of his cause) be found so corrupt, how can we probably conjecture that this other second feminine, and less perfect labour of his, should not partake of the former blemishes and deficiences.  
But now good reader, I will detain thee no longer from perusing this my accusation, earnestly entreating thee (even for the good of thy soul) that if thou understand latin, thou wouldst see the testimonies themselves, as they lie in the authors, the which I do avouch to be here corrupted, which if thou dost, doubtlessly thou shalt be forced to confess, that M. white is a most egregious falsary, and howsoever he enameleth his cause, with the phrases of the way to the true Church, of the enlarging of the Gospel of Christ, of rooting out superstition and blindness, and the like, nevertheless thou shalt find that he is most conscious, and guilty both of his own weak cause, as also of his perfidious, and profane maintaining and defending of the same, so as in regard of his hypocrisy, and dissimulation herein, thou shalt see the words of the apostle justified in him 
a Rom. 9  all they are not Israel, which are of Israel, himself being one of those 
b Act. 13.  which will not cease to pervert the way of our Lord.   

A TABLE OF THE CONTENTS.  

The first Part.  


Chapter 1. Containing Corruptions, concerning works and justification.  
The First Paragraph. Premenitions given to M. white if he intend to reply upon this present Treatise.  
2 The Rhemistes Corrupted, concerning merit of works.  
3 Cardinal Bellarmine Corrupted concerning justification.  
4 Bellarmine again abused, against merit of works.  
5 S. Thomas Corrupted, against justification by works.  
6 S. Augustine Corrupted, against justification.    


Chapter .2. Concerning the reading of the Scriptures.  
The first Paragraph. S. Jerome Corrupted, concerning the reading of the Scriptures by the vulgar people.  
2 S. Cirill of Alexandria abused, for the same purpose.    


Chapter .3. Concerning the Church, and the Pope.  
The first Paragraph. Vincentius Lirinensis Corrupted, in proof that the Church may err.  
2 The Rhemistes Corrupted, for the Church's invisibility.  
3 S. Augustine Corrupted, concerning the same subject.  
4 Doctor Stapleton abused, in behalf of the protestants marks of the Church.  
5 S. Gregory de valentia Corrupted, concerning the same.  
6 Bellarmine egregiously Corrupted, for the same.  
7 S. Thomas foully corrupted, concerning the Pope's authority.  
8 Doctor Sapleton corrupted, concerning the same subject.  
9 S. Cyprian corrupted, against appeals to Rome.  
10 The Rhemistes abused, concerning the authority of the Church.  
11 Cardinal Cusanus corrupted concerning the same.  
12 The canon law corrupted, concerning the Pope.  
13 Bellarmine corrupted, against the Pope's authority.    


Chapter 4. wherein are discovered sundry corruptions, concerning the sacred Scriptures and Traditions.  
The first Paragraph. Bellarmine corrupted, in behalf of the Scripture proving itself to be the word of god.  
2 Bellarmine corrupted, in proof that the Scriptures are the only rule of faith.  
3 Eckius abused, concerning the Authority of the Church, and Traditions.  
4 Canus corrupted concerning Traditions.    


Chapter .5. Concerning Faith and Heresy.  
The 1 Paragraph. Bellarmine corrupted against the necessity of true Faith.  
2 Bellarmine again corrupted, against the knowledge of the mysteries of our faith, and in preferring of ignorance.  
3 Navarre corrupted, concerning the sin committed by the Laity in disputing of matters of faith.    


Chapter 6. Concerning marriage of priests: Fasting: and Miracles.  
The 1 Paragraph. Sinesius impudently abused, concerning his own marriage.  
2 Paphnutius abused concerning the marriage of priests.  
3 S. Angustine corrupted against fasting.  
Baronius notoriously corrupted, in proof that heretics can work true miracles.    


Chapter .7. Concerning the Sacraments of the Eucharist, and Penance.  
The 1. Paragraph. Bellarmine corrupted against Transubstantiation.  
2 The. M. of the Sentences corrupted, against confession to a Priest.  
3 Bellarmine corrupted against Satisfaction.  
4 S. Thomas corrupted, concerning the remission of venial sins.    


Chapter 8. Concerning the Author of sin: and Reprobation,  
The 1. Paragraph. Bellarmine egregiously falsified, in proof, that god is the Author of sin.  
2 S. Augustine abused, concerning reprobation.    


Chapter 9 Concerning the honour to be given to Saints, and their Images.  
The 1 Paragraph. S. Epiphanius corrupted, in dishonour of the B. Virgin Mary.  
2 S. Gregory notoriously corrupted, against the worshipping of Images.  
3 The Council of Eliberis corrupted against Images.     

The second part. Containing sundry notorious untruths or lies, proved to be such by the confession of learned protestants.  
And first is prevented a weak evasion, which may be used by M. white against this second part.  
The 1. untruth. That protestants embrace that kind of trial which is by antiquity,  
2 Against Traditions.  
3 In proof of the protestants Church, to have continued in all ages.  
4 In proof of the unity of faith, and doctrine amongst protestants.  
5 In proof of the immutability of the present English Religion.  
6 In proof of the Roman Church's mutability in matters of faith.  
7 In proof of the protestants concord, in matters of Religion.  
8 Against the unity of Catholics, in matters of faith.  
9 Against the Pope's primacy.  
10 That Gregory the great, detested the Pope's primacy.  
11 In proof that Catholics are more viceous than protestants.  
12 Against auricular confession.  
13 Against Fasting.  
14 In proof that Montanus the heretic, was the first that brought in the laws of Fasting.  
15 In proof that they make not God the Author of sin.  
16 In proof that S. Bernard was no papist.  
17 Against the miracles wrought by S. Bernarde, and S. Francis.  
18 In proof of the protestants Churches ever visibility.  
19 In defence of priests marriage.  
20 Against Images.  
21 Against Transubstantiation.  
22 Against the conversion of England, by S. Augustine the Monk.  
23 Concerning the Conversion of Countries.  
24 Against the Pope's Authority in calling of Counsels.  
25 Against merit of works.  
26 Against the Sacrifice of the Mass.  
27 Concerning wafer cakes.  
28 Against the Adoration of the B. Sacrament.  
29 Against the succession of Catholic Pastors.  
30 In defence of Martin Luther's life, and manners.   

The Third Part. Containing divers impertinences, or absurd Illations, or reasonings.  
The 1. Paragraph. Wherein are discovered, strange Illations or arguinge, in proof that the Scriptures are the sole rule of faith: and against Traditions.  
2 Wherein are discussed certain arguments drawn from Scriptures & Fathers, in proof that the sacred Scriptures & the true sense thereof, are made sufficiently known unto us, without any probation, or explication of the Church.  
3 Wherein are examined some of M. Whites profess, against the visibility of the Church.  
4 Wherein are discussed, certain proofs of M. Whytes, in behalf of the protestants marks of the Church.  
5 Wherein are examined strange kinds of Argunges, against the Authority of the Church.    

Faults escaped in the printing.  

In the preface to the University of Cambridge.  
Pag. 1 lin. 10. for iudiceous read judicious.  
Ibid. lin 11. for grearly, read greatly.  
Ibid. pag. 4. lin 27. for judgements, read judgements.  
Ibid. pag. 5. lin. 22. for invisibilites, Inuisibilistes.   

Preface to the Reader.  
Pag. 2. lin. 4. leave out (said work.)  
Pag. 4. lin. 15. for ●nlour, read colour.   

Chapter 1.  
Pag. 4. lin. 25. for justifieth, 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 Anology, read, Analogy.  
Pag. 47. lin. 4. betwixt drunk, and should, insorte, one.  
Pag. 52. lin. 16. & 17. leave out these words, All which your omissions, are impaled and marked, in the said english authority.  
Pag. 52. lin. 20. for Emperor, read, Emperor  
Pag. 53 lin. 14. for disopting, read, dissorting.  
Pag. 53. lin. 23. for perusing, read, pursuing.  
Pag. 64. lin. 14. leave out the word, is.  
Pag. 77. lin. 10. for Chapter, read Chapter.  
Pag. 87. lin. 24. for malivolent, read malevolent.  
Pag. 138. lin. 27. next after the word (Mass) insert affirmeth.  
Pag. 159. lin. 10. betwixt, authority, & the, insert, in.  
Pag. 73. lin. 30. for fully, read foully.  
Pag. 87. lin. 33. for paralayes, read, parallels.  
Pag. 92. lin. 4. for differences, read discoveries.  
Pag. 97. lin. 28. for musk, read music.  
Pag. 114. lin. 24. for proh dolour, read proh pudor.  
Ibid. lin. 27. for clausure, read closure.  
Pag. 118. lin. 33. for entertain, read enteruaine.  
Pag. 125. lin. 12. for concur, read recurre.  
For ingenious, read in sundry places ingenuous.    


WHITE DYED BLACK.  
THE FIRST part. wherein are discovered Forty most foul & uniustifiable corruptions and depravations of Authors used by Doctor white, in his Treatise of the way to the true Church.  

Chapter. 1. Containing Corruptions concerning works & justification.  

Paragr. I. Premonitions given to M. W. if he intend to reply upon this present Treatise.  
WE read (Exod. 13) that the first borne of the people of Israel, was ever consecrated unto god in regard of a grateful acknowledgement of his innumerable benefits showed unto them: and by reason of such his title thereto, god (who had a supreme interest in all their issue) peculiarly pronounced, This is mine. I fear that M. white (who vaunteth himself for a true Israelite) haith not sanctified unto his divine Majesty, this his child, the first borne of the womb of his brain, for books are faetus ingenii, carrying in themselves an inward resemblance to their parents, and withal as perpetuating their remembrance, do extend their lines beyond their lives: Nay I am rather persuaded that he haith particularly devoted it to Gods and man's ghostly enemy. For to whom rather are lies and impostures (the very burden of his Treatise) to be ascribed, then to him who is the father of lies? And sure I am that God who is the truth itself can not be found herein since no man useth to gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles. (Mat. 7.) And M. white himself confesseth that we can not learn truth in the school of lies.  
Now to discover that this work of his is even loaded with many most foul untruths, corruptions, and deceipts, is my task voluntarily imposed by myself and I hope with thy good patience (gentle reader) to perform the same.  
And first according to my former prescribed Method, his perfidious corruptions of fathers & Catholic authors, thereby to force them to speak in a language and dialect of which they were merely ignorant, shall begin the Scene.  
But because as M. white is pregnant in depraving of men's writings, so also he will no doubt show himself ingenious in finding some sleighty evasions and answers, under the tecture whereof to shrewd himself. Therefore I think good now in the front and beginning of this my labour, to set down by way of prevention, all what may be imagined that he can pretend for his defence and Apology, and to discover the weakness thereof, that so his impostures may be observed and perused with greater benefit to the reader, and more shameful guiltiness to himself.  
First then M. white can not transfer the fault upon the printer for hear he stands for the most part chargeable either with adding too, or detracting from the authority alleged (so abastarding it by this mean that the true father thereof would not acknowledge it for his own) whereas the printers error commonly resteth in quotations made by figures, or (by mistaking of some letter) in placing one word for another, oversightes hear forborn, and indeed unworthy to be insisted upon by any judicious pen.  
Secondly he can not say that his intention in alleging such authorities, was only to allege the sense of the Author not tying himself to the authors particular words. Of this evasion he preventeth himself in that he ever undertaketh to allege the particular sayings of the Author, and for that reason doth distinguish them in a different letter from that wherein his own words are printed (a course amongst writers most certain and usual to know when a man delivereth the precise words or sentences of an other) and which is more for the most part he thus ushereth his testimonies, Bellarmine saith, Thomas Aquinas saith, Austin saith, etc. or putteth their names in the mergent: whereby it is not to be doubted but that he would have his reader think, that the Authorities set down, are the very words of the authors themselves, without any variation or change whatsoever.  
Now if he will justify them to be the precise words of the authors without any change either of adding or detracting: then is he to name the particular Editions of such books which he followeth, and wherein the testimonies (as they are alleged by him) are to be found.  
Thirdly where he is charged to corrupt any Authority by concealing for his own advantage any part thereof, he can not justify it by replying, that he is not tied to set down all which his Author saith of that point, since so his Authorities would grow over long and tedious: this is no sufficient answer. For although a writer is not bound to set down all that his alleged Author saith of such a point: yet is he bound not purposely to omit any part of the beginning of the midst, or of the ending of the said sentences which he produceth, especially when the words concealed make for his adversary, and against the drift and scope of that meaning wherein the rest of the sentence is by him delivered. And this kind of omission (whereunto M. white standeth extremely obnoxious, and is in this part following so by me charged) is in the judgement of all writers, a wilful, unpardonable, & uniustifiable corrupting of men's books.  
Fourthly it is no excuse to say, touching such authorities as M. white truly allegeth without adding or detracting (of which kind there are very few if any) that his meaning is only to set down the words of Catholic authors without restraining them to any particular sense which he leaveth to that dangerous and inconvenient exposition which the words in the reader's eye may best seem to afford. This is most false, for there is no Catholic which he justifieth, but he particularly restraineth the sense of his testimony either to the supporting of some point of protestancy, or else to the manteyning of some absurd and scandalous opinion which he obtrudeth upon us. And thus much, besides the often answerable entituling of the pages, his own precedent or subsequent words, do, for the most part, imply.  
fifthly, if his pride would suffer him to descend so low, he can not plaster the martyr in acknowledging that the testimonies hear corrupted, are not of his own reading, but that he relied therein upon the annotations and notebokes of others of the ministry (a refuge whereunto some of his profession have been heretofore driven) and so as being over credulous and confident of his friends supposed allegations, he was by them mistaken. Of this silly & poor evasion, he haith already precluded himself. For in his first Edition (which I here follow) after his Alphabetical Table in the end of his book, he haith made an ambitious note to the reader, that he will (to use his own words) maintain the quotations for substance to be true etc. And again, it is one thing if I have wilfully falsified or forged a place, and an other thing if the printer only 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 giveth he, if in answer to the corruptions and depravations wherewith he is hear charged, he reply, that in good sooth so it is that he did not read the testimonies of the authors themselves, but only took them upon the credit and affiance of such of his own brotherhood as he thought would not have deceived him? A grave & sufficient answer.  
And hear I am to preadmonishe M. white, that I do expect in his answer (if he do intend sincerely and truly to free himself from these imputations) to answer all the corruptions and depravations by themselves as hear they are gathered, and so the lies and falsehoods severally by themselves; as as also the impertinences in like sort, and not promiscuously to jumble and shuffle them together, now seeking to salve a corruption, next a lie, and so by affecting an obscurity, in method, to blear the eye of the reader that he shall not discern what corruptions in his reply he omitteth, and what he maketh show to justify; wherefore I say if he make choice of this obscure course after this premonition, he but bewrays his own guiltiness. And though I can not by the laws of writing impose a method upon my adversaries pen: yet seeing the reason why M. white should affect an other course than I hear wish him, is seen aforehand, and so himself hereby advertised thereof, to be only (by answering so confusedly) to delude and wrong his reader: therefore even for his own honour and credit sake, he can not refuse this desired method which hear I require, especially seeing it is wished only for manifestation of the truth, as being in itself most obvious, facile, & perspicuous.  
Thus much I have thought good (for his greater caution) to instruct the reader with aforehand; and therefore now I will remit him to the ensuing depravations, still wishing him to have his eye (whensoever M. white shall vouchsaife to make answer hereto) intent and fixed upon the corruption objected: neither suffer him to turn the question (as before I touched) from the corruption, to the sense & meaning of the Author (a sleight upon the like occasion used by Plessis against the Bishop of Fureux) & so to entertain the reader with long discourses thereby to divert his myud from the point in question: but let the reader always remember, that the question hear for the most part immediately is, whether such a sentence or testimony is truly and faithfully alleged as it is to be found in the Author himself, without any addition or concealment of words in M. White his behalf, and so briefly whether M. white corrupteth the place or not, still observing that whatsoever M. white saith, if it do not conclude that the testimony is in no sort altered and changed from the words of the Author himself, is (in respect of the point here handled) but idly, extravagantly, & impertinently spoken.   

Paragr. 2. The Rhemistes corrupted concerning merit of works.  
BUT now at the last to come to M. Whytes depravations the which (for more perspicuity) I will range to certain heads: the first whereof shall be such as concern the doctrine of works and justification And to begin with one which as it containeth in itself many foul and strange corruptions: so the injury thereby offered is not to one but to many and those men for their learning and virtue, of worthiest memory, to wit, the english Doctors of Rheims who (if we may believe M. white pag. 238.) fear not to affirm that our works of their very nature, deserve eternal life, the reward whereof is a thing equally & justly answering to the time and weight of the work rather than a free gift, so that God should be unjust if he gave it not. And for this he quoteth in his mergent. Rhem. Annot. upon 1. Cor. 3. 8. & Hebr. 6. 10. But for the plainest and most certain discovery of this brazen faced minister, I will set down the true words of the Rhemistes, who commenting upon those of S. Paul (1. Cor. 3. 8) And every one shall receive his own reward according to his own labour, write as followeth. A most plain text to prove that men by their labours & by the diversities thereof shall be diversly rewarded in heaven: and therefore that by their works proceeding of GRACE., they deserve or merit heaven. Here before I proceed any further, I must charge M. Doctor with a double corruption, first for omitting the word Grace, the true words being works proceeding of Grace, do deserve or merit heaven: 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 dreamt of by the Rhemistes, or by any Catholic Author, yea to defend that works of their own nature do merit, were to renew the heresy long since condemned in the Pelagians by the Roman Church.  
But to go forward, the Rhemistes in this minister's mouth affirm, that the reward is a thing equally & justly answering to the time and weight of the work, rather than a free gift. But in their own words they avouch the contrary. And indeed (say they) this word Reward which in our english tongue may signify a voluntary or bountiful gift, doth not so well express the nature of the latin word, or the greek, which are rather the very stipend that the hired workman or journey man covenanteth to have of him whose work he doth, and is a thing equally and justly answering to the time and weight of his travels and works (in which sense the Scripture saith The workman is worthy of his hire) rather then a free gift: though because faithful men must acknowledge that their merits be the gifts and graces of god, they rather use the word Reward, than hire, stipend, or repayment. etc. Now all that from hence can be gathered are two things, first that the Rhemists affirm that the word Reward, in latin and greek, doth rather signify a stipend or hire then a free gift. Secondly that because faithful men must acknowledge that their merits be the gifts and graces of god, they rather use the word Reward then hire. But now all this while I can not find this sentence cited by M. Wh. that the reward of works is a thing equally & justly answering to the time and weight of the work rather than a free gift. Indeed I find most of the words, but many of them in several lines, and uttered upon several occasions, all which to join and chain together in one continued line or sentence, and thereby to make the Author speak contrary to himself, is a thing easy to perform, but the performance is wicked, shameless, and execrable.  
And give but this liberty of omitting, inserting, & coupling to the Atheist (which yourself M. wait have hear assumed and practised) and you shall find strange positions well manteined by him. For example, the Psalmist speaking of yourself and other such like saith, T●s fool haith said in his heart, there is no god. Now kindly allow him to blot out the word fool, (as you more than foolishly did the word Grace) & to insert in steed thereof, the words wise man (as you according to the wisdom of the world inserted the word Nature) and then observe how easily he will defend from the scriptures that there is no god, seeing according to your scriptures The wise man said in his heart there is no god. But to conclude this knowingly and deliberately to corrupt to the dishonour of your own & Catholic Religion, and to the ruin of your own & other ignorant souls, is to me an argument most convincing, that you are one of those fools who said in his heart there is no god.   

Paragr. 3. Cardinal Bellarmine corrupted concerning justification.  
IN the very first page of his preface to the Reader (so loath it seemed he was to lose any time) he showeth us an other trick somewhat like unto the former. Where by the way I must advertise him that I hold him a man herein impolitic and incautelous, that would not suffer the very face or front of his Treatise to pass unblemished, since the first he rather should have coveted to win the ear of credulity with pleasing insinuations of truth: and then (the judgement of his Reader being once possessed) after to have vented forth his more impure dregss: for we are taught (Io. 2.) that omnis homo primum bonum vinum apponit, & cum inebriati sunt, tum id quod est deterius. But to the depravation pag. 1. of his preface, M. white falsely to intimate to his reader how much the Catholics do disvalue the passion of Christ, thus writeth. The Church of Rome teacheth that justification is wrought by the habit of our own righteousness & not by Christ's. Thus you see how peremptorily he affirmeth without any reservation, that we reject the righteousness of Christ to concur to our justification. Now this he laboureth to prove from a testimony of Bellarmine de justificat. li. 2. ca 2. which he thus setteth down. Our own inherent justice is the formal cause of absolute justification, not the justice of Christ imputed unto us. That we may conceive the true meaning of that learned Cardinal in this place, I will set down his own words in latin, who there discoursing of the causes of our justification 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 justificari propter novi tatem nobis inhaerentem, non propter meritum Christi quod iuhae●e●e non potest: si veró significet causam meritoriam, nos justificari dicemus propter meritum Filii des non propter novitatem in nobis haerentem. That is. In this question whether we be justified propter meritum, for the merit of the Son of God, or for our own renovation of life? I answer. If the word propter, do signify the formal cause, then are we justified through our own newness of life inherent in us and not through the merits of Christ, because they can not inhere in us: (and these are the words alleged by M. white) but if the word propter, do here signify the meritorious cause, then are we justified propter meritum Filii de●, through the merits of the Son of God, & not through any inherent newness or justice in us: And then presently concludeth, ita iustificamur propter v●rumque etc. So we are justified by reason or through them both, to wit, through the merits of the Son of God, meritorié, meritoriously, and through an inherent justice in us formaliter, formally. Thus Bellarmine. Where you see the question is not, as M. white suggesteth, whether Christ's justice doth concur to man's justification (which were a horrible blasphemy to deny) but only in what kind of cause it concurreth: the Catholics teaching that it concurs as the meritorious cause, not as the formal cause, since if it did as the formal cause, then, even according to philosophy, it should really inhere in us, but so it doth not.  
But now to observe M. Whytes calumny & fraud in alleging this testimony. First he purposely concealeth the latter part of the sentence which showeth how we ascribe our justification to Christ, as unwilling that the reader should hear that in any sense we rely thereon. Secondly that whereas this testimony of the Cardinals, even as it is set down by M. white himself, excludeth only Christ's merits as the formal cause of our justification and in none other sense: yet our minister allegeth it to prove that it is no cause thereof at all, & in this respect it is impertinently urged, for in his own words immediately before, without any limitation of the cause, he saith, The Church of Rome teacheth that justification of a sinner is done by the habit of our own righteousness & not by Christ's. And then as I said, allegeth for proof thereof such words of Bellarmine as excludeth only the formal cause thereof. But his sleight here was, that persuading himself that the ignorant reader not knowing what the word formal cause is, or how it is distinguished from other kind of causes, but thinking that it did signify any cause in general, should no sooner see the words of Bellarmine, but then should instantly conclude with himself, here Bellarmine & the Church of Rome teacheth that man's justification is in no sort or manner wrought by the justice of Christ. And thus much of our Doctors deportement herein, who through his subtle feaninge (at his pleasure) what we are supposed to maintain, doth in the mean time endanger and wrong the honour of the worthy and illustrious Cardinal till more full search and disquisition of the truth be made. And thus our poetizing minister (I mean our lying M. white) doth interest himself in the censure of the poet (ovid. li. 2. fast.) fraud perit virtus. Hear now I end this depravation, assuring my reader that Bellarmine is so far of from teaching that Christ's justice doth not necessarily concur to our justification, that in the former alleged Chapter he thus writeth. justitia homini a deo per Christi mer●ta donata est. etc. That is. justice is given by god to man through the merits of Christ. And then presently thus repi●hendeth Kemnitius for his deceit used in this question. Kemnitius fraudulenter egit. etc. kemnitius dealeth fraudulently herein, in that to precure malice against us, he opposeth on the contrary side our late begun renovation, or newness of life, to the merits of the Son of God, as if we prized more our own change or newness of life, though imperfect and late begun, than the most perfect and the most absolute merits of the Son of God.   

The 4. Paragraph. Bellarmine again abused against Merit of works.  
A Gain to take away the doctrine of the merit of works, M white pag. 236, thus writeth. Howsoever our adversaries contend for their merits, yet the learnedest and most judicious men disallow them &c. holding that which I have said to be the sounder doctrine; and so answerably entitleth that page, merit of works rejected by papists themselves. Now in proof that the Catholic Doctors condemn all merit of works, he allegeth among others the foresaid Cardinal thus writing. By reason of the uncertainty of man's own righteousness, & for fear of vain glory, it is the saifest way to repose our whole confidence in the sole mercy & goodness of god. But why think you stayeth the man in that place & passeth no further? You shall know, for the immediate words following in Bellarmine are these. Explico propositionem. Non enim ita accipienda est etc. I explain this proposition (meaning his former sentence) which is not so to be taken as that a man should not labour with all his endeavour to do good works, and that there were no trust to be put in them, or as if they were not to be accounted as true justice, or could not endure the judgement of god: but only this we say, that it is more saife to forgeate after a sort our good works, & to cast our eye upon the sole mercy of god. Thus we see how greedily our minister takes hold of the text and yet concealeth the comment though given by the Author himself. And therefore I appeal to the censure of the judicious if the whole contexture of this testimony, which is urged for the overthrowing of me rites, doth not even depose the contrary, in positively confirming and mantaininge the doctrine of merits. Again what impudence is it in M. white to produce Bellarmine as denying the doctrine of works, when as the subject of this very book (from whence the former words are taken as also of divers other books in that tome) is only to prove that works do merit●. Therefore I will only say that this our Doctor in all dging his proofs and Authorities, carrieth himself perfectly ministerlike: I need not further to express my meaning, since among some things there is such an inward and inseparable association and nearness, as that but naming the one, we are supposed withal implicitly to understand the other.   

The 5 Paragraph. S. Thomas notoriously corrupted against justification by work.  
TO the like effect he depraveth a saying of S. Thomas Aquinas. For pag. 26●. we thus find. Works he not the cause why a man is just before god, but rather the execution and manifestation of his justice, for no man is justified by works, but by the habi●e of faith infused, yea justification is done by faith only. (Aquin. Ro. 3. lect. 4. & Gal. 2. Lect. 4.) Where the reader is to know that the place to the Romans is only spent by S. Thomas against the jews, in coufuting that justification is wrought by performing the ceremonial works of the law, or moral precepts: & therefore he there immediately before the words alleged thus saith (which M. white thought good to conceal) Apostolus loquitur etc. The Apostle doth speak in this Chapter both of all ceremonial and moral works, for works be not the cause etc. to neither of which the Catholics ascribe any justification, but only to work●s done in state of grace, and receiving their virtue from the passion of our Saviour. In like sort in his second reference of S. Thomas which is Gal. 3. Lect. 4., we find the like words in sense which our doctor here allegeth: for there S. Thomas commenting upon that of the Apostle, I do think that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law, thus writeth, Non au●em solum sine operibus caerimonialibus etc. Man is justified not only without the ceremonial works which did not confer grace, but only signified it: but also he is justified without the works of moral precepts, according to that to Titus, etc., and then presently followeth in S. Thomas, ita tamen qnod hoc intelligat etc. yet so that the Apostle here meaneth, sine operibus praecedentibus justitiam, non autem sine operibus consequentibus, without works which go before justice, & not without works following justice, which is the doctrine of all Catholics, who teach that works done out of the state of grace (which are those that do praecedere justitiam) can not justify, but only such as are consequentia, to wit performed after our first justification, and so in state of grace. Thus if M. white had vouchsaifed to hau set down this last part of S. Thomas his sentence (which he most calumniously concealed), the reader would have easily discerned how impertinently these testimonies are alleged against the Catholic doctrine of justification.   

The 6. Paragraph. S. Augustine corrupted against justification.  
The doctor not content to deprave and corrupt modern and more late writers, exerciseth his faculty even in the monuments of the ancient fathers. For pag. 245. the more to depress man's justice, he produceth S. Augustine de Civitate dei le. 19 ●. 27. thus writing. All our righteousness standeth rather in the remission of our sins, then in any perfection of justice.  
The Father's words are these, which I will relate at large in latin for the more full discovery of M. Whites demeanour therein. Ista nostra justitia (quamnis vera sit propter veri boni finem ad quem refertur) tamen tauta est in hac vita ut potius peccatorum remissione constet, quam perfectione virtutum. This our justice (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 remission of our sins then of the perfection of virtues. Here first our minister addeth the word, all, for greater swelling and fullness of speech against our doctrine, which is not in S. Augustine: but this we let pass as a smaller fault. Secondly he leaveth out a parcel of the same sentence, to wit (although our justice be true by reason of the end of the true good whereunto it is referred) in which words S. Augustine acknowledgeth the very Catholic doctrine of justification, to wit, that our justice is true justice, against which this very place is urged. Thirdly he falsely translateth (for his own advantage) those words, quam perfectione virtutum, then in any perfection of justice, where it should be, then in any perfection of virtues. This he did to make S. Augustine's words sound in an ignorant ear more clearly against justice & justification maintained by Catholics. For he can not but know that a man may be truly just, and yet not exercise all virtues in their highest perfection.  
Now that the reader may learn what is the true meaning of S. Augustine in this place: he is to conceive that the drift of that father here is, to sh●w that a man can not live in this life in that perfect and true peace of mind as to exercise virtue and flee vice without all sudden reluctation of our sensuality though we give no assent thereunto: and therefore the title of that Chapter is. De pace seruientium deo etc. Of the peace of such as serve God, whose perfect tranquillity can not be enjoyed in this temporal life. And according to this his title, some few lines after the sentence alleged by M. white, he thus writeth. Nam profecto quanquam imperetur etc. For although reason doth overule vice: yet it doth not overrule without some conflict of vice. And therefore as long as it is exercised in commanding and overruling vice, man haith not perfect peace. But to end this subject of justification, here you see how dexterously our minister haith borne himself, who for the impugning of the same, haith several ways abused the sentences of his Authors, sometimes by insertions of his own as if they were the Author's words: sometimes by taking away and concealing what is there plainly set down: othertimes, though the Authority be truly alleged, yet by violent detortinge and wresting the place from the true intended sense, yea often when the very place strongly fortifyeth that Catholic point or doctrime against which it is there brought. Thus though M. white in his depravations useth several shows and colours: yet they all retain in them one general countenance and look of deceit and falsehood, so as the Poet's sentence here holdeth Fancies non omnibus una, nec diversa tamen.    

Chapter 2. Concerning the reading of the Scriptures.  

The 1 Paragraph. S. Jerome corrupted for the reading of the scriptures by the vulgar people: where also upon occasion given by M. white, it is examined whether S. Jerome was a papist.  
IT being a certain truth that from Scriptures evil understood proceed most heresies, M. white (a faithful friend thereof) well knowing by daily experience that no one thing in truth is more available either for the first beginning or propagation of heresy then general liberty granted to the vulgar people of reading, and expounding the sacred Scriptures, doth thereupon much labour in sundry places in proof of his supposed commodity and necessity thereof: amongst which he grossly abuseth the authority & person of that great and most Catholic Doctor S. Hierome in these words. pag. 22. Hierome writes of Paula a gentlewoman how she set her maids to learn the Scripture, and many of his writings (saith white) are directed to women, commending their labour in the Scripture, & encouraging them thereunto &c. which he would not have done if he had been a papist.  
Hear Christian reader I must confess I rest very doubtful whether the malice of this minister is more to be detested, or his great folly to be admired & pitied: for not contenting himself to corrupt S. Hieromes words and meaning, he will needs infer hereof that S. Hierome was no papist, which how true it is, I will only for this present appeal unto this Epitaph of S. Paula written by this holy Doctor to the Virgin Eustochium and here cited by our protestant minister: whereby if it do not plainly appear by sundry points of religion there mentioned and practised that S. Hierome, S. Paula, and the Bishops, priests, and people of those times were of the same Religion or belief which Catholics now profess, and protestants impugn: that then let me be enroled in the black bill of lying ministers, or coupled in brotherhood with white, as a legitimate son of the father of lies.  
First then S. Hierome undertaking to set down the blessed life and death of the holy woman S. Paula, in proof of his sincere proceeding therein, maketh this protestation. I call jesus to witness and his Saints, yea that very Angel who was keeper and companion of this admirable woman, that I will speak nothing in her favour, or after the manner of flatterers, but for a testimony, and that which is less than her merits, whom the whole world doth praise, priests admire, quires of virgins desire, and troops of Monks and poor people bewail. Is the invocation of Saints and Angels which of necessity supposeth their knowledge? is the belief of every man's proper Angel to guard him? and quires or companies of Virgins and Monks, plain proofs of Catholic or protestant religiou?  
To proceed, S. Hierome describing in particular her pilgrimage to the holy land whereunto he affirmeth that men of all Nations did come; showeth how that prostrating herself before the Cross, she adored at though she had seen our Lord harging thereupon. Entering the Sepulchre, she kissed the stone of the Resurrection etc. & at one thirsting desireth waters, she licked with her faithful mouth the very place of the body where our Lord had laid. Then having visited the pillar at the which our Lord was bound and whipped, and the place where the holy Ghost did descend upon the faithful: she went to Bethelem, where entering our saviours cave, and looking at the holy june of the Virgin, and the stable, after many other devout speeches she uttered these words. And I wretch and sinner am thought worthy to kiss the manger in which our Lord a little babe cried, and to pray in the cave in which the Virgin brought forth our Lord an infant. After this amongst sundry other holy places, she went unto the Sepulchres of the 12 patriarchs where she trembled being affrighted with many wonders, for she saw the devils roar being diversly tormented: and before the sepulchres of the Saints she saw men howling like wolves, barking like dogs, roaring like lions, hissing like serpents, and bellowing like bulls etc. And is not all this with a protestant papistical superstition? Will our white allow of pilgrimage to holy places? or will he with S. Paula prostrate himself before the Cross and worship? will he kiss sacred Relics? or will he attribute such sanctity to the Sepulchres of Saints that in presence thereof devils are tormented? I persuade myself he will not. And yet S. Hierome (with him no papist) relateth the promises to the commendation of Paula.  
But to come nearer the manner of life which S. Paula led, her daily practice being best witness of her belief, having visited with great devotion all the places of the holy land, intending to spend her life in holy Bethelem she stayed there in a strait lodging for the space of three years until she had built Cells, and Monasteries, & Mansions for divers pilgrims: where she lived in such humility as, being attended with many virgins, in her apparel, speech, habit, and going, she was the least or basest of all. After her husband's death, until her own, slenever with any man though she knew him to be holy and a bishop. Baths she went not to but in danger. In her greatest agues she used not soft beds, but reposed on the hard ground covered with hair clothes etc. Thou wouldst have thought fountains of tears to have proceeded from her: yea she so bewailed little sins as that thou wouldst have judged her guilty of greatest crimes etc. Soft linens & precious silks she changed with a sharp hair cloth etc. Her love of poverty was such, as that she desired she might die a beggar, and not to leave one penny to her daughter, yea herself at her death to be wrapped in an others sheet. And as for her diet, her abstinence was such, as that (festival days excepted) she scarce took oil in her meat, by which may be judged (saith S. Jerome) what she thought of wine, of any things molted, of fish, milk, honey, eggs, and the rest which are pleasant to taste. If I should now ask Master white whether his wife for example being no doubt an evangelical sister of highest perfection, himself being often absent about preaching of the word, whether, I say, in his conscience he thinketh her modesty such, as that at such times (to speak sparingly) she doth not often both eat and drink with his clerk and other neighbours: as also whether for the mortifying of the flesh and the quickening of the spirit, she changeth a soft bed into the hard ground, or fine linens into haircloth: and in brief whether without all exceptions of days, not fish, milk, or eggs, but the daintiest flesh and most delicate wine, be meats most welcome to him and her? I doubt not but he will answer me that none of these agreeth with the fashion of these times. But thereto then must I needs reply, that therefore neither must he be much grieved if his foresaid yokefelow grow wanton in the lord, hard bed, hair cloth, and fasting (the best external preservatives against such impurities) being utterly abandoned. And yet if the like question should be proposed unto me in regard of Catholics, all Christian Countries would answer with me, that the said austerities of B. Paula are not only imitated & practised by Religious persons, but even by wives, widows, & Virgins which live in the world.  
But to touch yet one point further, wherein I suppose all protestants will disclaim as being incompatible with their new gospels liberty, which was S. Paula her Monastical life, whereof S. Hierome saith, I will speak of the order of her Monastery etc. Besides the Monastery of men which she had given to men to be governed, she divided the Virgins etc. aswell noble, as of the meanest and lowest degree, into three companies and Monasteries etc. After Alleluia song or sounded, (by which sign they were called to Collect or prayer) it was not lawful for any of them to stay etc. In the morning, at the Third hour, at the sixth, the Ninth, Even song, and Midnight, they sung the Psalter by order or course.  
And now followeth Whytes proof of their protestancy, neither was it lawful for any of the Sisters to be ignorant of the Psalms, or not to learn something daily out of the sacred Scriptures. But what is this against us, who allow not only Religious women such as these wear, (Whom M. white most fraudulently calleth Paul's maids) but even the laity to read the Scriptures, supposing they be known to be humble, discreet, and virtuous. And yet in what manner S. Paula herself, & her daughter Eustochium being both well learned, did it, S. Hierome a little after expresseth in these words. 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 entreaties, I performed, that so I might teach what I had learned, not of myself, that is presumption the worst master, but of the famous men of the Church. And when in any point I doubted and ingeniously confessed myself to be ignorant, yet she would not rest but with daily entreaty enforced me out of many and divers senses, to show that which to me seemed most probable.  
Would not any man think this minister distracted, thus producing against us that which confoundeth himself? Do not these Religious women in reading of the Scriptures require S. Hierome a Priest for their master? Doth not he profess 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 plainly and humbly acknowledge his doubting and ignorance in his explication thereof; none of which I am sure is orthodoxal with protestants.  
But to return to S. Paula and her Virgins in the monastery. They had all one habit alike; Lynnens they used only for wiping of their hands. Their separation from men was such, as she severed them even from eunuchs. Besides sustenance and apparel, she suffered them not to possess any thing. Such as were talkatyve & unquiet, she caused (in penance) to pray at the door of the refectory & to eat alone.  
I might recite many other like, but these abundantly prove that M. Whytes maids were indeed nuns or Religious women, whereof good store to gods greater glory even our Counrtie doth as yet daily afford.  
Now for a conclusion I will briefly note what S. Hierome relateth of her death. As first having offered up many devout prayers unto god almighty, being almost speechless, she signed her lips with the sign of the Cross, a devotion also used in her life time, as imputing much virtue thereunto, which S. Hierome before, mentioned in these words. When she had signed her mouth and her stomach, endeavouring by the impression of of the Cross to mitigate her grief. etc. At her death were present the bishops of Jerusalem, and of other Cities, and an innumerable multitude of priests & levites, yea all the Monastery was filled with Virgins and Monks, Some of the Bishops carried the Coffin, and the rest going before carried Lamps and CANDLES, and Led the Singers. etc. In the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syrian Language Psalms were song, not only for three days, but even for a whole week. And in the end of all, this blessed Doctor as supposing her in heaven, invocateth saying. a Farewell o Paula, 
Vale o Paula & Cultoris tui vltimam se nectutem ora tionibus iwa 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 works do join thee with Christ, being present thou shalt obtain more easily what thou askest.  
Out of these premises I may easily infer that not only S. Jerome, but even th' bishops, priests, & people of his time, did wholly agree with us Catholics in the points following. viz, (1) Worshipping and Invocation of Saints. (2) That every one haith an Angel guardian or keeper. (3) Pilgrimage to holy places. (4) Adoration of the Cross: (5) and signing the body with the sign thereof. (6) Kissing and reverencing of Relics. (7) Tormenting of devils at the Sepulchres of Saints (8) Building of Monasteries and profession of Monastical life. (9) Voluntary poverty. (10) Wearing of haircloth and no linens at all: and lying upon the ground in steed of a bed. (11) Abstinence from flesh, wine, & other dainty meats upon devotion. (12) Keeping set hours of prayer, as in the morning, at the Third, the sixth, the Ninth, Evensong, and a Midnight. (13) The difference of little and great sins. (14) The unlearned reading the Scriptures having a learned man for their Master. (15) The learnedst confessing their doubting and ignorance in their explication of the Scriptures. (16) bishops and Priests a singing & carrying of Candles in the day time at the burials of the dead. (17) Church service song & used in the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syrian languaged. And for the Conclusion as including many things in one, remember S. Ieromes prayer made to S. Paula after her death. Vale o Paula, & Cultoris tui vlt●●am senectu●●● orationibus iwa: fides & opera tua Christo te sociant, praesens facilius quod postulas imp●trabis.  
And now let any man judge whether S. Jerome was a papist; as also what wisdom, learning, or honesty M. white showeth in objecting that which but truly seen and considered, doth manifestly confound and condemn himself.   

The 2. Paragraph. S. Cyrill of Alexandria abused for the same purpose.  
It was the reproach (saith white pag. 22) that julian the Tpostatalaide on Christians, that their women were meddlers with the Scriptures: and from him the papists have borrowed it: for which he citeth Cyril. Alex. jul. l. 6. If our Minister had cited julian reprehending the ancient Christians of his time for not Adoring jubiter, & adoring the Cross, and making the sign thereof in their foreheads, and upon houses (the lawfulness and profit whereof S. Cyrill defendeth) he might have truly showed what himself & other heretics had borrowed from julian in impugning the worship of the Cross, and signing therewith: but in that which he objecteth in the behalf of women meddling with Scriptures, himself borroweth from julian the liberty of lying, for julian only reprehendeth Christ and his Apostles, for that for that they propounded the heavenvly preaching unto all calling unto their doctrine men and women of baifer sort, which S Cyrill defendeth, showing thereby the benignity of our Saviour, but as for mention of the Scriptures or women meddling therewith, he haith no word at all: our black-whyte haith only invented it to prove himself a true Apostata.    

Chapter. 3. Concerning the Church & the Pope.  

The 1. Paragraph. Vincentius Li●inensis wilfully corrupted in proof that the true Church may err.  
WE will now take into our consideration his corrupt proceeding concerning the supposed general erring of the whole Church, not remembering that in regard of Christ's solicitude, care, & affection to his Spouse, it is said Cant. 1. My well-beloved is a cluster of Cypre unto me in the vineyards of Engaddi. That the universal Church may err he laboureth to evict from the testimony of old Vincentius Lirinensis whom our minister pag. 83. maketh thus to speak Adverse. proph. novit. ca 4. Not only some portion of the Church, but the whole Church itself is blotted with some new contagion. Observe the true words of this Father, and then you can not but admire to find such Blackness in white, and such perfidiousness in him who styleth himself a minister of God's word, for thus the words do lie in latin. (Quod si) novella aliqua contagio non iam portiunculam tantum sed toram pariter ecclesiam commaculare (conetur.) What is to be done if, some contagion (shall endeavour) to blot not any one part, but the whole Church? then (saith he further) must a man be careful to cleeve to antiquity. Now here our D. abuseth his reader in two sorts: one way in concealing the word Conetur, and so commaculare conetur he translateth is blotted, and consequently making Vincentius to confess (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 endeavour to blot the whole Church. But who knoweth not that every thing which is endeavoured to be effected, is not actually effected? Another way in delivering these words in a categorical and absolute Ennuntiation which are hypothetical or spoken merely of a supposal as appeareth by the first words Quid si, which M. white thought good not to translate. The difference of which two kind of propositions, is very markable as every young Sophister knoweth: as for example if a man do say, what if divers of Suffolk do report that M. white is extremely given to his belly & to Epicurism, and to say. divers of Suffolk report that M. white is extremely given to his belly and to Eicurisme: where we see the first is merely of a doubtful surmise and supposition, the second is a peremptory and absolute proposition that they do so reporte● the truth or falsehood whereof (notwithstanding any intelligence whatsoever) I here quietly pass over.   

The 2. Paragraph. The Rhemistes corrupted for the Church's invisibility.  
Now to the next point which consisteth in the maintaining of a Mathematical, aety, & invisible Church: for the vphoulding whereof among others he strengtheneth his cause with the supposed confession of the Rhemistes, thus bringing the whole College of Rheims upon the stage to speak in the dialect of protestants: and so sorteably thereto he styleth that page 88 and some other pages in this manner. The Papists also say the Church it invisible. The words wherewith he chargeth them in this point are these, upon the 2. Thes. ca 2. It is very like (be it spoken under the correction of God's Church and all learned Catholics) that this great defection or revolt, shall not be only from the Roman Empire, but especially from the Roman Church, and withal from most points of Christian Religion: for that near to the time of Antichrist and the consummation of the world, there is like to be a great revolt of Kingdoms, People, and Provinces from the external open obedience and communion thereof. For the few days of antichrist's reign, the external state of the Roman Church, and the public intercourse of the faithful with the same may cease.  
Here good Reader let me entreat thee to arrest & stay thine eye and judgement a while, to observe what strange corruptions he is forced to practise before he 〈◊〉 make an Israelite to speak a Babylonians language. This place as you find it here urged, beareth a fair show to prove by the Rhemistes confession, that the Church may sometimes be invisible: and yet in this very place being truly set down in their own words, they do affirm that the Church shall at no time be invisible. Their true words are these. It is very like (be it spoken under correction of God's Church and all learned Catholics) that this great defection and revolt, shall not be only from the Roman Empire, but especially from the Roman Church, and withal from most points of Christian religion (not that the Catholic Christians either in the time of Antichrist or before, shall refuse to obey the same, but) for that near to the time of Antichrist and consummation of the world, there is like to be a great revolt of Kingdoms, people, and Provinces, from the open external obedience & communion thereof. etc. when for the few days of Antichristes reign, the external state of the Roman Church, and public intercourse of the faithful with the same way cease (yet the due honour and obedience of Christians towards it, and Communion in heart with it, and practise thereof in secret and open confession thereof (if occasion require) shall not cease, no more than it doth now in the Christians of Cyprus and other places where open intercourse is forbidden.  
Here now the parcels of this testimony which are purposely omitted, do show that the Rhemistes do even peremptorily affirm that god's Church shall never (no not in the time of Antichristes greatest persecutions) be latent and invisible. Thus doth our M. you see upon a sudden break of with the Rhemistes in alleging their words: yet after some line or two courteously joineth with them again, and then after that once more unkindly leaves them to themselves: & all this in one poor testimony. And here good reader thou art to take notice of an other sleight of our minister touching this particular place. For whereas he in the first Edition of his book, which I here follow, setteth down the Rhemistes words, as thou seest above, in no sort intimating that any one word of their said testimony is pretermitted: he in some other of his Editions (as it should seem being advertised that this his egregious corruption was espied by his adversaries, & thought therefore in some sort to salve the matter) haith at the last words where he breaketh of from the rest of the whole sentence, added a virgula, or line as this,— ingeniously forsooth to acknowledge that he omitteth some part of the sentence. But this I say availeth him nothing: for first it doth not warrant his sincerity in his first Edition. Again, though in alleging of a testimony we are not bound to set down every word thereof, yet (as I have before premonished) that which is omitted aught to be impertinent to the main point for which the testimony is produced. But subtilely to pretermit with an etc. or some such like mark, that which punctually doth touch or explicate the true sense of the sentence alleged, & that directly contrary to that construction there pretended (as here it falleth out: it is no less than most impious corrupting and corrading of other men's writings. And therefore I say M. white is nothing advantaged hereby, but doth for the time plaster one evil with an other evil: but no marvel, for it is a high mystery amongst heretics to support deceit with deceit, till at the length all do tumble down with it own weight, and so erit novissimus error petor priori. Mat. 7.   

Thr 3 Paragraph. S. Augustine corrupted concerning the same subject of the Church's invisibility.  
In like sort pag. 103. he allegeth S. Augustine de bap. con. Don. li. 6. ca 4. thus to say. The Church may be so obscured, that the members thereof shall not know one an other. S. Augustine's words are these & none other: Idem spiritus Sanctus ea dimitit qui datus est omnibus sanctis sibi Charitate cohaerentibus sive se noverint corporaliter sive non noverint. The same holy Ghost which it given to all the Saints (or holy men) agreeing together in Charity, whether they know one an other or not, remitteth the sins. But what is this to the invisibility of the Church? or by what Sintax or Grammar can M. W. translate thus the former latin lines? Finally by what sublimation or art can he extract such a refined sense from the bare minerals of the former words. Neither can he slubber the matter over in saying that he here gathereth only some necessary Illation, proving the Church's latency: for the sentence alleged by him is set down in a different letter of character from his own, and he there particularly giveth them as the very words. Now S. Augustine in that place, doth not so much as glance at the Church's visibility or invisibility, but there showing how sins are remitted as effectually by the bad priests as the virtuous, proveth it by Anology of reason, to wit, that the power of the holy Ghost may aswell be given to a wicked Priest, as to a good and virtuous, as it is given alike to all the godly though they know not one an other. But M. white finding that parcel of the sentence, sine noverint se corporaliter sive non noverint, to be meant of the faithful and virtuous, thought presently that he lighted upon a booty, and so hoping thereby to entrap the incautelous reader, was the more easily induced to create the world of this his depravation out of a mere nothing of a sound of words. And thus far of his corruptions touching the Church's invisibility: from the maintaining whereof we Catholics do so far disclaim as that even in the most tempestuous and raging times of persecution that either have or shall happen, we acknowledge innumerable members thereof to be ever visible, and in faith permanent and unmovable: for we read that the beams of the house of Christ his Spouse are Cedars, the rafiens are of fir. Can. ●.   

The 4. Paragraph. Doctor Stapleton abused in behalf of the Protestants marks of the Church.  
The next corruption which I here will show shall be concerning the marks of the Church, wheary he to prove that we absolutely embrace the marks thereof delivered by the Protestants, to wit, the proaching of the word, as acknowledging it to be a more infallible mark to every Christian, than our Catholic marks are, Antiquity, Succession, Universality, etc. all which notes he after endeavoureth to confute. To this end (I say) pag. 105. he produceth Doctor Stapleton thus writing. princip. doctrinal. li 1. ca 22. The preaching of the Gospel is the proper and a very clear note of the Catholic Church, so it be done by lawful Ministers.  
Mark hear how he declareth this author's meaning by concealing the words in him that there are immediately subjoined, for thus that Catholic Doctor. Praedicationem Euangelii. We grant that the preaching of the Gospel by lawful Ministers, is a very clear and proper note of the Catholic Church (H●c est enim ordinaria etc. for by this is that ordinary and perpetual Succession of Bishops, priests, and Pastors d●ryued in a continued order even from the Apostles themselves to us.) From which latter part of the sentence purposely omitted by M. W. it is evident that D. Stapleton doth allow the preaching of the Gospel by lawful pastors, so far forth only to be a note of the Church, as it is included in the Catholic note of Succession and in no other sense: which point is made more clear (besides his main drift in that Chapter & divers others of the said book being to confute the Protestants notes) by the said Doctors words also concealed by M. white, which do immediately precede the sentence urged by him. For there speaking of the preaching of the Gospel, and of the ministration of the Sacraments, he saith. Ad●menta & ornamenta. These are further ●●●es & ornaments of the true Church, non ipsius nota & insignia, but not marks or signs thereof. Here you see how jeweshsly M. white haith circumcised this poor Authority in paring away both the first and latter part thereof. But seeing his inexcusable faultiness not only in this place but in most of his depravationes, is to set down one part of a testimony and fraudulently to hide an other part: let him remember the greovous punishment inflicted by the Apostle upon Ananias for bringing half, and concealing the other half. Act. 5.   

The 5. Paragraph. Gregory Valentia corrupted in behalf of the Protestants marks of the Church.  
In proof of the Protestants marks of the Church, to wit. Truth of doctrine and administration of the Sacraments, M. white pag. 137. allegeth Valentia Com. Theol. Tom. 3. disp. 1.9.1. punct. 7. parag. 18. saying. Among whomsoever the truth of Doctrine and Sacraments are holden: thereby it is known the Church is there. But for the true displaying of this baise juggling minister, I will set down the words at large as that learned Author delivered them himself. Nos autem fatemur (saith he) neque veritate d●ctrinae neque legitimo sacramentorum usu Ecclesiam Christi carere posse: & apud quos haec omninó sint salva, exiis constare veram Ecclesiam. Sed negamus tamen veritatem doctrinae, & legitimum sacramentorum usum, idoneas notas esse discernendae Ecclesiae'. But we confess that the Church of Christ can neither want truth of doctrine, nor lawful use of Sacraments, 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 lawful use of Sacraments, to be fit marks of discerning the Church.  
Here M. Doctor first I must admire the profundity of your indgment, producing, by an unknown kind of policy, a most famous learned man contradicting himself in one and the same sentence, yea not only contradicting the title of his disputation which is the marks of the Church which the sectaries assign are evidently confuted, but even the many and different profess which for six pages he continueth against the said marks assigned by protestants. But because this so great an oversight is more than probable, let us examine briefly your demeanour towards him. You allege in a different letter as though they were the Authors express words, these following. Among whomsoever the truth of doctrine and Sacraments are holden: thereby it is known the Church is there. Himself 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 marks by which it is to be known, as though there wear no difference betwixt the members of the Church, & the external badges & tokens whereby the said church is discerned. But peradventure you will pretend for your excuse, the alleging in the mergent of your book these latin words, ex us constare veram Ecclesi●m. But the truth is this doth rather plead you guilty of gross ignorance in not knowing how to translate aright, or as I rather think, of laboured and affected malice, who having seen and perused the place, would so desperately produce it against the manifest sense of the words and the direct intention of the Author. And though the word constare, doth not only signify to consist or stand, but sometimes likewise to be manifest or known, yet in the place cited neither the words precedent nor subsequent, nor the scope or ●rift of the Author will permit it, yea they all convince and conclude the contrary. But if it were lawful for me M. white in words Amphibologicall which have a double sense, without all respect either to the subject or matter treated, the intention of the speaker, or other circumstance, to translate or apply the word only for mine own advantage: I would easily defend against your learnedest Doctorship, sund●y of the celestial signs to be living and sensible creatures, and so much more to be estee●ed t●en yourself: for I would likewise, upon the same ●round, defend yourself to be no substance, but a mere accident: Into such gross absurdities doth your beggarly heres●e ever plunge you.   

The 6 Paragraph. Bellarmine egregiously corrupted against the Marks of the Church.  
M. white desiring to extenuate the worth, and to obscure the splendour of those glorious marks which the Catholic Church as so many clear rays most plentifully affordeth, produceth pag. 137. Cardinal Bellarmine as saying. They make it not evidently true, that is the Church, but evidently probable. Here M. D. as it seems wanted lantorne and candle light: but most certainly he wanted either honesty, or knowledge, or both: in best confirmation whereof, I will only set down the words of Bellarmine himself the notes eccls lib. 4. ca 3. Est autem initio obseruandum, Ecclesiam Catholicam esse etc. It is in the beginning to be observed that the Catholic Church is a Soon which on every side poureth out the clearest beams of light, so that by them she may most easily be known. For she haith many Marks or testimonies, and signs which discerneth her from all false religions of Pagans, jews, heretics. And they do not make it evidently true that she is the true Church of God, but yea they make it evidently `credible: for that is said evidently true that is seen either in itself or in it principles: that is said evidently credible which is not seen either in itself or in it principles, yet (which) haith so many, and so grave Testimonies, as that every wise man deservedly aught to believe it.  
Here the minister, all excuses set apart, must needs confess that he haith falsely corrupted the text of Bellarmine, changing this parcel evidently credible, into evidently probable, between which two there is no less difference, then betwixt himself and an honest man, which is not small. For example, if but one hundredth of learned and sincere writers, should confess that D. white had corrupted th●● books in sundry places, this confession would make it evidently credible that D. white were an impostor, or deceiver, a mercionary minister and the like: but if only two or three should avouch it & as many of equal authority deny it, than it were but evidently probable: If the matter were brought to this issue, himself would plainly see the greatest difference betwixt these two. And I dare boldly say that with lesser labour I will ●●panell an hundredth, who will all give their verdictes against his foulest forgeries, than himself a couple to answer in his behalf.  
But speak M. white (once) in good sincerity, why did you translate it evidently probable? was it to make the Cardinal for his learning and sanctity most Illustrious, to speak as ignorantly as a protestant minister? Do not your so foul and frequent corrupting of his writings, make it more than probable, yea evidently credible, that no other means is left you to evade the force of his Arguments? Well my wholesome advise is this, if you presume to read Bellarmine, be less conversant with Bacchus.   

The 7. paragraph. S. Thomas foully corrupted concerning the pope's authority.  
M. white is not ashamed to affirm that we take all authority and sufficiency from the Scripture, & give it to the Church, & finally the Church's authority to the Pope. and thereupon insinuateth that we hold that the Pope at his pleasure is able even to stamp or create a new faith or Crede never afore heard of. To this end he allegeth pag. 68 this saying out of S. Thomas. 2. ●●. quest 1. ar. 10. The making of a new Crede belongeth to the Pope as all other things do which belong to the whole Church, thus insimulating all Catholics within this error as holding that the change of the articles of our Crede, resteth upon the change of the Pope's mind therein.  
For the fuller discovery of this diabolical depravation (for I can term it no better) I will here set down at large the words of S. Thomas. Thus than he saith. Ad solam authoritatem Summi Pontificis pertinet nova Editio Symbols etc. A new Edition of the Crede, belongeth to the Pope, as all other things do which concern the whole Church. And then some few lines after followeth (which belike the Doctor's hand would have ached to have written down. Haec nova Editio Symboli, non quidem aliam fidem continet, sed eandem magis expositam. This new Edition of the Crede containeth not an other faith but the former more fully explicated. Here our minister haith practised his profession of corrupting two ways, first in translating nova Editio Symboli, The making of a new Crede, whereas it should be The new Edition of the Crede thus causing the newness to consist in the newness of our belief or Crede, and yet as you see in S. Thomas the word new, is joined only with the Edition or explication of the Crede. Secondly in retaining from the Reader those other latter words which do express S. Thomas his meaning therein, to wit, that no new faith or Crede contrary to the first is decreed thereby, but the former only is more fully explicated, the reason whereof he thus delivereth even in the same paragraph. In doctrina Christi & Apostoloris etc. The truth of faith is sufficiently explicated in the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles: but because wilful men do pervert, to their own destruction, the doctrine of the Apostles and Scriptures: therefore it was necessary that there should be in process of time, an explication of faith against all ensuing errors. Here you have manifested the true reason of S. Thomas his former words: and consequently here is discovered i uncharitable impudence of our minister, to divorce the said words from their legitimate and main sense: but it seemeth that he professing himself a public adversary to the catholic Religion, thinketh it justifiable to impugn the same by any deceitful or indirect stratagems whatsoever. Dolus an virtus quis in host requirat. Virg.   

The 8 Paragraph. Doctor Stapleton corrupted concerning the same subject.  
In like sort to show to his Reader what supposed transcendency of sovereignty and power the Catholics give to the Pope: he, pag. 68 thus writeth. Stapleton Praefat. princip. fidei doctrinal. saith. The foundation of our Religion is of necessity placed upon the authority of this man's teaching (meaning of the Pope) in which we hear god h●m self speaking. In all that Preface I assure thee good Reader, there is no such saying at all; 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 ascribe to Christ jesus only. Secondly that we bear the ignorant in hand that we account the Pope as an other God: the nearest words in that Preface that can bear any resemblance at all to these, I will here set down. Quae prima sunt fidei nostrae elementa etc. Such points as are the first elements or principles of our faith, and yet the baises or foundation thereof as the true Catholic and Apostolic Church of God, the necessary and infallible power of the Church to teach and judge matters of faith, the persons in whom this power remaineth, the means which the said persons, aught and are accustomed to use in judging and teaching, the chief heads or branches about which this power is exercised, as to determine some certain and authentical Canon of Scripture, to give the undoubted and authentical interpretation thereof, and finally (besides the decreeing of the Canon of the Scripture) to deliver and command the unwriten. Articles of faith: all these I say, which are principia doctrinalia, doctrinal principles of our faith, and which do teach, confirm, and explain, the same, the heretics of our unfortunate time, have most foully denied, contaminated, and depraved.  
How many wheels and deductions of inferences here need we before we can draw out M. Whytes alleged sense, and yet he delivereth it in a different letter with the ushering words of, Stapleton saith, as though they were the very precise words of the said Author; or what is given more to the Pope then to the rest hear specified? Yet our minister blushed not to particularyze, what here is spoken in respect of the principles of faith in general, only to the pope. Again, his sleight further appeareth in taking the word foundation, in an equivocal and double sense, for he will needs accept it (to make the saying more odious) for that which is an essential and primitive foundation of faith, (which is Christ jesus) whereas D. Stapleton here meaneth (according to the title of his book) Principia fidei doctrinalia, only Doctrinal principles or Secondary foundations, which as himself saith fidem docent, confirmant, explicant, do teach, confirm, and explain our faith. Thus the further we dog him in his allegations, the more we shall be assured that depraving and strangely detorting the writings of Catholic Doctors, and the Fathers, is (among the rest) those feeble supports whereupon his cause leaneth.   

The 9 paragraph. S. Cyprian strangely handled against Appeals to Rome.  
It haith ever been the course of former heretics not only with contumelies to disgrace the deserved renown of the Popes and Church of Rome, but also with their subtlety and corruption falsely to detract from their just authority and prerogatives. In which kind our minister (to show himself lawfully descended) in proof of his dislike of Appeals from other bishops to the bishops of Rome: produceth pag. 188 S. Cyprian in these words, Nay Cyprian saith. The unity of bishops is broken, when even run from their own, to the bishop of Rome. which words (if they had been true) being much material, caused me diligently to peruse the Epistle quoted: but indeed agreeable to my expectation, I found none such, and therefore truly deemed them to be framed in the furnace of M. Whytes forgeries.  
And though in the Epistle cited, S. Cyprian reprehendeth certain heretics, who being judicially convicted in afric, sailed to Rome with the merchandise of their lies ● endeavouring by their subtle and cunning rashness, to break the concord of bishops, yet was he so far from disproving of any lawful Appeal to Rome, as that in the same place he avoucheth Rome to be the Chair of Peter, and principal Church from whence priestly unity ariseth: yea he scorned the said heretics as not knowing the Romans to be those unto whom untruth could have no access: and withal further affirming that the truth should sail after them to Rome, which with proof of the thing certain should convince their lying tongues. All which doth plainly make known S. Ciprianes true conceit of Rome's superiority: and indeed doth strongly confirm our Catholic doctrine concerning Appeals. For if those heretics censured by the bishops of afric to avoid their present punishment appealed to Rome: no doubt this argueth that Appeals to Rome were in use as then, and though the Appellantes were heretics, yet in that otherwise their Appeal had been plainly, vain, foolish, and fruitless: it manifestly supposeth the foresaid Authority of admitting Appeals to reside in the bishop of Rome. Further though S. Cyprian reprehended them being lawfully convicted for their further Appealing and not submitting themselves to their immediate Pastors: yet doth he nowhere so much as insinuate upon just occasions the unlawfulness of Appeals, but even in this very place doth imply the contrary by his sending after the foresaid heretics to the Roman Church to inform her of the truth: which, if it had not been in regard of her foresaid Superiority or Primacy, had been altogether needless, & peradventure inconvenient.  
And whereas M. white a little before citeth these words of S. Cyprian, unless peradventure a few desperate and graceless persons think the Authority of the bishops in afric that judged them to be less: it is plain by the text that he maketh not this comparison with the Bishop of Rome, but with those heretical bishops which were censured and condemned by the bishops of afric. To conclude when M. white showeth me in the Epistle cited of S. Cyprian these words objected, the unity of bishops is broken, when men run from their own to the bishop of Rome: I will publicly declaim him the cuningest Optician, or rather Magician, that the whole ministry of England affordeth.   

The 10 Paragraph. The Rhemists abused concerning the Authority of the Church  
Again pag. 119. our fraudulent Doctor laboureth much to induce his credulous Readers to believe; that we hold that the Church can at her pleasure make that Scripture which is not, and unmake that which once is scripture, thereupon saying, that the papists have a principle among them, that the Scripres receive all their authority from the Church. he seeketh to prove it in the next lines from a testimony of the Rhemistes gal. 6. thus alleging them. The Scriptures are not known to be true, neither are Christians bound to receive them, without the attestation of the Church. Here again he curtayleth their sentence, concealing such their words as do limit the Church's authority therein, and wherein they do acknowledge an infallible truth of the Scriptures before any approbation of the Church: therefore you shall have their words alleged at large. The Scriptures (say they) which are indeed of the Holy Ghosts enditing, being put into the Church's trial, are found proved and testified unto 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 themselves were always true before) but not so known to be to all Christians, nor they so bound to take them.  
Here the Rhemistes only say that the truth of the Scriptures can not be made known to us without the attestation of the Church: And that this is all which M. white can collect from this testimony which we willingly grant. Yet where the Rhemistes in this very place do use words of reverence to the Scriptures & embrace their infallibility, as these, The Scriptures are not made true, altered, or amended by the Church. And again, without the attestation of the Church, the holy Scriptures in themselves were always true: As also where it is set down by them in the mergent even in that place. The Church maketh not canonical 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 manner most calumniously overskipped. Thus it will still be found that the sphere of this his learned Treatise (what glorious motion soever it seemeth hitherto to have in the sight of his ignorant favourites) turneth upon the poles of shame full corruptions, & lying deceipts.   

The 11. Paragraph. Cardinal Cusanus corrupted concerning the same subject.  
Again continuing his former project. pag. 51. he bringeth in the Cardinal Cusanus saying Epist. 3. pa. 3. When the Church changeth her judgement; God also changeth his. This he urgeth to make us maintain that God doth so subject his judgement to the church, that supposing (for it is a mere supposal) the church should alter or change any essential or fundamental point of faith whatsoever, by interpreting the Scripture otherwise then before it did (for M. white setteth this sentence down without any restraint, & so conformably thereto styleth the page, The sense of Scripture changed with the time) that then god also doth change his mind therein so warrantiug the truth of this new stamped article. But let us see how the words do lie in Cusanus, thus they are. Sicut quondam coniugium praeferebatur Castitati etc. As in former times (meaning in the firster ages of the world) matrimony was preferred by the Church before Chastity: so was it preferred even by God. But after the judgement of the Church being changed therein (meaning after the world was fully peopled) gods judgement it changed also. (If therefore the Church doth judge any act to be of great merit in regard of the present circumstances, and in an other time after shall judge an other act to be of greater value, etc. it is evident that the greatness of the merit doth much depend upon the judgement of the Church. Thus what is here spoken only of the diversity of merit of one and the same action according to the different circumstances of time or place: M. white will needs extend (besides the intention of the Author) to the change of any dogmatical point how great soever of Religion's and this he doth by nakedly setting down one line which is the midst of the period, but subtilely according to his manner omitting both the words precedent (wherein the instance is given, and whereunto the sense of the former sentence is peculiarly tied) as also the words subsequent containing the reason thereof. But it seemeth he haith vowed with himself never to allege any one testimony ingeniously and plainly, seeing his true quotations (i● any such be) may, for their quantity, be engraven within a ring, whereas his wilful depravations do stretch beyond all reasonable dimension.   

The 12 Paragraph. The Canon Law corrupted concerning the Pope.  
In nothing more doth M. white manifest or continue his implacable hatred or his dexterity in falsification, then against the Church and Pope of Rome: amongst many take this example following. pag. 433. I am afraid (saih he) I have been to bold in meddling with these matters: for the Church of Rome haith a Law within herself, that it is (and then followeth in a different letter as though they were the words of the Canon law) sacrilege to reason about the Pope's doings whose murders are excused like Sampsons', and thefts like the Hebrues, & Adultries like Jacob's. But here I must charge you with much fowl demeanour: for first you affirm that the words cited are a Law of the Roman Church, whereas they are only taken out of the gloss or comment, which is a thing much different, and of incomparable less authority than the Law itself. Secondly whereas in the Law it is disputed what censure is to be given when the case is doubtful whether the Pope haith sinned or Noah, as by committing adultery or murder: to which it is answered, that in that case it is to be presumed in the Pope's behalf, yea (saith the glosser in this case) sacrilegii instar esset disputare de facto suo. Vel dic quod facta Papae accusantur ut homicidia Samsonis, & surta Hehraeorum, & adulterium jacob. It were like Sacrilege (in that doubtful case) to dispute of his fact. Or say that the deeds of the Pope are accused as the murders of Samson, the thefts of the Hehrues, & the Adultery of jacob. What is here spoken in defence of the pope which every Christian ought not to perform in defence of his neighbour, to wit, in a case doubtful, to think and speak the best? Are not those facts of Samson, the Hebrues, and jacob, piously censured by the learnedst Doctors? But with what front do you avouch so absolutely and in general, that according to the law of the Roman Church it is sacrilege to reason about the Pope's doings, whereas the glosser saith only In dubiis etc. when the case is doubtful of the Pope's fact, instar sacrilegii etc. It were like Sacrilege to dispute of his fact. Will you of doubtful premises infer an absolute conclusion? Would you take it kindly if in a case (admitting it but doubtful) whether a certain minister had been drunk, should absolutely affirm that the protestants Church haith a Law within herself, that it is Sacrilege to reason about ministers doings, whose drunkenness is excused as noah's etc.   

The 13. Paragraph. Bellarmine corrupted against the● Pope's Authority.  
As the former depravations were practised in overmuch advancing and extolling the Authority of the Church and Pope: so here on the contrary part he falsely allegeth Bellarmine extenuating and lesning the said power: For thus entytling the page 167. The papists themselves refuse the Pope's judgement, he laboureth to make good this assertion from the confession of Bellarmine, who the Rom. Pon. lib. 4. ca 7. speaking of S. Cyprian withstanding Pope Stephen touching rebaptisation; writeth (as M. white saith) that after the Pope's definition, it was free for Cyprian to think otherwise: our minister intimating hereby to the Reader, that Bellarmine maintaineth, that it is lawful to believe contrary to that which is once defined as a matter of faith by the Pope. Here again he bestows on his Reader a broken sentence leaving of in the midst thereby to avoid the setting down of what is most material, for Bellarmine's words are these. Fuit enimpost Pontificis definitionem. etc. It was lawful after the definition of the Pope to think otherwise 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 general Council, but only in the mean time willed the ancient custom to be observed) And then after, Stephanus non defiviuis rem illam tanquam de fide. P. Stephen did not define the matter as a point of Faith, yet he commanded earnestly that heretics should not be rebaptysed.  
See here now the integrity of our minister, who purposely concealeth that part of the sentence which isexpresly contrary to that sense in the which he allegeth the former words thereof. For Bellarmine understandeth by the words post definitionem, after it was commanded that rebaptisation should not be used, and not after it was sententially defined as an article of faith (as M. wait seemeth to force.) Now Catholics do grant that it is lawful to hold or believe contrary to the practice of what the Pope commandeth, so that we do● according to his commandment, and as long as the matter itself is not definitively decreed by the Pope for a dogmatical point of our belief; & thus much thereof, from whence we may discern the Ministers inveterate hatred against the head of God's Church, who answerably thereto speaking of the words of our Saviour Pasce oves meas, thus styleth some of his pages in his Lucian and scornful phrase, Feed my sheep is not poping. But howsoever to feed in this place be to pope it: I am sure most egregiously and impudently to corrupt Authors is to white it.    

Chapter. 4. Wherein are discovered sundry corruptions concerning the sacred Scriptures and Traditions.  

The 1. Paragraph. Bellarmine corrupted, in behalf of the Scripture proving itself to be the word of God.  
THE next point we are to come to are such his corruptions wherein he pretendeth that the Catholics do acknowledge all sufficiency of Scripture both for the interpreting of itself without any needful explication of the Church thereof, as also for it fullness in containing expressly all things necessary to man's salvation, excluding thereby all Apostolical Traditions whatsoever.  
And first pag. 59 showing that the Scripture is known to be the word of God without the attestation of the Church which as he holdeth may be deceitful, he allegeth Bellarmine de verb. des li. 2. ca 2. thus confessing, (other means may deceive me) but nothing is more known, nothing more certain than the Scriptures, that it were the greatest madness in the world not to believe them etc. See how loath our minister is to cease to be himself, I mean to cease his notorious corrupting, for the words of Bellarmine are these. Sacris Scripturis quae Prophetieis & Apostolicis literis continentur, nihil est notins, nihil certius, ut stultissimum esse necesse sit, qui illis fidem esse habendam neget. There is nothing more known, nothing more certain, than the holy Scriptures which are contained in the writings of the Prophets & Apostles, in so much that it were a most foolish thing for any man to deny them.  
Here first to make Bellarmine insinuate that he holdeth the authority of the Church in any thing to be doubtful and uncertain: our minister of his own brain haith added these words, other means may deceive 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 indeed it is directed against the Swink feldians, who denying the Scriptures, relied upon their private illuminations, as hereafter shall appear by displaying a strange corruption, and wresting of Bellarmine's saying practised by M. white in pag. 17. at the letter q. of which place of Bellarmine, this here alleged is a parcel. Thus our minister extremely straineth every Authority that he setteth down, till at the length it burst out into an open and inexcusable corruption.   

The 2 Paragraph. Bellarmine corrupted in proof that the Scriptures are the only rule of Faith.  
Again pag 17. to prove that all points in controversy must definitively be determined by the written word alone without any respect to the Church's Authority in the explication thereof, he marcheth out once again making Bellarmine his buckler, & thereupon allegeth these words of his. The rule of Faith must be certain and known, for if it be not certain, it is no rule at all: If it be not known, it is no rule to us, but but nothing is more certain, nothing better known then the sacred Scriptures contained in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles: wherefore the sacred Scripture is the rule of Faith most certain and most saife, and God haith taught by corporal letters which we might see & read, what he would have us believe concerning him. Observe here the refractory and incorrigible frowardness of our minister, and how artificial and exact he showeth himself in his art of corrupting: For Bellarmine in this Chapter (as is above touched) writeth against the Swinkfeldians, who denied the Scripture to be the word of God, and rested only upon their private and hidden revelations, and answerably hereto the Title of this Chapter is, Libris qui Canonic● appella●tur, verbum dei contineri, That the word of God is contained in those books which are called Canonical. Now the words at large are thus in Bellarmine. Regula fides, certa notaque etc. The Rule of faith ought to be certain and known, for if it be not known, it can be no Rule to us, and if it be not certain, it can be no Rule at all. But the revelation of the private spirit although in itself it might be certain, yet to us it can no way be certain, except haply it be warranted with divine testimonies, to wit true miracles. And then some six lines after. At sacris Scriptures etc. But nothing is more known, nothing more certain than the sacred Scriptures which are contained in the books of the Prophets & Apostles. And some forty or fifty lines after. Quare cum sacra Scriptura Regula crodendi etc. Wherefore seeing the holy Scripture is a most certain and a most secure rule of belief: doubtless he can not be wise who neglecting the same committeth himself to the judgement of the private spirit which is often deceitful but ever uncertain. And again some twenty lines after. Non igitur omnes vulgó etc. Teerefore God teacheth not all men by internal inspirations, what he would have the faithful to believe of him, or what they are to do: but it is his pleasure to instruct us by corporal letters which we might see and read.  
Here now I refer this point to the most earnest protestant in England (if he be Candid and ingenious) with what face M. white could allege Bellarmine in this place, to prove from him that the Scripture only is the judge & Rule of Faith (for so doth the minister entytle that page) thereby to make Bellarmine to reject all Authority of the Church in exposition thereof, & all Apostolical Traditions, where we see upon what different occasion from that he writeth in this Chapter against the Swinkfeldians.  
Now here let us note the particular sleights used in this corruption. First M. white you tie together without any &c. or other word, or note, signifying the contrary) several sentences of Bellarmine for your greater advantage, as though one did immediately follow the other, though they lie in Bellarmine distinct by interposition of many lines. Secondly you have concealed three several parcels of different sentences expressing Bel. true mind herein: and all these parcels are even parts (and therefore the fouler fault) of the sentences alleged by you. Your concealments are these. Porro privati Spiritus revelatio et si in se certa sit, nobis tamen nota nullo modo potest nisi forte divinis testimoniis, id est veris miraculis, confirmetur. And again, Sanus profecto non erit, qui ea neglecta (uz. the Scripture) spiritus interui saepe fallacis & semper incerti judicio se commiserit. 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. white were you, if you never had been scholar, since the time will come that you shall say with the Roman Emperor (after he had subscribed to an unjust cause) utinam literas nescirem: For good things, as learning, are most perniceous to him who declineth the true use of them as you do. And in this respect you are to remember that the ark which was a blessing to the Israelites, was yet a curse and hurt to the Philistians that abused it.   

The 3. Paragraph. Eckius foully abused concerning the Authority of the Church and Traditions.  
As heretofore he laboured to overthrow the doctrine of traditions from the corrupted testimonies of Catholics and ancient Fathers: so hear he endeavoureth (from their like abused testimonies) to intimate that we ascribe to them a greater perfection than we do. And to this end pag. 145. thereby the rather to cast upon us an unworthy aspersion of underualewing the Scriptures, he bringeth in Eckius in Enchirid. ca 1. saying. The Scripture receiveth all the authority it haith from the Church, and from Tradition. The words of this Author are these. Scriptura non est authentica sine authoritate Ecclesiae. whereby we see the words and from Tradition, are falsely inserted by our depraving minister, making us thereby to give (with we do not) a greater prerogative to Tradition, then to Scripture. And though perhaps he could light upon those words and from Tradition in some other place or Chapter in Ecckius though in a different sense (which hitherto I can not find) yet it is no small dishonesty in M. white thus unkindly to match and join together such disopting sentences without the parents consent. Again what a strange construction or translation is this? Scriptura non est authentica sine authoritate Ecclesiae. The Scripture receiveth all the authority it haith from the Church, and from Tradition. If this liberty be justifiable, what error so gross may not easily be justified against all Scripture, though never so plentiful, though never so manifest.   

The 4. Paragraph. Canus corrupted concerning Traditions.  
Again perusing his former project, he (pag. 2.) fortifyeth himself with a wrist d authority of Canus, whom li. 3. ca 3. he bringeth in thus teaching. There is more strength to confute heretics in Traditions, then in the Scripture, yea all disputations with them, must be determined by Traditions. Here again the proteruity of our Doctor more and more discovereth itself: For thus Canus speaketh. Non modo adversum haereticos etc. Not only against heretics Tradition is of more force than Scripture, but also omnis (fermè) disputatio (almost) all disputation with them is to be reduced to Traditions received from our Ancestors. (For seeing both Catholics & heretics do allege Scripture for themselves, the difference between them is in the sense and interpretation thereof. Now which is the true and lawful sense of it can not otherwise certainly be known, then by the tradition of the Church)  
Here now our ministers sleight is threefould; for first Canus borroweth this saying from Tertulian of whom twenty lines before this place Canus thus us writeth. Tertulianus monet ut adversus hareticos, magis Traditionibus quam Scripturis disseramus: Scripturae enim varios sensus tr●huntur, Traditiones non item. Tertulian counseleth us that we hold dispute against heretics rather with Tradition then with Scripture, since the Scriptures are drawn into several constructions, whereas Traditions are not so. Thus it appeareth that the opinion is Tertulians', and borrowed only from him by Canus: yet M. white thought it more convenient to deliver it, as proceeding only from Canus, so concealing Tertulian as unwilling to have it graced and countenanced with the Authority of so ancient a Doctor.  
The second deceit here, lieth in not translating, but concealing the reason of Canus his judgement therein though it be expressed by Canus in the words immediately following the place alleged, which show that the cause why we are to dispute with heretics with Traditions rather than with Scriptures, is not (as our minister falsely pretendeth) our distrust in the Scripture or want thereof to prove our Catholic Faith, but (as Canus saith) because the true sense of it is chiefly to be taken from Tradition warranted by the Church.  
Thirdly and lastly he abuseth his Reader in concealing the adverb ferme, in those words above, om●is ferme disputatio, almost all disputation, whereas he translateth all disputations. Thus Canus by using the word fermè, exempteth some points from being decided only by traditions, whereas by our ministers translation, not any one is excepted. Thus have we seen how our Doctor by his fowl collusions haith laboured several ways, to depress and obscure the worthiness of gods Catholic Church, as by making her become sometimes invisible, by falsely ascribing to her and her head (in the catholics name) an usurping sovereignty, thereby to make her due Authority the more contemned, & to conclude by depryving her of all Apostolical Traditions and of all pre-eminency in explaining and expounding the Scriptures, whereas she (especially now in the time of the Gospel) ever sendeth from herself most glorious beams and splendour of truth and perpetuity, according to that of the princely psalmist, In sole pos vit Tabernaculum suum: for indeed she is that Soon which (contrary to our invisibilistes) for these sixteen hundredth years, did never once set under the horizon of an universal latency, that Soon which never expatiates beyond the tropics of Gods Traditionary or written word, that Soon which with it defining and infallible authority in explicating the true sense of God's word, dissipates and dissolves all clouds of error exhaled through the weak influence of the revealing spirit, finally that Soon whose concentrous uniformity could yet never broke any Phaniomena, or appearances of innovation and novelty, whereas all other sects professing the name of Christians, are (in regard of it) but as Planetary and wandering stars, producing many Anomalous irregularities of uncertainty, dissension, and confusion.    

Chapter. 5. Concerning Faith & heresy.  

The 1. Paragraph. Bellarmine verrupted against the necessity of true Faith.  
BUT to return to our Doctor, from Traditions we will descend to such other his depravations, as concern Faith in general, as pag. 212. suggesting that we exact not (besides other virtues) any true or inward Faith to denominate or make one a perfect member of God's Church, but only an outward show hereof, he introduceth Bellarmine thus speaking. de Eccl. mil. lib. 3. ca 2. No inward virtue is required to make one a part of the true Church, but only the external profession of Faith. And then M. white ryoteth in great profusion of words, that upon this ground in the papists judgement, all holiness of life and conversation is superfluous and needless. But let us recurre to Bellarmine's words themselves. Not credimus in Ecclesia inveniri etc. (We do believe, that in the Church are found all virtues, at Faith, Hope, Charity, & the rest) ver, ur aliquis (aliquo modo) dic● possi● pars verae Ecclesiae etc. That any one may be called (in some sort or manner) a part of that true Church whereof the Scripture speaketh: we do not think any inward virtue to be required, but only an external profession of faith etc. And in the following paragraph he saith, that those who (wanting all virtue) have only an external profession of Faith & c● are as it were de corpore, but not the anima Ecclesiae, of the body, not of the soul of the Church, etc. He but sicut capilli, an't mali humores in corpore humano. So wrongfully here we see is Bellarmine traduced by our Doctor: First in concealing the beginning of the sentence, wherein he acknowledgeth all theological virtues ever to be found in God's Church. Secondly in suggesting to the Reader, that Bellarmine requireth no true inward virtues as necessary for a Christian soul, but only an external faith: this is a false and selanderous contumely, for pulchra es & decora ●●lia Jerusalem. Ca●. 6. And Bellarmine is so far from teaching that such do take any benefit by this their outward profession, that he saith (as we see) they are but only of the body of the Church, & not of the soul (to which kind of members internal virtues at least are necessary) and that they are to be resembled to the less profitable and but excremental parts of man's body, as the hairs of the head, the nails, and other such bad humours. Thirdly he wrongeth the Cardinal who saith, that a man only of outward profession, is but aliquo modo pars Ecclesia, meaning only in Turrian imperfect & equivocal manner of being, whereas our minister concealing the words aliquo modo, maketh Bellarmine to ascribe to such a one, as perfect a being a member of the Church, as to any other man endued with all the Theological virtues. But M. white (as we have seen in others of his corruptions, so also in this) haith a great facility, in passing over and concealing diuters such words, as si ferme, aliquo modo, and the like, in any Author that he allegeth, though they mightily alter the meaning of the sentence. It may be perhaps he haith framed to himself a new Accidence, & holding such poor particles, but as imperfect parts of speech, be accounts them as unworthy to be translated or set down by his learned pen.   

The 2. Paragraph. Bellarmine corrupted against the kuowledg of mysteries of our Faith, & in preferring of ignorance.  
Again, to our more depressing of faith, & our supposed advancing of ignorance: the Doctor telleth his Reader how among us 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 himself with a sentence of Bellarmine de Inst. l. 1. ca 7. in these words. Fides melins per ignorantiam, quam per notitiam, definitur. Faith is better defined by ignorance, then by knowledge. I think the minister even for fear of breach of his oath taken (as it should seem) to the contrary, is loath to allege any one sentence entirely, ingeniously, and truly. For mark here how untruly he divorceth Bellarmine's words from his own drift and mind. For the Cardinal entytuling that Chapter, Fidem iustificantem non tam esse notitiam, quam assensum. justifying Faith, rather to be assent then knowledge, there proveth, that faith (even according to the Apostles definition thereof) can not be demonstrated, and that the assent which we give thereunto (saith he) followeth not rationem & evidentiam rei, a clear evidence of the point believed, which is property called notitiam, but it followeth authoritatem proponentia, the authority of the proposer, and therefore it is more properly called fides. And then some three lines 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 believe the mysteries of faith, which are above reason, we understand them not, and in this respect, (Faith it distinguished against science of knowledge) and i● better defined by ignorance then by evidency of knowledge. Now here I do demand even in sincerity, whether these words (with any tecture of colour of possibility) can be wrested to the supporting of a supine and an affected ignorance of the articles of our Faith, as here our minister seeketh to strain them? Wherefore I say that M. white dealeth unchristianlyke, and most irreligiously with Bellarmine herein. For first he investeth his words (which are spoken only of the nature of faith) with a new construction never dreamt of: and therefore you see the minister (besides his passing over the ground and reason of his sentence) purposely omitteth in his translation, the beginning of the sentence alleged, though it doth expound the words following, to wit, Therefore we believe the mysteries of Faith (which are above reason) we understand them not, and in this respect Faith is distinguished against science.  
Secondly he taketh advantage in translating the word notitia, which though it signifieth in large construction knowledge in general (in which sense he foresaw the ignorant reader would take it) yet with the schoolmen it is restrained, as Bellarmine here expressly noteth, to that kind of knowledge which is properly Scientia, which proceedeth out of a demonstrable evidency of the thing known, and consequently it is incompatible with Faith.  
For shame of your own credit M. white, and for the fear that you owe to God, forbear to seduce any longer the ignorant by these deceivable means: and making your benesyte of these my trendly admonitions, which indeed proceed from Christian Charity, remember that meliora sunt vulnera diligentis, quam fraudulente oscula. prou. 27.   

The 3 Paragraph. Navarre corrupted concerning the sin committed by the Laity in disputing of matters of Faith.  
Now next let us come to one or two depravations consisting of the word heresy, where pag. 6. to intimate that we hold it no lesser offence than heresy, for a Lay man to argue of matters of Religion, as though the Church barred them in any sort whatsoever, not to speak thereof, he allegeth Navarre, Manual. ea. 11. nu. 26. It is heresy for a Lay man to dispute in a point of Faith. Navars' words 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 under pain of excommunication to dispute thereof. Here you see there is no mention of heresy, and indeed without reference to some other words, the sense is here imperfect; therefore the Reader is to understand, that the Title of this Chapter in Navarre, is this. Modiusitatiores peccandi mortaliter, contra praeceptum de rectè colendo & honorando Deo etc. The several more accustomed kinds of sinning mortally against the precept of worshipping and honouring God aright etc. and so answerably to this title, he setteth down divers ways of sinning mortally in that sort, keeping the method of primo secundo etc. and so coming to quinto, he showeth in what manner a man sinneth therein● therefore the offence here committed is not heresy (as our minister falsely saith) but it is a mortal sin, which yet is so to be understood, as when a Lay person pertinaceously without subjecting his judgement to the Church, wavereth in disputation in any point of the Catholic faith: and thus much of M. Whytes finding the word heresy, in Navar. But I may well say he is a man of a very strange, and (as I may term it) imperfect perfect eyesight, since he can not see words in testimonies which every other man doth see: and yet seeth other words in them which no man else can see.    

Chapter 6. Concerning marriage of Pre●stes: Fasting: and Miracles.  

The 1 Paragraph. Sinesius impudently abused concerning his own marriage.  
The next corruption shall be touching marriage of priests, the lawfulness whereof this our yoked minister is more willing to justify, in that such as profess voluntary Chastity, are (according to the principles of his faith) accounted no better than superstitious, & wilful eunuchs. Now then for the warranting thereof page 343. he produceth a testimony from Sinesitus Bishop of Ptolemais, who in his Epistle to a friend called Euopius, thus writeth of himself. The sacred hand of Theophilus haith given me a wise, and hereupon I testify to all men, that I will neither for sake her, nor yet privily as an adulterer keep 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 confess, that it is M. Whytes proper scene to act the falsary and corrupter, so notoriously haith he behaved himself herein. For the better understanding therefore of this soul imposture, thou art to conceive (good Reader) that this Epistle of Sinesius, out of which our M. taketh this Authority, is set down at large by Nicephorus Eccl. his. lib. 14. ca 55. And that at the time when it was written, Sinesius was but a Lay man, yet very eminent for divers kinds of good literature, and in regard of such his parts, he was much solicited by many to undertake the function of priesthood: he a long time yielded not to their persuasions, and did write this very Epistle to Euopius, (who was one that wished him to that course) to justify hereby his resolution not to make himself Priest. And in this Epistle among other of his reasons, as his love to human studies, and his temporal pleasures diverting him from that course, he allegeth the words here set down by M. white, to wit, that in regard he was a married man, and intending to continue and live in a wedlock state with his wife, he was not to enter into that sacred function. Thus doth Sinesius acknowledge even in this Epistle (which by our minister is wrested to the maintaining of the contrary) that marriage (with a determination not to leave the company of his wife) is a sufficient bar or let to priesthood.  
Now it happened that some reasonable time after the writing of his former Epistle, he was over-persuaded, and so assenting to his friends importunity, was made Priest, and then after created Bishop of Ptolemais, & lived for all the time after, ever separated from the company of his wife. Here then our ministers incredible deceit (of which he is to himself most conscious) lieth in applying the words spoken by Sinesius when he was a lay man, to him as he was after Proist and Bishop, and so by the wilful confusion of these two several times, doubted not but to blear the weak judgement of his ignorant reader. Good Reader, if thou understandest latin, I could wish thee to see the Epistle of Sinesius, in the above noted place of Nicephorus, wherein thou shalt find it most evident, that at that time, Sinesius was not Priest, for even there (besides many other passages) he saith of himself. Ego sanè qui meipsum novi, ineptiorem comperio, quam ut sacerdotali dignitati gerende idoneus sin●. I who am privy to mine own weakness, do find that I am not fit to undertake the dignity of priesthood. In like sort even at the end of this Epistle, Nicephorus himself thus concludeth. Sinesius haec scribens, apertè sacerdotalem dignitatem aversatus est etc. Sinesius writing these things, was clearly unwilling of the dignity of priesthood: So as it is most undoubted and perspicuous, that at the writing of this Epistle (out of which M. white did take the former words) he was not then Priest, much less Bishop of Ptolemais, as our. M. subtlly styleth him.  
Now what do you say to this M. white, do you not think that this your perfidious dealing being once made known, will become odious, not only to Catholics, but even to all ingenious and welmeaninge protestants, though hitherto with extraordinary applause and allowance, they have much admired you? no doubt it will: and therefore seeing you can not otherwise warrant (for your own interest) the marriage of the Clergy, but only by such dishonest means: I hope that the fortune of Actaeon, before your death, will happen unto you, (fear not man, I press not the word in any disloyal sense) in being maligned, afflicted, and baited, even by your own friends and followers.   

The 2. Paragraph. Paphnutius acused concerning the marriage of priests.  
For his further patronizing of priests marriage, he pag. 343. urgeth that often obtruded place of Saint Paul Heb. 13. Marriage is honourable among all men. and at these words citeth in the mergent Sozomen. li. 1. ca 22. as writing that Paphnutius maintained the protestants construction of that place, so as that priests might absolutely at any time marry. In the discovery of his depravation here used, I will not much insist in displaying his corruption of this text of Scripture, by adding the words, is, and, men, (the which he borroweth from the english false translation) for neither in the Geeke text can we find the verb, is, of the Indicative mood, neither the word, men, that place being thus according to the greek, marriage is honourable in all: which word, all, may aswell have reference to all respects or ends of marriage, as to all men. But I will chiefly rely, in showing how small reason he haith to allege Sozomen or Paphnutius in this point, and how little their true meaning doth sort to our ministers drift: for M. white undertaketh in this place to prove, that priests may take wives at any time, (meaning aswell after their consecration as before), and so answerably in general styleth the former page priests marriage, and like wise thus beginneth that very Paragraph, wherein the former words of S. Paul are alleged, Fourthly touching the marriage of ministers, etc. Now if we look into the former quotation of Sozomene touching Paphnutius, we shall find that he recordeth, how the Council of nice, did only tolerate and permit the marriage of priests, before their entrance into priesthood, but not after their consecration: which doth absolutely cross the scope of M. W. intention in this place. For first this is the title of the quoted Chapter of Sozomen. De Canonibus quas Concilium posuit: & quod cum Ca●onem statuere voluerat, ut quicunque ad sacerdori● dignitatem evecti 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 Council (meaning of nice) and their whereas the Council determined to decree, that even those who were called to the dignity of priesthood, should not live with those their wives, whom they had married before they were ordained priests: one Paphnutius a Confessor being among the Council, began to plead the contrary. But if the Council thought it once convenient to decree, that such priests as were married before their entrance into priesthood, should not live together with their wives in state of matrimony, than a fortiori, it did utterly condemn the marriage of priests after they be made priests, which is the contrary whereunto is here che●fe●y defended by M. white. This point is further confinned out of the words of Sozomen, even in the foresaid quoted Chapter, for there Sozomen doth thus write. Veterem Ec●lesiu ●●aeditionem esse, ut cue? Cas●ties gradum sacerdo ●●em cons●euti fuisseur, postea minime uxores duderen● qui autem post nuptias, adteum or dinem vocati essent, hit ab uxoribus quas habeba●● minime separarentur, & ●ta quidem licea Coniuglie p●rs, f●ant Paphnutius. It is an ancient Tradition of the Church, what such as be unmarried when they enter the degree of priesthood, should not after ta●●e to themselves any wives: But those who being afore married, and after arcealled to that order, should not be therefore separated from their wives, and this Paphnutius though himself unmarried) persuaded the Council unto: and thus far Sozomen of this point. Now I refer to the iudtecous reader how worthily and sincerely M. white halth quoted Paphnutius out of Sozomen, for interpreting of S. Paul's words in defence of priests marriage in general, without any distinction of times, whereas in deed Sozomen Paphnutius, and the Council of nice; did absolutely forbid marriage of the Clergy after their ordination of priesthood, directly opposite against the most general, practise of our english ministers, who for the most part first seek after a steeple, and then a woman: and thus with them, a fat benefice, and a sister in the Lord (for heresy ever lies groveling in sensuality) are become in our new evangelical philosophy, the terminus ad quem, whereunto all other their motions, do finally propend and are directed.   

The 3. Paragraph. S. Augustine corrupted against fasting.  
The Doctor (through his great aversion which he haith of fasting, and of forbidden meats for certain days (pag. 307. writeth, that the ancient Monks made no distinction of meats, & allegeth in the margin for proof thereof, S. Augustine de mor. Eccl. li. 1. ca 33. Now you shall see how truly he avoucheth the Father herein; for in that very Chapter (not to insist of his speaking of the Monks fasting in those words, jejunia prorsut incredibilia, mult●s exercere did●ci. I have learned that many Monks did practise even incredible fasts) he thus writeth touching forbearance of the eating of flesh multi non vescuntur carnibus etc. Many Monks do not feed upon flesh, though they are not persuaded superstitiously, that flesh is an unclean meat. & after again. Continent se illi, qui possunt (qu●●tamen sunt innumerabiles) & a carnibus, & a vino etc. Such Monks as in body are able (who yet are innumerable) do abstain from flesh, and from wine. Here it is evident what the custom of the ancient Monks was in those times, & how different from the practice of the new gospelers, since infinite of them eating fish, never tasted of flesh, whereas to the contrary, I dare avouch in the behalf of this my sanctified minister, that even out of conscience, he forbears to feed of superstitious fish. But indeed M. white doth well to show himself so resolute an advocate, as afore of venety in the marriage of Preisles, so now of Epicurism, since he well knoweth that there is a secret reference, and mutual dependency, between these two most spiritual and ghostly Characters of our late stamped gospel: a point so clear, that even the Poets do tell us, that Venus was ever much befrended by Ceres and Bacchus.   

The 4. Paragraph. Baronius notoriously corrupted, in proof that heretics can work true miracles.  
To deprive the Catholic Church of her glory, of most certain and undoubted miracles, wherewith god haith several times sealed up the truth of the faith professed by her Doctors: our minister laboureth to prove from the confession of Catholics, that working of true miracles, are also common to heretics, & therefore no peculiar note of the true Church or Faith.  
Now to this end, pag. 301. he allegeth Baronius Annal. An. 68 nu. 22. touching the miracles of Simon Magus. Simon made Images to walk, & would lie in the fire without hurt, & fly in the air, & make bread of stones: he could open doors fast shut, & unloose bounds of Iron etc. But doth out M. here leave his accustomed trade of corrupting think you? No, for he paireth the testimony round about, for even both immediately before and immediately after the Authority alleged, he concealeth Baronius his own words wherein he acknowledgeth, that these were no miracles, by impostures, and sleights only: For thus he writeth before. Quaenam autem hat fuer●t, ●●m reue● á non essent, tament ab hominibus videri videbantur, referam etc. (I will relate what prestigies or steightes those of Simons were, seeing indeed they were not true, yet seemed to be in the sight of men) and the mentioneth those reckoned by M. white. And after Baro. haith numbered the said supposed miracles, he thus instantly concludeth. Hueusque de Simonis imposturis, quibus haec per imaginem oste●debat, & visum, cum nulla verita●e consisterent. Thus far of the impostures of Simon, which appeared but in show and in the eye, seeing indeed they were not truly performed. Now I appeal to the iudiceous Reader, with what ●andor and sincerity M. white could produce part of the sentence of Baronius (omitting both the beginning and ending) ●● evict, that true and undoubted miracles, are incident also to heretics, and consequently are no competent mark of the true Faith or Church.    

Chapter 7. Concerning the Sacraments of the Eucha●l● and Pennance.  

The 1. Paragraph ●●●armine corrupted against Transubstantiation.  
OUR Doctor pag. 24. haith a soul depravation touching the doctrine of Transubstantiation, alleging Bellarmine saving, de Euch. lib 2. ca 2.3 That it may justly be doubted, whether the text be clea●e enough ●o infer Transubstantiation, seeing men sharp & learned, such as Scotus was, ha●e thought the contrary. The Reader shall see the whole period of Bellarmine at large, and so may discern how strongly both he & Scotus impugn transubstantiation, as they are here by our M. traduced to do. Thus then. Scotus dicit ●on ex●are etc. Scotus saith, that there is no place of Scripture so express, which (fi●e Ecclesiae declaratiore) without the declaration or interpretation of the Church, can evidently force transubstantiation. And this is not altogether in probable: (for although the text of Scripture; which above we have alleged, s●me so clear 〈◊〉, that it is able to convince hominem ●on pro●eru●●, a man not obstinate) nevertheless whether it do so or no, i● may i●●l● be doubted of, seeing that learned and sharp men (such as Scotus was) have, thought the contrary. But Scotus eddish, that s●●g the Catholic Church haith expounded the said text of Scripture in a general Council, therefore saith he, from the said Scripture so declared by the Church, transubstantiation is manifestly proved. Thus far● Bellarmine. Now I do a●ke, that if we consider the whole contexture of this passage together, whether according to the minds of Bellarmine & Scotus, it maketh against transubstantiation or no? I say it even fortifyeth the Doctrine thereof: For Bellarmine first teacheth, that the text is evident enough to convince any man that is not froward or obstinate: and Scotus (as we find here, grants, that transubstantiation is manifestly proved from the Scripture, being so already expounded by a general Council: wherefore our ministers sleight resteth, in nakedly setting down the former parcel of Bellarmine, and in concealing the words afore, sine declaratione Ecclesia, & again, hominem non proteruum, to both which, the sentence alleged haith a necessary reference: So as if M. white would have delivered Bellarmine's true meaning here, he must have delivered it in this sort: It may be justly doubted, whether the Text without the declaration of the Church, be clear enough to convince an obstinate man in the point of transubstantiation, seeing men sharp & learned, such at Scotus etc. But this deportment had been over candid & sincere, and in no manner sorting to the calumnious project of our depraving minister, who by his perfidious dealing throughout his whole book, seemeth to have made shipwreck of all moral honesty, reputation, religion, and shame. periere mores, ius, decus, pietas, fides: & quiredire nescit, cum perit pudor. Seneca. in Agam.   

The 2. Paragraph. The Master of sentences corrupted against confession to a Priest.  
In this next place we will descend to the Sacrament of Penance, profaned by this our Doctor's depravations: and first to bear the reader in hand, that by the acknowledgement of Catholics, auricular Confession, and other parts of this Sacrament, are not necessary, he, pag. 254. produceth the M. of Sentences li 4. d. 17. saying. By contrition only without Confession, or payment of outward punishment (or liberality of the prelate, or pains in purgatory) I may go strait to heaven. The words 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 sins are remitted by contrition & humility, without confession of the mouth, or payment of exterior punishment. Where we find, first these words, or liberality of the prelate, or pains in purgatory, to be added by M. white, though set down in a peculiar character, & letter of the Author: but this our minister did, to make the confession of this Author, more full & swelling: nevertheless to pass over this, I affirm that the sentence is fraudulently alleged, to take away auricular confession. And therefore the reader ought to conceive, that though all Catholics teach, that perfect contrition is of force to blot out a man's sinnest yet they hold, that this contrition can not be without confession, at least in voto, as the schoolmen speak, that is, that the party haith a desire to coufesse his sins to a priest, when opportunity shall serve. And that this is the very meaning of the Master of the sentences in this place, appear, first out of his own words, even in the said paragraph or distinction 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 confess his sins. Which point is also further made clear by the title of the next paragraph saving 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 only to confess our sin to God, if so we have time or opportunity, to confess to man. Thus it appeareth what reason our Doctor had, to allege the Authority of the Master of the sentences, for the absolute abolishing of the Sacrament of Confession: whereas he meaneth that only in time of necessity, and when opportunity is not to confess them to man, then with a true contrition, the sins may be remitted without Confession. Such you see is the proceeding of our minister throughout his book, ever investing his doctrine and assertions, with most foul and stained depravations, well discovering the spotted guiltiness of his own soul wherefore for the time hereafter, I could wish M. white (that so his mind might be apparelled answerably to his name) to follow the admonition of the Evangelist, Get thee a white garment (to wit, of repentance and future integrity) that thou mayst be clothed, and that thy thy filthy nakedness do 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 Catholic doctrine thereof become ●ame ungraceful, he, pag. 249. produceth Bellarmine, li. 1. depur. ca 14. thus writing. Christer satisfaction itself, taketh not away the punishment due 〈◊〉 us, but it removeth it so far forth, as we have grace from thence, to make our own satisfaction of power. For the better apprehending of Bellarmine's due meaning in this places, the Reader is to conceive that the Cardinal here handleth a school point which being no metre of Faith, but a point of ●adi●ferency, is severally defended led by Catholic writers. The point is this: th● seeing all the force of our satisfaction, is originally ●i y●●d, and recoa●teth it fore, (as all Catholics do ground) from the passion and satisfaction of Christ: whether therefore this satisfaction of Christ's and ours, may be termed but one satisfaction or two satisfactions: Bellarmine holdeth that it is but one satisfaction, and that farmaliter, ours, and thereupon writeth ●●the alleged place. una tantum est ●●tual is satisfactio etc. There is here but one actual satisfaction, and the same ours: neither by this it excluded Christ or his satisfaction: for by his satisfaction, we have grace from whence we do satisfy & in this sense the satisfaction 〈◊〉 Christ is 〈◊〉 be appledr● us, non quod 〈…〉 ipsa ti is satisfactio, tollan penam temp malem nobis 〈◊〉 sed quod mediate eam tollat, quate ius videlice● 〈◊〉 g●atiam● themes, sine qua, nihil valeret nostrae satisfactio. Not th●● his satisfaction immedeatly taketh away the punishment due unto us: but that it taketh it away mediately, in so much as from his satisfaction, we receive Grace, without the which our satisfaction would be of no force.  
Here all men may see, that Bellarmine doth in no sort detract from the passion or satisfaction of Christ, for he saith, that Christ's satisfaction is not excluded by our satisfaction: that by his satisfaction, we have grace to satisfy: that our satisfaction applieth Christ's satisfaction to us: Finally, that without Christ's satisfaction, ours can be of no force. But before I end, I will be the Readers remembrancer of two or three sleights used by you M. white, in this one testimony. First in these words, Not that Christ's satisfaction (immediately) taketh away the punishment due unto us, you conceal in your translation, the word, immediately, and so makes us to say, that Christ's satisfaction doth not at all take away the punishment due unto us, which to affirm, is no less than a monstrous blasphemy. Secondly in those words, sed quod mediaté eam tollat, which you translate not in that natural sense which the words import, but only thus, but that Christ's satisfaction removeth the punishment: so by your feeble translation, making us in an ignorant ear, to ascribe less to Christ's satisfaction than we do. Thirdly in that last parcel of the sentence, sine qua nihil valeret nostra satisfactio. Without which grace of Christ, our satisf. were of no force. Which words as sounding fully in our acknowledgement of the value of Christ's passion, you also have fully translated in a more remiss phrase and tenor of speech, to wit, from which grace, our satisfaction is made of power. Thus well knowing that (according to the rules of Rhetoric) different phrases bearing one and the same sense, do make a different (and so more or less) impression in the hearer's ears. But you do well, and in one sense we will not much complain of you, since this persideous deportment in your writings (as necessarily discovering that you are conscious and guilty of your own bad cause) doth much advantage your adversaries.   

The 5. Paragraph. S. Thomas corrupted concerning the remission of venial sins.  
Touching venial sins, 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 point, to speak, Venial sins may be forgiven by knocking of the breast, going into the Church, receiving of holy water, or the bishops blessing, or crossing ourself, 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 hands one pertinent allegation without any depravation or imposture? I do think even then (and not before) when, as the poet writeth.  
Terra feret stellas, calum scindetur ara●ro. ovid. l.  
unda dabit slammas, & dabit ignis aquas. 1 de tree.  
For, according to your accustomed vain, you have most foully wronged S. Thomas, and so yourself here (by wilfully satisfying the doctrine of venial sins) haith committed a mortal sin. For he in the place alleged showing how venial sins are remitted, either by an act of detestation of sin, or an act of reverence towards god, thus concludeth. Manifestum est generali confession etc. It is manifest, that venial sins are remitted by a general confession, knocking of the breast, & saying of our lords prayer (quatenus cum detestatione peccati siunt, as these actions are done with a detestation of sin) as also by the bishops blessing, by sprinkling of holy water, and other such actions (quatent●s cum dei reverentia exercentur, as they are performed with a reverence towards god.) Here you see first, how you have most fraudulently discarded these two parcels of the sentence, to wit, quatenus cum detestatione 〈◊〉 fius, & quatenus cum dei reverentia exercentur, as they are done with a detestation of sin, & as they are performed with reverence to god, which parcels do enleven and season the whole. For we do not hold that these actions, except they be accompanied either with a detestation of sin, or reverence towards god, do remit venial sins. But your intended calumny and deceit here, was to make your credulous reader think, that the superstitious papists (as you term them in your railing and calumnious language) do believe that these external actions of themselves alone, are as it were certain spells or charms to extinguish and drive away all venial sins whatsoever. Secondly touching the last part of the sentence as it is set down by you, vz, or by any work of Charity, though we do not think actually of them, is not in this third article, but afore in the first article of 87. question, and is only an objection of S. Thomas, urged for form sake, (according to his Method) and then afterwards answered by himself.    

Chapter 8. Concerning the author of sin, & reprobation.  

The 1 Paragraph. Bellarmine egregiously falsified, in proof that god is the Author of sin.  
TO the justifying that Catholics are as far engaged in defending that blasphemous and horrible doctrine, that god is the Author of sin, as the protestants are, pag. 271. he allegeth Bellarmine the amis. gra. l. 2. ca 13. thus writing. God by a figure commendeth sin, and exciteth men unto it, as a huntsman setteth a dog upon a hare, by letting go the slip that held the dog. God therefore doth not only permit the wicked to do many evils, neither doth he only forsake the godly, that they may be constrained to suffer the things done against them by the wicked, but he also overseeth their evil wills, and ruleth & governeth them, & boweth & bendeth them, by working invisibly in them. And not only inclineth evil wills to one evil rather than to an other, by permitting them to be carried into one evil, & not permitting them to be carried into an other: but also positively he bendeth them, by inclining to one evil, & turning them from an other, occasionally & morally etc.  
Thus our minister allegeth Bellarmine, and then triumphantly thus concludeth. Let our adversaries look well into these speeches, & they shall find that we say in effect no more. Your adversaries, M. white, have looked well into these speeches, and they do find and say in effect, that you are a most faithless, dishonest, and corrupt writer, and indeed one of those whom the spanish phrase calls unhombre de salmad●, a fellow without a soul, for if you either feared god, had a true conceit of any Religion, or thought that the soul were immortal, to answer for what it performs in this life: you would never deprave this Author as you do, making the Catholics to be patrons of that blasphemy which in their souls they damn to the pit of hell. Wherefore good Reader, I am to entreat thy patience, if I insist somewhat long in the full discovering of this corruption. Well then Bellarmine in the Chapter alleged, showeth how that God may be said several ways to incline a man to evil: And there upon saith. Primus modus esset, si Dens per se & proprié &c. The first way should be, if god by himself and properly either physicé, phisically and naturally by moving the will immediately, or moraliter, to wit, by truly and properly commanding the will, should impel it to evil: 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 understand god to be said in the Scriptures, to excite and provoke some unto evil, or to command that they work wickedly, and to use them as instruments because he permitteth them to do evil, although every one that permitteth any thing, can not be rightly said to command it, that it may be done, neither to excite or provoke an other thereto. Notwithstanding god (without whose permission nothing can be done) when as he suffereth any thing to be done, to the obtaining of some certain end of hit: may rightly be said by a certain figure, to command that, and to incite one thereto: even as usually we say, the dog was set upon the hare by the hunter, when as he only loosed the slip wherewith he was tied. And then some three paragraphs after, deus non so●um permittit etc. god doth not only permit the wicked to do much wickedness, neither doth only leave the godly that they may be forced to suffer wrongs of the wicked, but overseeth the evil wills, and doth govern and rule them, and bend them, working in them invisibly: So as though their wills be evil through their own default, yet they are inclined by divine providence, rather to one evil then to an other (non positiué, sed permissiué, not positively, but by permission.) And then in an other paragraph after. Deum no●i solum inclinare etc. god doth not only incline wicked wills to one evil rather than to an other, by suffering them that they shall be carried into one evil, and not suffering them that they shall be carried into an other (as Hugo rightly teacheth) but also by positively inclining them to one evil, and averting them from an other (non quidem per se et physicé movendo voluntatem ad vuum et removendo ab alto, quod libertati arbitrii preiudicare videretur, not by himself and physically or naturally in moving the will to one evil and removing it from an other, which may seem to be against 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 own fault may take occasion, that it is better to hurt this man, than that man, to yield to this sin rather than to that sin.  
Thus far doth Bellarmine literally write. Now we will see what amount of imposlures and deceipts our minister haith heaped up in producing of this one Authority. First he omitteth altogether (without the least intimation of it, or Bellarmine's dislike thereof) the first kind or manner how god may be said to impel man to sin, to wit, properly and immediately, which Bellarmine calleth impious and blasphemous, & yet M. white endeavoureth throughout all the passage here urged, to charge him therewith. Secondly for the more engaging of Bellarmine herein, he immediately applieth that example of a hunter letting● go the slip, to gods commanding & excyting men to sin, which Bellarmine only by illation, applieth thereto. Thirdly where Bellarmine saith that wicked men by divine providence, are inclined to one evil rather than to an other, non positiuê, sed permissiué, not positively, but by permission: the minister haith left out these words, non positive, sed permissiué, though in them lieth all the solution of the doubt here controverted. Fourthly when Bellarmine after saith, that god inclines also the will of the wicked to one evil rather than to an other, positiué, non quidem per se et phisicé movendo voluntatem ad unum, et removendo ab alio, quod libertati arbitru praeiudicare videtur: sed occasionaliter et moraliter, positively, yet not by himself and phisically, moving the will of the wicked to one sin, & withdrawing it from an other, which may seem to be against the freedom of the will, but occasionally & morally etc. Our minister subtilely taking hold of the word positiuê, doth leave out all the rest, wherein is expressed how the word positiuè, is to be understood, and joineth it immediately with the words occasionaliter, et moraliter. Fiftly he purposely forbeareth the example where in Bellarmine immediately doth interpret the words occasionaliter & moraliter, to wit, in sending a good thought, but not an evil thought, as M. white by his wilful omission thereof, would seem to pretend.  
And thus far of this testimony, where you see I have as it were dissected, all the particular veins & sinews wherein lieth the very life and strength of the ministers fraud and collusion herein: only good Reader I would wish thee for thy fuller satisfaction, to view the place in Bellarmine himself, and then give up thy true judgement, whether M. white or I deal sincerely herein.   

The 2. Paragraph. S. Augustine abused concerning reprobation.  
Our minister to prove his blasphemous doctrine of reprobation or damnation pag. 9 doth shroud himself under an abused testimony of S. Augustine Epist. 107. ad. Vital. med. whom he thus citeth. It is a manifest truth, that many can not be saved, not because themselves will not, but because god will not. The words of S. Augustine are these. Multi salui non fiant, non quia ip fi, sed quia dens non vult, (quod sine ulla caligine manifestatur in parnulis. Many are not saved, not because they will not, but because god will not: Which without all obscurity is manifested in infants. These latter words, which without all obscurity is manifested in infants, are fraudulently left out by the minister, because they express S. Augustine's mind herein: for S. Augustine here only speaketh of the damnation of infants, who die before they receive baptism, which M. white well knowing, thought good to omit the latter Part of this sentence, and therefore this testimony is wrongfully stretched to such as be of capacity and type years. That this Place of S. Augustine is only intended of infants not baptized before their death, is also manifested (besides the proof taken from the former words) by that which this Father writeth some two or three lines afore this place, where he maketh the question concerning reprobation and particularly restraineth this speech to infants in these words, Quomod● deus vuls etc. How fale it out, that god would have all men saved, seeing that infants who have no will contrary or repugning to their salvation, do not partake of gods will in this point, in that divers of them do die without the grace given in baptism? Thus our Doctor after his usual manner abuseth this ancient father, by concealing a part of the sentence alleged, wherein his mind is manifested. Neither can M. white salve the matter in answering, that in an other place after upon the like occasion, he haith alleged this sentence without concealment: this I say advauntageth him nothing. For though perhaps not in the other cytation, yet in this it is clear that his intention was to deceive the reader: but it is expected from the pen of a man of integrity, to deal sincerely not in one only, but in all the passages of his writings, since a writers case herein, may seem, in some sort, to bear a resemblance to an act morally virtuous, which is vitiated by any one bad circumstance, but perfected by the concurrency of all due circumstances.    

Chapter 9 Concerning the honour to be given to Saints and their Images.  

The 1. Paragraph. S. Epiphanius corrupted in dishonour of the blessed Virgin Mary.  
WHereas, according to Catholic doctrine, different degrees of honour are to be exhibited to god and his blessed Angels and Saints: as to the first Adoration, and to the other in a far lower degree: not only damned spirits, but damnable beritykes (their painful scholars) as envious emulators of glorious Saints, do ever labour by many subtiltyes, to rob them quite of all deserved veneration. In which kind M. white willing to act his part, even against the B. Virgin the Mother of God, & model of all piety, for better shadowing of his envy, pag. 344, he allegeth Epiphanius. c. her. l. 3. haer, 79. c. Collyridianos. saying. The Virgin Mary was a virgin and honourable, but not given for us to worship, but herself worshipped him that took flesh of her: But for the clears revealing of this illusion, it is to be observed, that Epiphanius writeth here purposely against certain women who adoring a Chariot, or four squared seat, and covering the same with linen cloth, did at one solemn time of the year, bring forth bread, and offer the same up in the name of Mary, which he proveth at large to be unlawful, in that it was never permitted to women, to offer up sacrifice, as also in that sacrifice is an honour only peculiar to god, yea he maketh an express difference between adoration and honour or worship, attributing the first only to god, and the second with us Catholics, to the blessed Virgin, and Saints, which is further manifest even by the words objected being truly translated, which are these. Verily the body of Mary was holy, but yet not God, Verily the Virgin was a Virgin and honourable, but not given unto us for adoration, but herself adored him, who was borne of her flesh. As also, Let Mary be honoured, and the Father and Son and the holy Ghost adored. Let no man adore Mary etc. This mystery is due to God And again, Though Mary be must excellent, and holy, and honourable, yet not for adoration: And sundry other such like, all which do evidently convince, that S. Epiphanius alloweth worship, and honour to be given to the B. Virgin, but not adoration, to wit with sacrifice, which is an honour Peculiar only 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 worship of them, us appeareth (saith he) by the Epistle of Gregory to Serenus, which he noteth in the margin to be Epist, 109. li. 7. It is this ministers evil hap, by most of his citatations, to manifest to the world, his folly and falsehood. For who not distracted, would urge that against his adversary which impugneth himself, and that in such a manner, as will easily convince him of fraud and wilful malice. For fiirst S. Gregory in the place cited, reproveth Serenus for breaking & casting down of Images which were set up in Churches, though the said Serenus did the same through zeal, by reason of some who committed Idolatry thereby, affirming further, that therefore Pictures are used in Churches, that those which know not letters, at least should read by seeing in the wales, those things which they could not read in books. And then he concludeth. Thy brotherhood therefore aught to have preserved the pictures, and to have hindered the people from their adoration, that so the ignorant might have from whence to gather knowledge of the history, and the people not sin in adoration of the picture:  
Here S. Gregory alloweth the use of pictures in Churches, showing the commodity arrisinge thereby, and withal reprehendeth Serenus, though through zeal, for breaking and casting them down: what may we think than he would have said against white and other his brethren, who through heresy and malice, prohibit all use or place thereof in Churches, if they had been then extant and made known unto him. But though with Catholics he allow the placing of them in Churches, yet M. white will urge, that he forbiddeth their worship. The worship which he forbiddeth according to his own words is adoration, which word the Fathers frequently use for that honour which is only proper to God. And that S. Gregory meant no other, is manifest by an other Epistle written to the said Serenus, Ep. 9 l. 9 upon the self same occasion, where having repeated the foresaid utility of pictures, and adding that not without cause antiquity admitted Histories to be painted in the venerable places, or Churches, of Saints, he directethe Serenus & in him all pastors how to instruct the people in their lawful use, as showing them by testimonies of sacred scriptures, that nothing made with hand, aught to be adored, seeing it is written, Luc. 4. The Lord thy god thou shalt adore etc. As also, By sight of the thing done, or the history, let them conceive the fervour of compunction, and let them be humbly prostrated in the adoration of the only omnipotent holy Trinity. By which it is most manifest, that the worship here forbidden by S. Gregory to Images, is only that adoration which is proper to god.  
And that otherwise he thought Images duly to be worshipped, appeareth by his 7. book and 5. Epistle, where writing to Bishop januarius concerning one Peter lately converted from judaisine to Christianity, who violently had taken a Sinagoug from the jews, and placed therein the Image of the Mother of God and our Lord, and the venerable Cross etc. In redress whereof he exhorteth the said bishop, that the Image and the Cross taken away again from thence, with that veneration (or reverence) which it meet, to restore that which was violently taken away, to wit the Sinagouge. So that in steed of impugning due worship to Images, these points following may all heretics learn of S. Gregory. First, that he proveth the use thereof from antiquity. Secondly, that he alloweth the placing thereof in Churches, and impugneth the breakers or pullers of them down, though their excuse or pretence, be fear of Idolatry in the People. Thirdly that the same, in steed of hurt, do much profit the ignorant that can not read. And lastly that in plain terms he calleth the Cross, Crucem veneran damn, Venerable. And directeth, that both the Image of our B. Lady, and the Cross, should be removed, cum ea qua dignum est veneratione, with that worship which is meet, or they deserve. So that I could wish our needy minister, to be better advised hereafter in his citing of S. Gregory against Catholic religion.   

The 5 Paragraph. The Council of Eliberis corrupted against Images.  
Here now I am come to the last corruption, which I intend to display, the which I have purposely reserved, therewith to close up the taste of my Reader: so notorious it is for the Author's depraved, and so pregnant and dextrous in the conveyance.  
As touching the first, whearas every one of the former depravations (those of the Rhemistes only excepted) resteth in abusing the authority of some one particular man, this striketh at a whole Council consisting of many scores of Fathers, so happy a progress M. white haith made in his profession of corrupting. Now for the conveyance, though it be not to be paralleled with divers of the former, extensiué (as the schoolmen speak) in multitude and store of words corrupted, it lying only in sly transposition of one or two words, yet intensiué, for the art thereof, it may be equalled with any.  
This than it is. Our minister there, pag 344. to overthrow the religious use of Images, produceth the 36. Canon of the Council of Eliberis, to wit: No picture is to be made in the Church, lest that be adored which is painted on wales. The words of the Canon are these. Placuit picturas in Ecclesia non debere, ne quod colitur & adoratur, in partetibus depingatur. It pleased the Council, that pictures should not be in the Church, lest that which is worshipped and adored, be painted on the wales.  
Be observant here Reader, and mark the difference which is made of the same words, by a witty interchange of their place in their translation: & thou shalt see that my delicate minister here even transcends himself. The Council saith, Images are not to be in the Church, lest that be painted on the wales which is worshipped. M. white translateth, lest that be worshipped which is painted on the wales. Thus the difference briefly resteth in this, lest that which is worshipped be painted, And lest that which is painted be worshipped. A small difference in show of words, but great in sense: For the words of the Council 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. white saith that they are not to be painted on wales because they are not to be worshipped, and so maketh the Council to speak like good protestants.  
Now the reason why the Council would not have the wales of Churches to be painted with Images, was in regard of the due respect they bore to them, & not as M. white falsely suggesteth: For being so painted, they were subject to be defaced, either by the invasion of the enemies in those times, or else by the rain and bad wether: whereas Images drawn in Tables (of which the former Council maketh no restraint) in that they are portable and removable, do not lie open to the same danger. Therefore the intention of the Council herein, was the same with the intention of that decree by the which it was ordained, that in reverence to the Crucifix, no Cross should be made upon the plain ground, because it being so made, must needs be often irreverently be tramped with the feet of men. Thus is M. white in seeking to disprove the lawful use of an Image, become himself a perfect Image of deceit, fraud, and collusion.  
But here now I make an end of his corruptions & depravations (hasting myself to the second Part of his scene which is his lies and falsehoods.) Only I must say, that in regard of the impurity and conse unless deportment of him in his whole Treatise: I can not but commiserate all such poor credulous souls, as do highly Prejudge of his book, as beiug written in all sincerity and plainness, and free from the least touch or aspersion of any wilful depravation.  
And therefore I hold it most strange, that M. Purchase (a scholar and ingenious, though extremely malivolent) should in his own book, pag. 100 entytle M. white Via Lactea, alluding perhaps both to his name, and his supposed candour in writing.  
But since his mistaking is not justifiable: I will allow to M. white the same title, though through a differeut reason. For as the Via Lactea appeareth to a vulgar sight to be a part of heaven, and yet indeed is not, being (if we follow the judgement of the ancient Philosophers) far lower than the heavens, as it is necessarily evicted from the different parallayes and variations thereof, taken from several places: So is M. white reputed in the common eye and censure of unlearned protestants, as a man which in all truth haith much laboured in that heavenly course of dilating the Gospel and faith of Christ: whereas we find that the contrary is most true, as haith fully appeared from his several exorbitant depravations of so many Catholic Authors and others. Wherefore to be short, I greatly fear that except hereafter there follow a feeling remorse of this foul and unchristianlike dealing, the words of S. john the Evangelist, may be more truly applied to our Sir john the minister, Nomen habes, quo vivis, mortuus es. Apoc. 3.  
The end of the first part.     

white DIED BLACK.  
THE SECOND PART. Containing sundry notorious untruths or Lies, proved to be such, even by the confession of the most learned Protestants.  

And first is prevented a weak evation, which may be used by M. white against this second part  
FROM Corruptions good Reader we are next to descend to untruths, for lying indeed, is the second pillar which supporteth the whole weight & frame of M. Whytes work.  
This passage I here make distinct from the former: For although all the precedent depravations of the first part do potentially include vutruthes and falsehoods: yet our Doctor's proteruity therein doth chiefly rest, either in corrupting other men's words, or in alleging them directly against the known intention of the Authors: whereas here, the reduplicative formality (as I may term it) of his heretical deportment, consisteth in plain lying, to wit, in setting down and instifying certain most false assertions, and positions, a course little sorting to one who styleth himself a minister of god's word, in that his sacred word, is altogether incompatible with falsehood.  
The float of these his untruths is so great, as that our Doctor assordeth unto us many scoares of this nature: yet because he would make show to maintain divers of them under some pr●text, either of much reading, or in wresting the sense of such produced authorities, if I should fortify the contrary truth from their particular testimonies, of Scripture, Fathers, Histories &c. (being a kind of proof, in regard of the often suggested doubtfulness of the true sense directed by many wheels of inferences and deductions.  
Therefore to the end that I may eu●n chokingly, and irreplyably convince him of such notorious miscarriage: I have thought good to supererogate with him in disproving his said falsehoods, I mean in restraining myself precysely to such his lies, as the contrary thereto is acknowledged for true even by his own brethren: and these not m●n obscure or vulgar, but the most eminent and learned protestants of Christendom, and such as have ever been accounted stars of the greatest magnitude in their evangelical Sphere: Neither will I allege so many of them as I could, but for the greater expedition, I will content myself for the most part, with the testimonies of two or three of our learnedst adversaries.  
Now here I would have the iudiceous reader to observe that M. white can not reply in answer hereto, that because there are some other protestants that do maintain the said positions with him against his former learned brethren, that therefore such his positions, are freed from all imputation of untruth, and consequently himself of lying.  
This his answer is most insufficient: First because some of his untruths do rest, in affirming that not any one Father, or any one protestant, taught such or such a point or doctrine: against which general assertion (including all Fathers and protestants) if I can produce but any one Father or protestant (as indeed I can for the most part, produce many) it is enough to convince him of lying. Secondly in that all Master W. untruths, do make head against the Catholic Faith, and strengthen the protestants religion (in which respect they may be presumed to be the more wilful) it can not therefore with any show of reason be otherwise conceived, that such learned protestants (for the most part maintaining against the Catholics the point or conclusion of faith, out of which such assertions do rise, and therefore are not become parties against M. white therein) would ever defend against the Doctor the contrary assertions, much weakening their own cause thereby, were it not that the evidency of the truth on the Catholic side, doth force them thereunto. And therefore it followeth even in reason, that the voluntary acknowledgement of any such one learned protestant, aught to over balance & weigh down even 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 adversariis ipsis, signa ●●sti●i●atioA●●s pros●rt.  
But to make this point more perspicuous to the reader by example, our minister in one place (which hereafter shall be alleged) anouch●th, that the doctrine of Transubstantiation, was never heard of before the Council of Lateran. (for here he speaketh not of the definition of that Article, but of the doctrine only) To convince this as a most notorious untruth, I produce not Catholic authorities (for they would seem to the reader's eye over partial) but because all perfect differences are made upon unequal standing, I insist in divers learned protestants (otherwise our professed enemies) who do not believe our Catholic doctrine herein as true: nevertheless do confess, that such & such Fathers, living in the primitive Church (and therefore many ages before the foresaid Council) did teach the said doctrine of Transubstantiation. Now here I say M. white is not excused from lying, in that he is able to bring forth other particular protestants teaching with him the said innovation of Transubstantiation even at the same time (and not before) in regard of his former learned brethren confessing the further antiquity thereof, to the much disabling of their own cause.  
Now what can our Doctor object herein? not their ignorance, for they are the most accomplished protestants for their literature, that ever lived: not their partiality in the cause, for they here speak against themselves, and do conspire in the fnndamentall and primitive point of faith therein, with M. white himself: Only therefore it is to be said, that these protestants th●s confessing to their own prejudice, are more ingenious, upright, and less impudent in their writings, and M. white and his compartners, are of a canterized and se●red conscience, not caring (even against their own knowledge, by their shameless maintaining of lies) to suppress God's truth and Religion.  
Now this Basis and groundwork being immoveaable, and this firmly, laid: let us proceed to these his untruths.   

The 1. Untruth. The first untruth: that Protestants embrace that kind of trial 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 less subject to lying, then before, as I have showed, it was to corrupting) our minister (still forgeating, that a great sore in the body, is more tolerable, than a mole in the face) there speaking of the Fathers of the primitive times, and of their judgements in matters of Faith, between the protestants & us, thus writeth. We are so well assured (meaning of the resolution of the Fathers) that we embrace that kind of trial which is by antiquity, and daily find our adversaries to be gauled thereby. A most vast untruth, and acknowledged to be such even by the most iudiceous protestants. For we find, that wheareas M. jewel with the like hypocrisy. did appeal to the ancient Fathers at Paul's Cross, even his own brethren did rebuke him greatly for those his inconsiderate speeches: in so much that D. Humphrey (the half-arch of the English Church in his days) affirmeth, 
In vita juelli. printed at London. pag. 212.  that (to use his own words) M. jewel gave the papists therein to large a scope: that he was injurious to himself: and after a manner spoiled himself, and his Church.  
To the like end D. Whitaker (but with extraordinary scurrility) writeth that, The popish Religion, is but a patched coverlet of the Father's errors sowed together. 
Cont. Dur. Lib. 6. pag. 423.  From whence it followeth that D. Whytaker would be loath inappealably to stand to their determinations. Finally Luther himself (the first mover of our new Gospel's Sphere) so far disclaimeth from the Father's judgements, as that he thus insolently traduceth them. 
a Tom. 2. Wittenberg.  The Fathers of so many ages (speaking of primitive times) have been blind and most ignorant in the Scriptures: they have erred all their life time, & unless they were amended before their deaths, they were neither Saints nor pertaining to the Church. 
Anno 1551. Lib. de servo a●bitrio. pag. 434.  Thus Luther. Here now is evident the untruth of M. white appealing to the Fathers, since we find that the most learned members of his own Church, do reject them with all contempt, charging them with flat papistry, which they would never have done, if they could have used any other convenient evasion.  
Be afraid M. white of God's just revenge, for this your maintaining of evil by evil (for thus you here do, first by impugning the true faith of Christ: & then for your better warranting thereof, in traducing the ancient and holy Fathers, as enemies to the said Faith.  
And remember the sentence, 
b Seneca, in Agam.  Metum auget, qui scelere scelus obruit.   

The second untruth: Against Traditions.  
But to proceed to other untruths, pag. 2. our M. white laboureth to prove, that the protestants Church receiveth not necessarily any one Tradition, and answerably thereto in his first Table before his book, he thus writeth. No part of our faith standeth upon Tradition.  
Now here his own brethren will charge him with falsehood. For seeing M. white must and doth acknowledge, that to believe, that such books (as the writings of the four Evangelists, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of S. Paul &c.) are the sacred word of god, is a main article of both his and our Faith: The falsehood of his former Assertion is evidently evicted from the words of learned protestants, who teach, that not from our private spirit, or scripture itself, or conference thereof: but from the tradition and Authority of the Church, such writings are certainly known to be the undoubted word of God, most contrary to M. white, pag. 47. who saith, that The Scripture proveth itself to be the very word of god, & receiveth not authority from the Church.  
To this end we find D. Whitakar first reiccting the testimony of the private spirit, to say thus. 
e. Adverse. Stapl. pag. 298.  Non nego Traditionem ecclesiasticam esse argumentum, quo argui et convinci possit, qui libri Canonic● sunt, qui Canonic● non sunt. I do not deny, but that Ecclesiastical tradition is an Argument from the which it may be proved which are the Canonical books, and which are not.  
In like sort M. Hooker assenteth hereto saying, 
f Eccl. Pol. lib. 3. pag. 146.  In things necessary, the very chiefest is to know, what books we are bound to esteem holy: which point is confessed impossible for the Scripture itself to teach. But what the Scripture teacheth not, is by our adversaries confession, a mere Tradition. hooker's judgement in this point, is justified by Doctor 
g In his def. of hooker's 5. book. pa. 31.  Covell.  
Now if these eminent protestants do ascribe only 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 itself, which is the true & undoubted word of God, and what books are but spurious and adulterated, and consequently M. white lied most grossly in affirming that no part of their faith stands upon Tradition, 
Hefler. ca 16.  thus ranging himself among those who (according to the Scripture) mendaciorum funiculis conantur subvertere. By the means of lies, endeavour to overthrow.   

The third untruth. The Third untruth in proof of the continuance of the protestants faith in all ages.  
Our minister labouring to enamel and beautify his deformed faith with the speceous title of antiquity & succession, pag. 86. useth these swelling speeches.  
Against all papists whatsoever we make it good, that the very faith we now profess, haith successively continued in all ages since Christ, & was never interrupted so much as one year, month, or day, and to confess the contrary were sufficient to prove us no part of the Church of god.  
Words of brass, but (if he be put to the proof) no doubt leaden performance. To set down the judgements of the learned protestants touching the interruption of their faith for many several ages since Christ's time, were laboursom, and withal needless, since to convince this bold assertion of falsehood, it is sufficient to insist in any one age or tyme. Therefore I will content myself with the authorities of two learned protestāns touching the very time of Luther's first Apostasy and departing from our Church; they granting that their faith before Luther's revolt, was not to be found in any man living: which they never would have done, if the evidency of the matter did not force them thereto, considering how much such a confession doth enaruate and weaken their cause.  
First then we find even Luther himself to acknowledge this point, who thus writeth hereof. 
i Epist. ad Arguitinenses.  Ego principio causae meae etc. In the beginning of this my cause (speaking of his change of religion) I had this gift granted me even from heaven: that I alone should undertake so great a matter, and I did conceive that it should be made good only by me, neither did I put any confidence in the trust of others. Here we see that he granteth himself to have been alone in this his supposed restoration of the Gospel. And hereupon it is, that Luther in an other place thus vaunteth. 
k Loc. come. class. 4. p. 51.  Christum a nobis primo vulgatum andemus gloriari. We dare glory, that Christ was first made known by us.  
In like sort M. jewel (no mean Rabbi in our English synagogue) saith, 
l. In the Apology of the Church of England. par. 4. ca 4.  that the truth was unknown at that time and unheard of, when Martin Luther, and Vldrick Zuinglius, first came unto the knowledge and preaching of the Gospel.   

The 4. Untruth. In proof of the unity of faith & doctrine amongst protestants.  
Pag 138. For the more justifying of the protestants doctrine, he thus saith of the book entitled The Harmony of confessions. The Harmony of confessions wherein the particular Churches set down and name the articles of their faith, if the jesuit can show to ●arr in dogmatical points of faith: I am content you believe him in all the rest. Here the reader haith a bold assertion, which as you see the more easily to win a credulous ear, is steeped in musk: but I fear M. Doctor the note Diapason, which implieth an absolute and general concord, and which is so much commended by all the most skilful in that science, will here be wanting. And therefore for the more exact disquisition of that point, we will refer ourselves to that very book called the Harmony of confessions, englished & printed at Cambridg by Thomas Thomas. 1586. where (for the greater expedition) I will touch but some few strings thereof only, to hear how they sound.  
First then we find this harmony to teach, that sins are ef● sons punished even in this life, at David's, Manasses, and the punishments may be mitigated by good works, pag. 229. See here how fully it acknowledgeth the abstensive nature of penance and satisfaction? Again, this obedience towards the Law, is a kind of justice (mark you this discord) and deserveth reward. pag. 266. Like at the preaching of penance is general, even so the promise of grace is general etc. Here needeth no disputation of Predestination, or such like, for the promise is general. pag. 268. & 269.  
As touching private Confession etc. we affirm, that the ceremony of private absolution is to be retained in the Church, and we do constantly retain it. pag. 231.  
In like sort it saith, that the Bishops have inrisdiction to forgive sins. pag. 366.  
Finally not to rest upon every particular stop thereof, we thus find there, We do not speak of the Church as if we should speak of Plato's Idea, but of such a Church as may be seen and heard etc. The eternal Father will have his Son to be heard among all mankind. pag. 326. A note which must needs sound most harsh with our invisibilistes. Now I refer the matter to M. white himself, whether there be in these points any concordance between the harmony of Confessions, & the doctrine of our English protestants, of the Hugonots in France, and the Caluenistes in Germany: so assured I was that a diligent ear would easily observe many jarring strings in the Consort.   

The 5. Untruth. In proof of the immutability of the present English Religion.  
Page 138. He particularly insisteth in his supposed constancy of religion here in England, and thus writeth. If the jesuit can show the Church of England since papistry was first abolished, to have altered one article of the present faith now professed, I am content etc.,  
For the disproof of this falsehood, we will convince the same by discovering the manifold & weightiest alterations of our public English liturgy, since the first entrance of protestancy into England.  
And first it is evident that the liturgy of the Church of England in King Edward's time, (at which time there was an evident bringing in of protestancy) published by Crammer, Peter Martyr, & Bucer: and approved by the authority of the parliament, kept almost all the prayers and ceremonies of the Mass (the real presence only rejected) with crossing of both their Sacraments, and the accustomed rites of Baptism, as a formal consecration of the water of Baptism with the sign of the Cross, the using of Chrism and the anointing of the child.  
Again, it retained prayer for the dead, and the offering of our prayers by the intercession of Angels.  
But when Quen Elizabeth came to reign, the said liturgy was so altered, as that it is needles to rest long in the discovery thereof: for it took away prayer for the dead, and prayer to Angels, besides most of the former Ceremonies used in King Edward's time. In like sort in the Communion book of K. Edward we find confirmed, baptism by lay persons in time of necessity, and grace given in that Sacrament, the Confirmation of children, and strength given thereby, the Priest blessing the Bride groom and the bride even with the sign of the Crosse. The priests absolution of the sick penitent by these words. By the authority committed to me, I absolve thee of all thy sins. The special confession of the sick penitent, and finally the anointing of the sick. Of all which particulars, see the Communion book of K. Edward printed in fol. by Edward whitchurch cum privilegio ad imprimendum solum. An. 1549. All which (divers of them including points of faith and doctrine) are now utterly left out in the Communion book published in Q. Elizabeth's time: In so much as Parker an english protestant, thus writeth thereof. 
m Against Simbolizing. par. 2. ca 5.  The day star was not risen so high in their days, when as yet Q. Elizabeth reform the defects of K. Edward's Communion book. answerably hereto writeth Cartwright saying. 
m jesuit. par. 2. rat. 5. p. 5. & 627.  The Church of England changed the book of Common prayer twice or thrice, after it had received the knowledge of the Gospel. Thus Cartwright in his 2. Reply, par. 1. pa. 41. who in that very book laboureth yet for a fourth change. And thus is M. white not afraid to suggest to the world even in print (fond man that could not be idle enough in private talk) such unwarrantable untruths: which course of his, if it proceeded from his own inaduertency and oversight as not having seen the Common prayer book of K. Edward declaring the contrary, then were it more pardonable, but this I think himself, out of his pride and show of much reading, will not acknowledge, & therefore we may probably ascribe it to his mere wilful forgery, who to defend his own heterogeneous and mongerell faith (which maintaineth at different times different doctrines) dare adventure to broach falsehoods though never so eminent. But let him remember that by so doing, he (with disadvantage to his cause) vainly spendeth his labour, for Qui nititur mendacity hic pascit ventos. Who trusteth to lies, feedeth the winds.   

The 6. Untruth. In proof of the Roman Church's mutability in matters of Faith.  
Page 150, he confidently averreth, that The Church of Rome is varied from herself in matters of Faith, since she began to be the seat of Antichrist: Thus charging our Church with great mutability of belief, as before he laboured to grace and adorn his own Sinagouge with all speceous constancy in the same.  
Now for the better overthrowing of this untruth, it is necessary to recur to those first supposed times 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 even so far doth the minister stretch out his lie.  
First then the most received opinion of the protestants touching Antichrist his coming (for they are most various among themselves therein) is, that S. Gregory the great, was the first Antichrist. Now to observe what his Religion was, will be made evident by taking view of the Religion which S. Augustine (being a Monk of the Church of Rome, and sent by this S. Gregory) did here plant in England.  
For the trial of which point, I will first produce D. Humphrey, who thus writeth hereof. 
n jesuit. par. 2. rat. 5. p. 5. & 627.  In Ecclesiam verò etc. What did Gregory & Augustine bring into the Church? etc. A burden of Ceremonies etc. They brought in the Pall for the Archbishop in celebrating of Mass, and purgatory etc. They brought in the oblation of the healthful Host, and prayer for the dead etc. Relics etc. Transubstantiation etc. A new consecration of Churches etc. From all the which, what other thing is gathered, than that Indulgences, Monachisme, the Papacy, and all the rest, confusion of the Pope's superstition, was then erected: all which things, Augustine the great Monk, and taught by Gregory a Monk, brought to us English men. Thus far D. Humphrey.  
In like sort the Triumuiri of Magdeburg (whose censuring pens have controlled more ages, than ever the Romans Triumuiri governed Provinces) I mean the 3 Century writers in the Index, or Alphabetical Table of the 6. Century, after the first Edition thereof at the word Gregory, do relate the particular doctrine of S. Gregory, as popish and erroneous: For thus they here note with particular references to the places of S. Gregory's writings proving the same Eiusdem error etc. The same (Gregory's) error of good works, of Confession, of Wedlock, of the Invocation of Saints, of hell, of justification, of Free will, of purgatory, of Penance, of Satisfaction.  
Now this former doctrine containing the chief points wherein we differ from the sectaries of this time, being acknowledged to be the Faith of Gregory, who is supposed to be the first Antichrist, & most articulatly at this day believed of all Roman Catholics: I would ask M. white with what forehead he can avouch his former words, to wit, that the Church of Rome is varied from herself in matters of faith, since she began to be the seat of Antichrist. But all this riseth from an inward repugning of the Min. against our Church, in regard of the unchangeable certainty and constancy of faith professed by her: whereas the want thereof in our adversaries religion is most notorious, as appeareth not only from their several confessions, one ever impugning an other; but also from their different translations of their bibles, still made to sort to the faith of their last Edition; so as in respect of their wonderful mutability, and variance among themselves, whereby indeed they indignify and wrong the nature of true faith; we have reason to demand of any of the professors, of what thinking he is, rather than of what faith.   

The 7. Untruth. In proof of the protestants concord in matters of Religion.  
Page. 139. To prove that protestants have true unity, he showeth, that the divisions among them, are either falsely laid to their charge through ignorance & fury of their enemies etc. or else they are not jars of the Church, but the defects of some few therein, whereof the Church is not guilty, or lastly, not dissertions in things of faith, but strife about Ceremonies etc. Thus doth the D. Apologize for his discording brethren. Now to convince this, the Reader shall hear what some of their own brethren do acknowledge therein.  
First then Doctor Willet, rehearsing several opinions of Hooker and D. Covell, of which Willet presuming that they can not stand with true protestancy thus writeth. 
n Willet in his medit. upon the .122. ps.  From this fountain have sprung forth these and such other whirle-pointes, and bubbles of new doctrine, as that Christ is not originally God. That Scriptures are not means concerning God, of all that profitably we know etc. That man's will is apt naturally without Grace, to take any particular object whatsoever presented unto it, and so consequently believe, that men's naeturall works, or to do that Which nature telleth us (without grace) must needs be acceptable to God etc. Thus have some been bold to teach and write, as some Schismatics (meaning the puritanes) have disturbed the peace of the Church, one way, in external matters concerning discipline: these have troubled the Church an other way, in opposing themselves by new quirks and devices to the soundness of doctrine amongst protestants. But if the position here meant be against the foundnes of doctrine, then can it not be restrained only to ceremonies.  
Doctor Whitaker speaking of the contentions among the protestants, saith. 
o 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 words if followeth, that they are not personal, or only about ceremonies, as M. white pretendeth.  
Now if we further take a view of the intemperate speeches given by Luther against the Zwinglians, it may satisfy any one, that the differences were not in small points of government or ceremonies. Thus then Luther speaketh. 
p Con. Lova. Thes. 27. to. 2. Wittemb. fol 503.  We censure in earnest the Zninglians, & all the Sacramentaries, for heretics, and alienated from the Church of God, And in an other place. 
q To. 7. Wittemb. fo. 381 & 382.  Cursed be the Charity and concord of Sacramentaries for ever and ever, to all eternity. As also in the 3. place. 
r de Caenado. To n. 2. Ger. fol. 174.  I having now one of my feet in the grave, will carry this testimony and glory to the tribunal of God, that I will with all my heart condemn and eschew Carolostadius, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius, and their scholars, nor will have with any of them familiarity, either by letters or writings. etc. And thus far of this point. From all which may be inferred, that dissensions among the protestants are not merely personal, or but points adiaphorous, indifferent, being as it were but peccant humours, and not true or form diseases in their church, but they do concern most profound doubts of their religion, since otherways they would never anathematize, or condemn one an other with such acerbity of words. Which irrevocable contentions among the protestāns, (being most preiudiceous to themselves) is advantageous to us, for bellum haereticorum, est pax Ecclesiae. The war of heretics, is the peace of God's Church, none otherwise then the reciprocal strife and reluctation of the 4. humours, keeps the whole body in a peaceable & healthful state.   

The 8. Untruth. Against the unity of Catholics in matters of Faith.  
Page. 153. The Doctor seeing his own synagogue torn in sunder with divisions and contentions (howsoever he slubered the matter over before with his fair pretence of concord) and well knowing how prejudicial the want of unity is to the true Religion of Christ. 
s 1. Cor. 15.  For God is not a God of dissension, but of peace; doth maliceously endeavour, to cast the like aspersion upon our Catholic Church in these words. These which know Rome and papistry, are sufficiently satisfied in this matter, to wit, that the papists live not in that unity which is pretended. & then p. 156. he telleth of what kind these disagreements are saying. The contentions of our adversaries touch the faith. And pag. 159, he concludeth in these words. Thus are the papists divided about the principal articles of their faith. Upon which subject, he then after with much earnestness, vainly and idly spendeth divers leaves, bringing therein even obtorto cullo, whatsoever he haith read or heard touching the least disagreement among the Catholics, which labour of his, will serve no doubt, to a iudiceous eye, like to the spiders web, painfully wrought, but to no purpose.  
Wherefore I will briefly make plain how free we are from all breach of faith even by the acknowledgement of the protestants themselves. First then D. Whitaker wounding himself and his cause by his confession, saith. 
t de Eccl. cont. Bell. contro. 2. q. 5. p 227.  Nostrae contentiones (si quae sint) sunt piae, et modestae, propter fidem, & propter religionem etc. Contentiones papistarum sunt frivolae & futiles, de figmentis et commentis sui cerebri. Our contentions (if there be any) are godly and modest, touching faith and religion: whereas the contentions of the papists, are but tryflinge, concerning the fictions of their own brain. Thus granting the dissensions of the protestants more nearly to concern faith and religion, than the dissensions among the Catholics do.  
Doctor Fulke saith of our unity in this sort. 
v Against 〈◊〉. Sand. etc. 295.  As for the consent of the popish Church, it proveth nothing but that the devil than had all things at his will and might sleep; So acknowledging our unity truly; but falsely and absurdly ascrybing it to the devil who is the designed enemy to unity.  
To be short Duditius a famous protestant and highly respected by Beza, doth no less acknowledge the unity of our Catholic Church, for thus doth Beza 
u Beza in Ep. theol. ad Andraeam Dudit. Fp. 1. pa. 13  relate Duditius his words. Etsi (inquis) multa eaque horrenda propugnantur in Romana Ecclesia etc. Although many dreadful things are defended in the Roman Church, which are builded upon a weak and rotten foundation, notwithstanding that Church is not divided with many dissensions: for it haith the plausible show of reverent Antiquity, ordinary succession, and perpetual consent etc.  
Thus Duditius related by Beza, and not impugned herein by him.  
Now here we are to note, that the testimonies of these and other protestants (here omitted) acknowledging our unity and consent, must necessarily be understood touching unity in the mysteries, and other fundamental points of our Religion, which is the thing only that we are here to maintain, since if unity alone about points of indifferency, or of things not defined should be meant by them, then in regard of many such disputable questions yet among the school men; the former judgements of our adversaries should be false and not justifiable. And thus much for this point; from whence the Doctor may learn that among those which are true Catholics, unity of doctrine is most religiously observed, since such not over partially resting in their own native judgements, to what way soever they be inclining, do most diligently follow, the supreme resolution & current of the Church: in part resembling herein the inferior orbs which with greater speed, sedulity, and expedition, perform the revolutions of the highest Sphere whereunto they are subject: then they do accomplish their own natural & particular motions.   

The 9 Untruth. Against the Pope's Primacy.  
Page 185. The Doctor writeth in his digression thus. The Primitive Church did not acknowledge the Pope's Primacy. Here I see that M: white will ever be M. white, I mean that he will ever be like to himself, first in coining, and after maintaining most impudent untruths.  
Now as touching the discovery of this his false position, since to go through all the centuries of the primitive Church, would be needlessly laboursome: I think it good to restrain myself only to the fourth century or age after Christ, an age wherein Constantine the first Christian Emperor lived, and which for that respect not undeservedly seems to be most entertained and approved by the grave judgement of the kings Majesty. 
w As appeareth out of his majesties words touching the same, in the sum of the conference before his Majesty. pag. 97   
Now for the greater clearing of this point, it will be needful to observe, what authority the Popes did exercise, by the acknowledgement of our learned adversaries, since the authority and sovereignty over all other Churches, and Prelates, is that which doth, as it were, organize and perfect the Pope's Primacy.  
Now then answerable hereto Cartwright writeth, that 
x Reply 2. part. 1 p. 501  julius Bishop of Rome at the Council of Antioch, overreached, in claiming the hearing of causes that did not appertain unto him. Now this julius lived in the sourth age. Again the said Cartwright saith of S. Damasus who was Pope in this age. 
y Reply part. 1. p. 502.  that he spoke in the dragon's voice, when he shameth not to write, that the Bishop of Rome's sentence, Was above all other, to be attended for in a Synod. So far was this sectaries censure different from the judgement of S. Jerome, delivered of the same Pope in these words 
z 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, quicunque extra hanc domum Aguxm commederit, prophanus est etc. quicunque tecum non colligit, spargit,  
In like sort touching appeals to Rome, (an essential point of Ecclesiastical Supremacy) we find that the Centurists 
a Cent. 5. Col. 1013.  do acknowledge, that Theodoret a Greek Father, and one of this fourth age, being deposed by the Council of Ephesus, did accordingly make his appeal to Pope Leo, and thereupon was by him restored to his Bishopric. And to conclude, the Centuristes do no less acknowledge, that Chrisostom 
b Cent. 5. Col. 663.  did appeal to Innocentius, who decreed Theophilus Chrisostomes' enemy, to be deposed & excommunicated.  
Thus we find how dissonant this our ministers assertion touching the Primacy is, to the practice of the Primitive Church, even in the judgement of those who are designed enemies to the said Primacy, as might well be exemplified, throughout all the Centuristes, and ages of those times, seeing all reverent antiquity, (no less than the Catholics of these days) was fully persuaded, that S. Peter and his successors, were ever to be accounted the visible Baseis, or foundations of gods Church: and all other Bishops but Columns: And as this foundation immediately supports these pillars, so these pillars the rest of this spiritual edifice and structure.   

The 10. Untruth. That Gregory the great, detested the Pope's Primacy.  
Page 193. M. white descendeth to the example of S. Gregory the great, and first Pope of that name, in whose writing he hopeth to find great sttrength, for the impugning of the Pope's sovereignty: and among other things the D. saith. Gregory had no such jurisdiction as now the Pope usurpeth, but detested it not only in john of Constantinople, but also in himself. etc. Where now the Reader may be instructed, that the reason why this Gregory is by some supposed to disavow the doctrine of the primacy, is in that he rejecteth in john of Constantinople, the title of universal Bishop as sacrilegious, which his saying was grounded only in taking the name of universal Bishop, to exclude the true being of all other Bishops, as it is confessed by Andreas Brictius. 
c de Eccl. lib 2. ca 10.   
But now that S. Gregory did both claim and practise the Primacy, is acknowledged by our adversaries, for the Centuristes write 
d Cent. 6. Col. 425.  of him that he said. The Roman Sea appointeth her watch over the whole world, and that he taught that the Apostolic Sea, is the head of all Churches: that Constantinople itself is subject to the Apostolic Sea. Furthermore S. Gregory is charged by the Centuristes, 
e Ibidem.  that he challenged to himself power to command Archbishops: To ordain or depose Bishops at his pleasure: that 
f Col. 427.  he took upon him right to city Archbishops to declare their cause before him when they were accused: That actually Gregory did undertake to excommunicate 
g Col. 427  such and such Bishops: That in their Provinces 
h Col. 428.  he placed his Legates, to know and determine the causes of such as appealed to Rome.  
Finally, to omit many other points recorded by them, that 
i Ibidem.  he usurped power of appointing Synods in their provinces.  
Here now I refer this point to the indifferent Reader, whether he will believe M. white denying to the benefit of his cause, the Primacy of S. Gregory, of the Centuristes being divers learned protestants, all confessing the same, though to their own prejudice.   

The 11. Untruth. In proof that Catholics are more viceous than protestants.  
Page 209. For the extenuating and lesning of the sinful lives of the protestants, the Doctor much extolleth their imputative, and supposed virtues, and as much depresseth the lives of all Catholics in general, and thus he entitleth that leaf, The protestants people as holy as the papists. In like sort, from page 213. to 218. he spendeth himself in gathering together whatsoever Catholic writers have spoken touching the lives of some loose livers, thus scornfully entytling the leaves, The holiness of the Church of Rome deciphered: most of which sayings being found in sermons, or exhortations, and in heat of amplification, delivered generally as the custom is, and this without any reference or comparison to the lives of the protestants, can not justly be extended to all Catholics, no more then the reprehensions of the Prophets in the old testament spoken without any restraint, could be truly applied to all the jews.  
Wherefore for the further upbraiding of this our ministers lie which is woven upon the thread of malice, and for the more punctual convincing him of falsehood, I will prove from the Protestants own confessions, that the lives of Catholics, are generally more virtuous, than those of the protestants (in which kind of proof, from the like acknowledgement of us Catholics in favour of the protestants, the D. haith not brought so much as one line.  
To this purpose than is not Luther forced thus to write, to the eternal shame of his own religion? 
k Dom. 26. post Trin.  Before when we were seduced by the Pope, every man did willingly follow good works: and now every man neither saith nor knoweth any thing, but how to get all to himself by exactions, pillage: theft, and usury, etc.  
In like sort he confesseth more saying thus. 
l In Postilla super evang. Domin. 1. Aduen.  The world groweth daily worse, men are more revengeful, contentious, licenceous, then ever they were before in the papacy. And yet Luther. 
m In sermon. conivialibus. Ger. fol. 55.  It is a wonderful thing, & full of scandal, that from the time in which the pure doctrine of the Gospel was first recalled to light: the world should daily grow worse. See here the acknowledged fruits of his own Gospel. In like manner jacobus And●●as a very learned protestaut, thus confesseth of his own religion. 
n Conc. 4. in c. 21. L●c.  Mandate serió Deus in verbo su●, etc. God earnestly commandeth in his word, and exacteth of Christians, seriam et Christianam disciplinam, a serious and Christian discipline: but these things are accounted by us, nouns papatus, nowsque Monachismus, a new papacy, and a new Monachisme: for thus they dispute. Didicimus modò per solam fi●●em in Christum salvari etc. We have now learned to be saved in Christ only by faith, etc. Wherefore suffer us to omit all such works of discipline, seeing that by other means we may be saved by Christ. And that the whole world may not acknowledge these to be papists nor to trust in their good works: they do not exercise any one of the said good works, for in steed of fasting, they spend both day and night in drinking &c. their praying is turned into swearing etc.  
So this learned protestant, who also termeth this kind of life the evangelical instruction, thus making protestancy a good disposition to draw on all wickedness: Where you see that the gospelers (even in this man's judgement being a gospeler himself) are so given over to licenceousnes of manners, as they may be said to hold it only a sin not to sin, and a virtue, to abandon all virtue; since they make their faith & Religion (contrary to which they be bound not to do) to be the foundation or sanctuary of their profane and heathenish comportment.  
But now seeing that by laying contraries together, the one often receiveth much force from the other in the apprehension of our judgement; let us a little enter more particularly into the courses of such our ministers as from whom we are to expect the greatest satisfaction in this point, that so in an even libration of the matter, the Reader may rest more fully satisfied, and M. white more clearly and irrepliably convinced of his former untruth.  
Forbearing therefore at this time all other testimonies, I will content myself only with the example of Zuinglius and other ministers confederated with him in Helvetia, who preaching our new evangelical doctrine to that common wealth: exhibited certain petitions to the state, the tenor whereof, is here even literally taken from Zuinglius, and the other ministers own writings, bearing this title. 
o Tom. 1. fol. 115  Pietate & prudentiae insigni Heluetiorum Reipub. Huldericus Zuinglius, ali●que evangelicae doctrinae ministri, gratiam & pacem a Deo. Now we find in this former book, that they thus first petitioned. Hoc vero summis praecibus contendimns etc. We earnestly request that the use of marriage be not denied unto us, who feeling the infirmity of the flesh, perceive that the love of chastity is not given to us by god: For if We consider the words of the Apostle, we shall find with him none other cause of marriage, (mark what a spiritual scholia these illuminated brethren do give) then to satisfy the lustful desires of the flesh, which to burn in us, we may not deny, seeing that by means thereof, we are made infamous before the Congregations.  
Would any man believe this, were it not that their own certain writings are yet extant to upbraid them withal? And in an other place they thus renew their petition. 
p Ib. fo. 119  Non carnis libidine, for the love, not of lust, but of chastity, lest that the souls committed to our charge by example of our sensuality, should be any longer offended. Thus they even confess, that till this time, their former licenceous life, had much scandalised their followers, And further yet. 
q Ibidem  Quarê cum carnis nostrae infirmitatem nobis non semel (proh dolour) etc. Wherefore seeing we have made trial, that the infirmity and weakness of our flesh, haith been (o the grief) the cause of our often falling etc. The same Zuinglius with other 8 ministers, in their Epistle to the Bishop of Constance, subscribed with their own hands to the like purpose, thus writeth. 
r Zuinglius. Tom 1. fol 121.  Hitherto we have tried, that the gift of chastity haith been denied us. And yet further, 
s Ibid. fol. 122.  Arsimus (proh dolour) tantoperé, ut muha ind●coré gesserimus. We have hurned (o the shame) so greatly, that many things we have committed very unseemly.  
And for the clausure of all, they thus salve the matter. 
s Ib. fol. 123  Non usque adcò incivilibus moribus sumus etc. To speak truly. we are not otherwise of such uncivil conversation, that we should be evil spoken of among the people committed to our charge, for any wickedness, Hoc uno excepto, this one point excepted.  
Here you have the words of our holy and spiritualized s●ctmaisters, who you may well perceive insisted further touching the same point, with the Heluetians and the former Bishop, in or the like dialect & phrase of expostulation.  
Since according to the doctrine of our reverend father Luther, 
t Lutherus in Proverb. 31●  (which we are bound both to teach and practise) Nothing is more sweet and loving upon the earth, then is the love of a woman: Alas why should we, who have of late revealed the gospel of Christ heretofore so long eclipsed, be recompensed therefore with the want of that most delightful and natural comfort of a woman. being forced to imitate the superstitious papist in embracing a votary and barren life. Or why should the Helvetian state so severely exact at our hands, that we who only preach uncorruptedly the Christian faith, should only be deprived herein of our Christian liberty. Heu quanta patimur. Libidenous and goatish ministers, whose very pen ● spumant venerem, and with whom even to meditate of a woman, is the centre of your most serious thoughts: well may you use your interjections of proh dolour, proh pudor. o grief, o shame, as the burden to your sensual and lascivious writings. For what can be a greater shame and grief unto you (if you be sensible of either) than you who venditate yourselves, for the restorers of the gospel so long hidden, to be (to the disedifying of your own followers) thus wholly absorbed in such lustful and fleshly cogitations. But we pardon you, for we know 
v Io. ca 3.  quoth natumest ex carne caro est: So great, each man sees, is the disparity between our evangelical ministers (who enjoying the primitias of the spirit, were in reason obliged to warrant it, with greater effects and fruits of virtue) and the confessed better lives, even of secular Catholics. And so lewdly and loudly did M. white lie in whom there is much Zuinglius) when he affirmed that the protestants were as holy as the papists. But I fear that through my earnestness in displaying of the ministers vanity, I have been over long in this point, therefore I will descend to the next untruth.   

The 12. Untruth. Against auricular Confession.  
Page 227. discoursing of auricular Confession, he saith, that the Primitive Church knew it not.  
For the discovery of this falsehood, we find, that the Centuristes do confessse, 
w Cen. 3. c. 6. Col. 27.  that in the times of Cyprian and Tertulian, private Confession was used, even of thoughts, and lesser sins: And which is more, they acknowledge, 
x Ibid.  that it was then Commanded, and thought necessary, And D. Whytaker writeth 
y con. Camp. rat. 5. pag. 78.  that not only Cyprian, but almost all of the most holy Fathers of that time, were in error touching Confession, and Satisfaction.  
Thus we see how little blood was in M. white his cheeks, when he was not ashamed to set down this former bold assertion, touching the doctrine of Confession. But indeed it seemeth that our minister accounteth it only a shame, to feel in himself any touch of shame, so far is he of (in likelihood) from all hope of future amendment, seeing on the contrary side, that saying (for the most part) is true, 
z Terent. in Adelh.  Erubuit, salva res est.   

The 13. Untruth. Against Fasting.  
Page. 224. Our delicate minister as a professed enemy to all austerity of life, writeth thus against fasting. All antiquity can witness, that in the primitive Church, Fasting was held an indifferent thing, & every man was left to his own mind therein. This falsehood is made discoverable by these acknowledgmentes following.  
And first it is so certain that AErius was condemned by Epiphanius, haer. 76. and by S. Augustine, haer. 53. for taking away all set days of fasting, as that D. Fulke thus writeth of this point. 
a In his answer to a counterfeit Catholic p. 45.  I will not dissemble that which you think the greatest matter: Aerius taught that fasting days are not to be observed.  
The same condemnation of Aerius by the former Fathers, is acknowledged by doctor Whytaker, 
b Con. Dur. lib. 9 p. 830  By Pantaleon, 
c In Chronographia. p. 28.  and Osiander. 
d Epitome. Cent. 4. pag. 424.  But if Aerius was condemned by the former ancient Fathers for an heretic, for denying certain prescribed times of fasting; it inavoidably followeth, that fasting was not holden as a thing indifferent in the primitive Church.  
This lie will appear more evident, if we instance it in the fast of Lent, which fast was so far from being accounted arbitrary, or a thing indifferent, in the primitive Church, as that Cartwright reproveth S. Ambrose for saying. 
e Cartwright in Whitgiftes defence.  It is sin, not to fast in Lent.  
Thus you see how familiarly this ministers pen drops lie after lie, and such as the contrary assertion is maintained for true, even by the most eminent protestants.   

The 14. Untruth. In proof that Montanus the heretic, was the first that brought in the laws of Fasting.  
Page 224. Our Doctor in further disgrace of fasting thus writeth. Montanus a condemned heretic, was the first that ever brought in the laws of Fasting, from whom the Papists have borrowed them. The 〈◊〉 misapplication of which, is so forced and racked, that no inferior a protestant than Hooker himself, confesseth ingeniously in these words, that 
e Eccl. Pol. lib. 5. Sect. 72. p 29.  the Montaristes were condemned for bringing in sundry unaccustomed days of fasting, continued their fasts a great deal l●●ger, & made them more rigorous etc. Whereupon Tertulian maintaining Montanus, wrote a book of the new fast. But what is this to us Catholics, for we see that the error of Montanus consisted formally, not in absolutely bringing in of fasting, but in varying from the former practised fasts of the whole Church.  
answerably hereunto the protestant writer of Quaerimonia Ecclesiae, rejecteth the former idle assertion in these words. 
pag 110.  Eusebium (inquiunt) Montanum primas de iciuniis tulisse leges etc. They say that Eusebius did undoubtedly teach, that Montanus first brought in the laws of fasting, but they are sowly deceived in this as in some other points: for Montanus abrogating the fasts of the Church, brought in a new kind of fasting.  
Thus we see by the former assertions, that M. white like a good fellow, and one that means to enjoy his Christian liberty, can not well relish the unsavoury doctrine of fasting, as in some pages hereafter we shall synd that in like sort he rejecteth all voluntary chastity: which two points (as before I noted) do entertain the one the other: for who knoweth not that Epicurism is the oil which nourisheth the flame of lust.   

The 15 Untruth. In proof that they make not god the author of sin.  
Page 263. M. white being desirous that his religion should decline all contumelious reproach, and stain, touching the author of sin, thus writeth. The doctrine of the protestants, doth not make God the author of sin, nor inferreth any absolute necessity, constraining us that we can not do otherwise then we do.  
That the indifferent Reader may the better discover whether these his words be false or true, I will only set down the sentences of the chiefest protestants, and withal will deliver the judgements of other protestants, against the former defending of the said sentences.  
Zuinglius saith, that 
g Tom. 1. de provid. dei. fol. 366.  God moveth the thief to kill. And that the thief killeth god procuring him. And that the thief is enforced to sin. Thus in the heretics judgement, God (who in every leaf of his sacred word denounceth his comminations against sinners) doth incite, procure, and force man to sin.  
Beza in like sort teacheth, that 
h In his display of popish practices.  God exciteth the wicked will of one thief to kill an other, guideth his hand, and weapons, justly enforcing the will of the thief. Finally Calvin writeth, that 
i Lib. 2. Inst. ca 4.  In sinning, the devil is not author, but rather an instrument thereof: thus referring the author of sin, to God himself.  
Now that these sayings of the former protestants do, if not actually, immediately, and primariously, yet at least potentially, and necessarily, include in themselves, that god is the author of sin: is granted by other more modest protestant writers, who do altogether condemn the foresaid doctrine of Calvin, Zuinglius, and Beza.  
Thus is the said doctrine condemned by Castalio who wrote a special treatise hereof against Calvin. By Hooker, in his Ecclesiast. Policy lib 5. pag. 104. By D. Covell in his defence of M. Hooker pag 62. Yea in farther convincing of M. Whytes former untruth, we find that jacobus Andreas a Protestant in Epitome. Coloq. Montisbelgar. pag. 47. thus plainly writeth. Deus est Author peccati secundum Bezam.  
Here now I refer the matter to the iudiceous Reader, whether he will believe M. Whytes former assertion as true, politikly only delivered by him to salve the honour of his Church, or the plain contrary meaning of Calvin, Zuinglius, and Beza, set down in their own sayings, & so acknowledged by others of their own Religion: where we find that the protestant, doth charge & condemn the protestant, for teaching that God is the author of sin. But as in the former untruths, so particularly in this, we see how Antipodes-lyke, & oppositly, our Doctor treadeth to the feet of his own brethren.   

The 16. Untruth. In proof that S. Bernard was no papist.  
Page. 298. He is not afraid to publish by his pen, that Bernard was a papist in none of the principal points of their religion. And then he addeth. He stood against the pride of the Pope. etc. Good Reader, here is no lying: for whosoever will but observe what is confessed by the protestants, must acknowledge that impudence itself would be ashamed to have maintained such a groundless untruth.  
For first it is granted by Symond de Voyon a protestant, 
k Upon the catalogue.  that he was Abbot of Clareivaux. And Osiander saith of Bernard 
l in Epitome. cent. 12. pag. 309.  that Centum et quadraginta Monasteriorum author fuisse creditur. He was thought to be the Author of a hundredth & 40 Monasteries.  
In like sort S. Bernard was so great a Patron of the Pope's Primacy, that the Centuristes write of him 
m Cen. 12. 10.  Coluit deum Maozim etc. Bernard did worship even to the last end of his life, the god Maozim, he was a most eager defender of the seat of Antichrist. Appoint so clear, that he is charged by D. Fulke, 
n Against the Rhem. Test. in Luc. 22. fol. 133.  and D. Whytaker 
o lib. cont. Dur. pag. 154.  for defending the Pope's Ecclesiastical Authority, and yet if we believe M. white he stood against the pride of the Pope, so evident you see is this made by the free acknowledgement of the protestants, whose censures are passed upon S. Bernardes' Religion and faith in general. And therefore we may well infer, that if they had thought S. Bernard to have been but in part a catholic (or as the term is a papist) and in other points a protestant, they would have been glad to have challenged him to themselves in the supposed points of his protestancy.  
Thus M. white we still observe, that the Reader is ever entertained by you with nought but falsehoods, but no marvel, for it is your own position, 
p In M. W. his book. pag. 1.  that a man can not hope to learn truth in the school of lies.   

The 17. Untruth. 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 etc. are lies and devices. This is spoken to dishonour the Roman Faith, divers of whose professors through God's omnipotency, and for the manifestation, and strengthening of his truth, have in all times been able to exhibit divers great miracles, the remembrance of which prerogative resting only in our Church, is most displeasing to our minister, in whose nice nostrils, nothing well savoureth, that tasteth of the praise of our Catholic Religion.  
But now let us see, whether the miracles recorded of the former Saints, be lies or no, as the D. fond suggesteth. One most remarkable miracle of S. Bernard, is recorded by Godfridus in the life of S. Bernard. It was wrought in proof of certain Catholic Articles denied in those days by the heretics Apostolici or Henriciani, as at this instant they are denied by the protestants. The miracle was done in the Country of Tolousa in France, and consisted in S. Bernardes' blessing of certain loaves of bread, of which loaves (for proof of the truth of our Catholic doctrine then preached by S. Bernard) whosoever, being in any sort diseased of body, should eat, should be healed of their sickness: 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, 
q Epitome. Cent. 12. lib. ca 6. pag. 310.  doth not say it is a lie and forged, as M. white doth, but granting the thing as true, doth ascribe it to the power and working of the devil, as the wicked jews did the miracles of our blessed Saviour, unto Beelzebub.  
In like sort Matthew Paris in his history which is printed by the protestants at Tigur. 1589. whose book is by the said protestants highly commended in their Preface annexed thereunto, and who himself is reckoned for his defence of certain points of protestancy, in the number of protestants by Illiricus. 
r In his Catalogue of the witnesses of truth.   
This man now most seriously recordeth, that before S. Francis death, there appeared certain wounds in his hands and feet, and his side, freshly bleeding, such as were seen in our Saviour when he suffered on the Crosse. The reason of which appearance was (as S. Francis said) to show that he did truly preach the mystery of the Cross: and that in further demonstration of the same, he told them before, that presently after death, the former wounds should be healed & coherent like to the rest of his flesh: the which accordingly did fall forth. And thus much but of these for brevity sake instanced in these two Saints, from whence we may confidently affirm, that it is a lie to say with M. white, that these Saints Mirakles are but lies.   

The 18. Untruth. In proof of the protestants Churches ever visibility.  
Page 225. and 226. In defence of the continuance of his own Church, he thus saith. The learned among us confess and prove against all that contradict it, that ever since Christ's time 〈…〉 there haith been a company of men visibly professing the same faith that we do, though the Church of Rome a generating into the seat of Antichrist, persecuted them, and so many times drove them ●wt of the sight of the world, that to it they were not visible. Thus he.  
But before we convince this, I would demand where our ministers head piece was, when he thus wrote, since these few lines do involve an irreconcilable contradiction: A company of men visibly professing &c. yet to the world not visible. O strange & never before heard of Inuisible-uisible: aswell he might maintain white, remaining white, to be black, or the moon in her greatest eclipse, to shine, as the Church ever to be visible, and yet latent: and latent to whom? to the world: still good, as if it were to be seen only by some who are out of the world.  
But now to the falsehood, the like whereof he ventilated before, and haith accordingly been 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 amiss to repel such an idle suggestion with the testimonies and acknowledgmentes of several learned protestants.  
And first Napper writeth 
m upon the Revelat. prop. 37. pag. 68  that between the year of Christ 300, and 1316. the Antichristian and Papistical reign began, reigning universally, and without any debateable contradiction 1260 years, gods true Church most certainly abiding latent and invisible.  
Sebastianus Francus a famous protestant in like sort saith. 
n In Ep. de abrogandis in universum om nibus statut. Ecclesiast.  For certain through the work of Antichrist, the external Church, together with the faith and Sacraments, vanished away presently after the Apostles departure: and that for these thousand four hundredth years, the Church haith been no where external 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 invisibility yet) writeth, 
o In his answ. to a counterf. Catholic. pag. 16.  that in the time of Boniface the third, which was Anno 607. the Church was invisible, and fled into wilderness, there to remain a long season.  
To these testimonies we may add the former heretofore alleged, touching their Churches not being upon the first revolt of Luther. From all which it is inevitably concluded against this our Architect of lies, that the protestants imaginary Church, consisting of airy supposales of certain invisibilistes: had no subsisting or being in the world for these last thousand years at the least, before the Apostasy of that unfortunate & wicked Monk.   

The 19 Untruth. In defence of priests marriage.  
Page 343. The Doctor much Apologizing & defending the marriage of the Clergy, affirmeth that the Church of Rome holdeth contrary herein, to that which was taught in the Primitive Church.  
Now for the trial of this falsehood, let us concur to that which is confessed by our learned adversaries concerning the same. First then Cartwright confesseth 
o In his 2. Reply part. 1. p. 485.  of the first Council of nice, which was celebrated in the 3. Century or age after Christ, that it taught, that unto those which were chosen into the ministry, it was not lawful to take a wife afterwards, only being married before entrance into the ministry, it was lawful for them to use the benefit of the precedent marriage. In like sort M. jewel, in the defence of the Apology, page 195. after the edition of Anno 1571. speaking of priests marriages, thus acknowledgeth. Here I grant M. Harding it like to find some good advantage as having undoubtedly a great number of holy Fathers on his side. 
Exam. part. 3 p. 50.  Lastly Chemni●ius granteth, that this doctrine that priests can not marry, is taught by Origen, Jerome, Ambrose, Innocentius, Ciritius, & Epiphanius.  
Now here I refer to the judgement of any indifferent reader, whether we are to believe these former learned protestants ingeniously confessing the practice of this our Catholic doctrine in the primitive Church, to the prejudice and endangering of their own cause: or M. white denying the same for the better tecture and pretext of his own sociable life, and his ministerial copulation.   

The 20 Untruth. Against Images.  
page 344. inveighing much against the religious use of Images, among other things he saith (according to the title of that his digression) that touching Images, the Church of Rome holdeth contrary to that formerly was holden. And after allegeth, that the ancient Christians of the Primitive Church, had no Images. But the contrary hereto is most true. For first we find that the Centuristes do write, 
4 Cent. ca 10. 108.  that Lactantius (who lived in the fourth Century or age) affirmeth many superstitious things concerning the efficacy of Christ's Image. Doctor Fulke affirmeth, 
a Against H●lk●ns. etc. p. 672. 675.  that Paulinus a very ancient Author, caused Images to be painted on Church wales. In like sort touching the sign of the Cross, of which there is the same reason and ground, the Centuristes teach 
b Cent. 4. col. 302.  that Ambrose multa comm●morat superstitios● de cruse inu●nta. The said Centuristes also affirm 
c Cent. 3. Col. 121.  of the third age after Christ that Crucis Imaginem etc. Tertulian is thought to affirm, that Christians had the Image of the Cross in the places of their public meetings, as also privately in their own houses. So far● did M. W. err from the truth in affirming, that touching Images, The Church of Rome bouldeth contrary to that which was formerly holden. But I see if it be proof enough for M. white only to condemn: the Church of Rome must not be innocent.   

The 21. Untruth. Against Transubstantiation.  
Page 346. The D. thus writeth. Lastly I name Transubstantiation etc. wherein it is plain, that they (meaning the Catholics) have altered the Faith of the ancient Fathers.  
Here for the trial hereof, we are to appeal to the sayings and confessions of his own side, where we shall find that M. Whytes credit and estimation, is particularly in this (as in the former) most dangerously wounded, even by the hands of his own brethren. For we find it confessed by the Centuristes, 
d Cent 4. Col. 496.  that Chrisostomus transubstantiatiorem vid tur confirmare. Chrisostem is thought to confirm transubstantiation. In like sort by the judgement of other protestants 
e Visinus in his commone factio cuirsd●m Theologi. pag. 211.  Theophilactus, & Dama cebus, plane inclinant ad transubstantiatiorem. Theophilact & D. mascen, do evidently incline to Transubstantiation.  
Answerable hereto Occolampadius 
f lib Epist. O●c●lamp. & Zu●ng. lib. 3.  doth charge Damascen with the said doctrine. Finally D. H●mfrey writeth, 
g Humfr. jesuit. part. 2. rat. 5.  that Gregory the great brought in Transubstantiation. In Ecclsiam verò (saith he speaking of our conversion) quid invexerunt Gregorius et Augustinus? Int●l●runt etc. Transubstantiationem.  
Now I would demand of our minister with what countenance he can aver, that in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, we have altered the faith of the ancient fathers, if he observe what is taught to the contrary by his own brethren, who not believing the doctrine itself, yet do confess the great antiquity thereof.  
May we think that M. W. was ignorant of these Father's minds therein? If so, then are his followers much deceived, in ouerual●ing his good parts and literature, and withal the obscurity of his own judgement touching the said fathers in this point, haith thus far prevailed, that it haith ministered fit● opportunity to the Reader, to take notice, how clear, perspicuous, & shining, our Catholic faith of Transubstantiation was, even in those primitive times: So the Opacity and darkness of the earth, is occasionally the cause of the days light.   

The 22. Untruth. Against the conversion of England by S. Augustine the Monk.  
Page 354. and 355. to deprive S. Augustine the Monk, of the honour and reverence due unto him by us English for our conversion, the M. thus writeth. Touching the conversion of England by Augustine the Monk (in which our adversaries make so much a do) I answer two things, fi●st that supposing he d●d convert it, it was not to the present Roman faith etc. Secondly I say, he converted not our Country at all, excepting the planning of some trifling Ceremonies.  
Here you see that the first point of this passage, to wit touching Augustine's conn●rsion and his faith, is hypothetical, and delivered with some hesitation and doubting: the other recalling the first, categorical, absolute, and peremptory. Now in my reprovall of this his falsehood, I will unite together, the two former disjointed parcels, and directly prove from our adversaries penaes, that S. Augustine did convert our Country to the present Catholic Roman faith: in the evicting whereof, I will content myself with the confessions of the Centuristes, and of D. Humphrey: For if we peruse the history of those Censorions Magdeburgians, who reprove and control at their pleasure, all the Fathers of all ages: we shall find that these Centuristes acknowledging S. Augustine's conversion of us in their Alphabetical Table of the 6. Century at the word Gregory, do set down certain errors (in their judgements) of S. Gregory in these words following. Eiusdem error de bonit operibus, de Confession, de Coniugio, de Ecclesia, de Sanctorum invocatione, de Inferno, de justificatione, de Libero arbitrio, de Purgatorio, de Paenitentia, de Satisfactione. And further in the said Century they charge him with Celebration of Mass. Col. 369. with claim & practise of supreme jurisdiction over all Churches. col. 425. 426. etc. with Relics and sprinkling of holy water. col. 364. with Pilgrimage. col. 384. with Monachisme col. 343. Finally (to omit many other points) with Chrism & oil col. 367.  
Now this being the confessed Faith of S. Gregory, I think no reasonable man will deny, but that S. Augustine who was sent by him to convert our Country, was of the same Faith with S. Gregory.  
In like sort D. Humphrey is most full in this point, who thus writeth. 
Iesu●t. part. 2. ●at. 5.  In Ecclesiam verò quid invexerunt Gregorius & Augustinus? etc. What brought Gregory & Augustine into the Church? They brought in the Archbishop's vestmont for the solemn celebration of Mass, they brought in Purgatory, and oblation of the healthful houst, a●d Prayers for the dead etc. they brought in Relics Transubstantiation etc. New consecration of Churches etc. From all which points, what other conclusion is gathered, than that Indulgences, Monachisme, the Papacy, and all the other chaos and heap of superstition was erected thereby. And thus fa●r of this testimony though heretofore upon other occasion alleged.  
Now here it being confessed both by the Centuristes, and by this learned Doctor, that S. Augustine did not only convert us, but also did teach us all the former doctrines: I would be resolved of M. white, by what extenuation or figure in Rhetoric, he can style our instruction in the said main articles of Catholic Religion, the planting of certain trifling Ceremonies. But I see he is most willing for his own behalf to alleviate and lessen the weight and consequence of our former conversion.   

The 23. Untruth. Concerning the Conversion of Countries.  
Page 357. Touching the conversion of other heathen Countries to the Faith of Christ, foretold so long since by the Prophets 
i Esa. 60. 62. & 49. pf. 2. & 102.  of God to be accomplished only in the true Church of Christ: the D. as being emulous of the Roman Catholic Church her honour therein: flatly affirmeth of certain Countries, by him mentioned, that they were converted by that Church which was of his own faith and profession, and not by the Church of us Catholics, for thus he writeth. Allowing all these Countries to have been converted by such as were members of the Church of Rome, yet this was a thousand years ago, when that Church was the same that ours is, and so the conversions wear wrought by persons adhering to the protestants faith.  
This point is discovered to be false, first by refuting the reason delivered by the Doctor, why the said Countries should be converted by the professors of the protestants faith. Secondly by the testimonies of the said protestants flatly confessing, that their Church, as yet never converted any Country to Christianity.  
As concerning the first point, I say, that the Church of Rome more than a thousand years ago, haith seace (supposing that before it was) to be protestant, and therefore herself professing the contrary faith, as then, could not convert the said Countries to protestancy.  
That the Church of Rome acknowledged not in these times the protestants religion, is most abundantly confessed by the protestants themselves, who do frequently teach that the true Church of God (& consequently in their supposales, their own Church) haith been latent and invisible more than these last thousand years, during all which time, the Antichristian and popish Religion (as they term it) haith possessed all Christian Countries whatsoever.  
The protestants abundant confessions, have been already made so evident in this point, incidently in the discovery of some of M. W. untruths, as that I presume an iteration of the same, would be over fastidious and wearisome to the Reader, and therefore I will pass on to the other point, cons●sting in the confessions of the protestants, that their Church never yet converted any one Country to Christianity.  
And first for confirmation hereof, we find that Sebastian Castalie (a learned Caluenist, and highly praisep by D, Humfray) 
k De rat. inte●pr. li. 1. q. 62.  writing of the accomplishment of the prophecies of converting of kingdoms, saith thus. Equidem a●t haec futura fatendum est etc.  

In his Preface of 〈◊〉 great la●● Bible dedicated to K●●g Edward the 6.  Truly we must confess, that these things shall be performed here after, or have been heretofore, or God is to be accused of lying. If any man answer that they have been performed, I will demand when? If he say, in the Apostles time, I will ask, how it falleth out, that neither then the knowledge of God was altogether perfect, and after in so short a time vanished away, which was promised to be eternal, and more abundant than the floods of the sea.  
And then there somewhat after, the said protestant thus acknowledgeth. The more I do examine the Scriptures, the less I observe it the same performed, howsoever the said Prophets be understood.  
To conclude this point, the prophecies delivered by Esay and others the Prophets, for the spreading of God's Ch●rch, are so fart from being yet accomplished in the protestants Church, that divers protestants have not only acknowledged so much, but by reason of the not performance thereof, have in the end become most wicked Apostates: maintaining that if the faith and Religion preached by Christ and his Apostles had been true, and his Church, that Church which was figured out by the ancient Prophets: that then should the said Prophecies, touching the enlargement of the Church, and the conversion of nations, have had their successive event, and infallible performance in the said Church, which they affirm hitherto ha●th not been effected.  
And vearably hereunto we find, that the want of the performance to the said prophecies in the protestants Church, wrought so forcibly with David George a Hollander, 
l See the History of David Georg painted at ●ntwerpe 1563. & first published by the Dinynes of Basill.  & once professor of the protestants faith & religion in Basill (to omit the like examples of divers others) that in the end he taught most fearful & horrible blasphemy, affirming Christ to have been a seducer: his chiefest reason being, in that the true Religion (our Catholic Religion being by him supposed to be false, and therefore the conversions of Countries made to it, not admitted to be intended by the Prophets) according to the predictions, should have spread and disseminated itself before this time, through the most Nations & Countries of the world, which point (saith he) hitherto is not accomplished.  
Here now the iudiceous Reader may collect, both from what haith been acknowledged above, as also from the present confession of the former Apostata (being accompanied with such a dreadful event) how untrue the D. words were, when he affirmed divers Countries some thousand years since, to have been converted from paganism, unto Christianity by that Church which in doctrine and faith conspired with the protestants Church.  
Thus you see M. W. that not I, but such as in other points of Novelisme, do interleague with you, give you the lie therein: and thus is falsehood truly controlled, even by the patrons of falsehood.   

The 24. Untruth. Against the Pope's authority in calling of councils.  
Page 375. He (in charging the Pope with innovation of his jurisdiction) thus saith.  
The beginning of the Pope's Supremacy over councils, was of late, since the councils of Constance and Basill, decreed within this hundredth years in the Council of Lateran, by a few Italian Bishops, whereas in the ancient Church it was otherwise. In this point, for the more compendiousness thereof, I will insist only in the fourth and fifth Century after Christ, both being within the circuit of the primitive Church.  
First then we find, that D: Whitaker confesseth 
m de Con●l. 9 2. p. 42.  an Ecclesiastical Canon to be in the fourth Century, that No Council should be celebrated, without the Bishop of Rome. He also further acknowledgeth, 
n Ibid. p. 4.  that Pope julius made challenge thereby (meaning by the benefit of the said Canon) to assemble a Council.  
And where Bellarmine insisting in the precedent of julius and other Bishops urging this Canon, Danaeus a learned protestant, thus only replieth. 
o Resp. ad Bel. par. 1. p. 595.  Nullius est moments etc. The example is of no force, since it is proved from the Testimony of the Bishop of Rome who is a party in his own cause. Thus confessing the point itself (outfaced by the minister) but denying only the lawfulness thereof.  
Now in the fifth age we find, that the Magdeburgians do thus plainly Censure the Popes of that tyme. 
p Cent. 5. Col. 781.  Generalia Concilia etc. The bishops of Rome have challenged to themselves, power of celebrating councils, as appeareth out of the 93. Epistle, & 7. chapter of Leo. And yet further the said Centuristes do say 
q Ibidem  Ac Synodos etc. They have rejected such councils as unlawful, which were not called together by their Authority.  
And thus far of this point: where you see, that our minister saying, that no Bishop of Rome challenged authority of assembling of councils, or being above them, but within this hundredth years last, is contradicted by the former learned protestants, who confess that the Bishop of Rome practised it, eleven or twelve hundredth ages. I pray you whether of these is more likely to lie?   

The 25. Untruth: Against merit of works.  
Page 378. For the more disauthorising of the doctrine of merit of works: our minister thus outlasheth. The doctrine touching the merit of works, was bego● lately by the schoolmen.  
For the trial of this point, some of the Fathers of the primitive Church confessed even by the protestants to teach this our Catholic Faith, shall become the witnesses bewene the D. and me.  
First then the Magdeburgians do thus write of one Father. 
r Cent. 5. Col. 1178.  Chrisastome handleth impurely the doctrine of justification, and attributeth merit to works.  
Luther 
f In Galat. c. 4.  calleth Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine, justiciarios justice-workers of the old Papacy.  
Finally D. Humphrey 
s jesuit. part. 2. p. 530.  ascendeth even to Ireneus, Clemens, and others pronouncing of them, that then havy in their writings, the merit of works.  
And thus far of this point. Wherefore our ministers oversight was most gross, in divulging such a notorious untruth, contrary to the express judgement of his own most learned brethren.   

The 26. Untruth. Against the Sacrifice of the Mass.  
Page 378. The minister endeavouring calumniously to dishonour the most healthful and incruent Sacrifice of the Mass, writeth, that the Mass began not all at once, but by degrees.  
Now here to instruct the Doctor's ignorance, or at least to detect his malice: I am to lay down the judgement of the Catholic Church, teaching what is mantayned to be essential to the Sacrifice of the Mass, and what but accidental. The true nature then and essence of this Sacrifice, we hold to consist, in the oblation of the most sacred body and blood of Christ and consummation thereof: what prayers or ceremonies do either precede or follow the words of the institution, are no essential part of the Mass, & if they were all omitted in the celebration thereof, yet were the Sacrifice of it true and perfect. And therefore we willingly confess without any prejudice to our cause, that most of the said prayers or Ceremonies, were added by several Popes, at different times: yet from our acknowledgement thereof, it in no sort followeth, that the Mass came in by degrees, since we all teach, that they are neither the Mass, nor any essential part of it.  
Now wheareas the minister by subtlety, and by falsely suggesting to the Reader, that the Mass came in at several times, would have it to be understood for our greater disadvantage, of the essence and nature of the Mass itself: I will lay down the judgement of the Primitive Church herein, unanimously teaching, (even by the confession of the most iudiceous protestants) the true and unbloudly Sacrifice, & oblation of Christ's body and blood, to be performed in the celebration of the Eucharist: so shall the Reader be instructed in the antiqnity of that which is essentially the mass: and withal (in regard of the ministers calumnious dealing herein) he shall have just reason to say. 
t jerem. 5.  Astonishment and marvelous things are done in the land: the prophets prophesied a lie.  
And here for greater compendiousness, I will forbear to set down the Protestants confessions of particular Fathers teaching the doctrine of the Mass, and will restrain myself only to such their sayings, whereof some do belong to the primitive Church in general, and others to the first age or Century thereof.  
And first we f●nd Calvin to write of them in general 
u lib. de vera Ecclesiae reform. extant. in Tract. The ol. Calvin. p. 389.  Veteres excusandi non sunt &c: The ancient Fathers are not to be excused, seeing it is evident that they turned from the true and genuine Institution of Christ. For whereas the lords supper it celebrated to this end, that we should communicate with the Sacrifice of Christ, the Fathers not being content therewith, have added thereunto an oblation. And to the like purpose he saith in his Institutions. 
x inst. l. 4. ca 18. Sect. 11.  Veteres quoque illos video etc. I do see that those Ancient Fathers, did detort the memory thereof (meaning of the Eucharist) otherwise then was agreeing to the Institution of Christ: for their lords Supper, doth make show and representation of I can not tell what reiterated and renewed Sacrifice. They have more nearly imitated the judaical manner of Sacrificing, then either Christ did ordain, or the nature of the Gospel did suffer. Tnus Calvin.  
Add hereunto for the greater Antiquity of the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass, that the protestants themselves do confess the faith thereof to be universal, even in the first age or Century after Christ.  
For we find, that Hospmian a famous protestant doth thus write. 
y In his Sacram. l. 1. Ca 6. p. 20  I am tum primo etc. Even in the first age the Apostles being yet living, the devil did deceive men more about this Sacrament, then about Baptism, & did withdraw men from the first form thereof.  
In like sort Sebastianus Francus an other learned protestant, thus plainly writeth, 
a Epist. de abrog. in universum omnibus stat., Eccl.  Statimpost Apostolos etc. Presently after the Apostles, all things were turned upside down, cana domini in sacrificium transformata etc. The lords supper is turned into a Sacrifice.  
To conclude, M. Bacon a great protestant here in England, thus confesseth. 
b In his Treatise entitled, The relics of Rome, p. 344  The Mass was conceived, begotten, and borne, anon after the Apostles times, if all be true that Historiographers do write.  
Thus much of the antiquity of the Mass: which point thus acknowledged, who seeth not that the testimonies of the former protestants, do utterly overthrow the supposed truth of the D. Words, affirming that the Mass came in by degrees, and intimating to the credulous Reader, that it was brought in by little & little in these latter ages. But M. white, if in the defending of your former untruths, you can not blush for shame; yet here grow pale through fear, for your sin is not ordinary, seeing your mendaceous assertion doth obtrude an innovation upon no lesser Article, than the immolation and offering up of the most sacred body and blood of our Saviour and Redeemer, to his heavenly Father for the expiation of our sins, first instituted (out of the bowels of his mercy) even by Christ: so as himself being the Priest, did the sacrifice himself. 
2 Aug. li. 4. de T●n. ca 14.  Quid g●atius offerri (faith one Fa. aut daripotest, quam caro sacrifici● nostri, corpus effectum sacerdotis nostri.   

The 27. Untruth. Concerning wafer Cakes.  
Page 389. the Doctor inveighing further against the Mass, that wafercakes were first brought into the Sacrament, in the eleventh age or Century after Christ, and answerably thereunto he haith made a reference to this place in his Alphabetical Table, at the latter end of his book at the word wafer, thus setting down, wafers, when brought in. Sect. 5. n●m. 31.  
Now that this proceedeth from the same sirayne, to wit, a spiritu mendacit, from whence all his former assertions had their origine, is proved in that it is confessed by D. Bilson, 
c In his true defence. part. 4. p. 566.  that in the days of Epiphanius, it was round in figure. Cartwright though he will needs find a beginning thereof after the Apostles, yet thus writeth of the bread of the Sacrament. 
d Whyteg. def. p. 593.  It was a wafer-cake brought in by Pope Alexander: which Pope even by the testimony of Osia●der, 
e Cent. 2 p. 10●  lived fifteen hundredth years since: And yet contrary to all these authorities, we mightily wrong our minister if we will not believe him affirming that wafers were brought in, about a thousand years after Christ.   

The 28. Untruth. Against the adoration of the B. Sacrament.  
Page 399. The minister persisting in his serpentine and v●nemous disposition against the most B. Sacrament touching the Adoration thereof, thus lyingly forgeth. The Adoration of the Sacrament, is a late invention, following upon the conceit of the Real presence, and prescribed 1220 years, f●●● Christ, by Honorius the third. etc.,  
That Adoration followeth upon the belief of the real presence, it is gra●●ied, but that it is a late invention begun in the time of Honorius, is false. Thus the Doctor for the letter countenancing of this lie, doth calumniously couple with it a truth, that the one might be shrouded under the wings of the other.  
Now that there was no innovation touching the Adoration of the Sacrament at that time, is evinced from two reasons. First because no Historiographer doth give the least intimation of any such institution as then but newly brought into the Church: only Honorius decreed, that the priest 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 point is proved, from the abundant testimonies of our adversaries, charging the times precedent to Honorius, with the said doctrine of Adoration. For first we read, that Averroes a heathen Philosopher (who lived above 80. years before the prescribed time of Honorius his former supposed innovation) did particularly deride the Christians of his days, for the Adoring of the Sacrament.  
This is acknowledged by D. Fulke, 
f Against Heskins. etc. p. 235.  and D. Sa●liffe. 
g In his Survey of popery. p. 295.  But to ascend to higher times, the Centuristes speaking of the prayers of S. Ambrose, 
h Cent. 4. Col. 43.  in his book entitled, 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 divers sentences of Augustine, Ambrose, and Naz●anzen, which sentences in Chem●●tius his judgement, do affirm the Adoration of the Sacrament. 
k Exam. part. 2. p. 92.   
Now all these authorities, do demonstratively convince, that the Adoration of the Sacrament, was not introduced in the Church, as an innovation in the time of Honorius. From all which it is manifest, that as in any other point of Catholic Religion, so also in this of Adoration, we altogether do conspire and agree with the venerable Fathers of God's Church. And therefore as Aristotle and other ancient Philosophers did teach, that this our inferior world, was joined to the Superior and Celestial world, that by the help of this conjunction, we might more perfectly participate of the influences and virtues of those heavenly bodies: So we may say, that these our latter times through a continual and uninterrupted current of believing God, and practising the same points of Faith with the Ancient Doctors, are indissolubly and nearly tied to those primitive days, so as nothing is found in those reverent days instituted either by Christ or his Apostles, which by this means is not securely derived to the Catholic Church of these modern times.   

The 29. Untruth. Against the Succession of Catholic Pastors.  
Page 412. After the D. haith Trasonically boasted of the succession of the protestants in his own Church, he proceedeth further, affirming that Succession of the pastors and Bishops in the Church of Rome, haith been interrupted: And answerably hereto, in the Table in the end of his book, at the word Succession, with reference to this place, he thus saith. The Roman Church haith no true outward Succession. Where you see by his own words, that the question here intended by this minister, is not of succession of doctrine (by which sleight and evasion, divers of our adversaries use to decline the testimonies of the ancient Fathers alleged by us for strengthening the argument drawn from Succession) but only of external succession of Bishops and Pastors, which the minister falsely challenging heretofore to his own church, doth now as falsely take away from ours.  
How maliceous a lie this is, shall appear from the mouths of his own brethren.  
And ●i●st we find that the Centuristes do very diligently and elaboratly set down, the succession particularly of the Bishops of Rome in the 10. Chapter of every Century: And this Method, they precisely observe in all ages of the Church even from S. Peter, to their own time, entituling the said Chapter, de Episcopis & Doctoribus.  
Doctor Fulke doth in like manner ingeniously acknowledge the same in these words. You can name the notable persons in all ages, in their government and ministry, and especially the Succession of the Popes, you can rehearse in order upon your fingers. Thus writeth he in his answer to A counterfeit Catholic, p. 27. And the like doth he write in his Rejoinder to Bristoes' reply p. 343.  
Thus do our adversaries acknowledge in our behalf touching Succession, which Calvin flatly denieth to be found in his own Church, who plainly teacheth 
l Institut. li. 4. ca 3. Sect. 4.  that with them, the true succession of ordination, was broke of: so dangerously wounding himself with that sentence of S. Augustine. 
m tom. 7. cont. Epist. Manich. c. 4.  In Ecclesia gremio me iustiss mé tenet ab ipsa sede Petri etc. usque ad presentem Ep scopatum: successio Sacerdotum.  
To conclude, the uninterrupted descent and current of Succession in the Catholic Church, is infallibly evicted from our adversaries acknowledgement, of the continual visibleness thereof, since the one doth reciprocally imply the other. For if our Church was ever visible, and the doctrine thereof never suffered any disparition or vanishing away: then were the Bishops and Pastors in like sort ever visible, since without Pastors to minister the word and Sacraments, and to govern the flock: the Church like a maistlesse ship, can not for any time subsist or be.  
And thus far of this point. Wherein our minister by denying Succession to be in our Church, and falsely ascribing it to his own new congregation, doth thus in advancing the one above the other, make innovation, to take the wall of true Antiquity, & heresy of true Religion.   

The 30 Untruth. In defence of Martin Luther's life and manners.  
From page 425. to 433. The D. becometh Luther's Encomiast, and much laboureth to free his life, and death, from all obloquy, and infamy, often affirming, that what soever touching his life may seem worthy of reprehension, is only forged by his adversaries, meaning the Catholics: and therefore in his table in the end of his book, at the word Luther, he thus saith. Luther's life justified, against the maliceous reports of the papists.  
Now to convince this shameless untruth, I will (forbearing herein the credible reports of Catholics) allege only the confession of Luther himself delivered in his own words, or else the testimonies of learned protestants; so shall we see that our minister here perfectly acted his part, in boldly maintaining against such evident testimonies, that what may seem to detract from Luther's honesty, and integrity, are but the fictions of his enemies. And here for greater compendiousness, I will insist only in two points, first in displaying in part his Sensuality: Secondly his Pride.  
And first touching his sayings of lust and incontinency, he thus admonisheth. 
a Sermo de Matrimonio.  Si non vult uxor, aut non possit, veniat ancilla. If the wife will not or can not, let the maid come. Again he thus writeth. 
b 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 clean the nose etc. And yet more fully he speaketh of his own incontinency in these words. 
c De colloq. mens. fol. 526.  I am almost mad through the rage of lust and desire of women. As also he thus further confesseth. 
d To. 1. Ep. fol. 334. Ep. ad Philippá.  I am burned with the great flame of my untamed flesh: I who ought to be fervent in spirit, am fervent in the flesh, in lust, sloth, etc. Eight days are now past, wherein I neither write, pray, nor study, being vexed partly with temptation of the flesh, partly with other trouble.  
This point is so evident, that Benedict Morgenstern a protestant writer saith of the Caluenistes, when they intent at any time to give assent or provocation to nature: Non verentur inter se dicere, hody Lutheranicè vinemus. They were not afraid to say among themselves, to day we will live after the manner of Luther. 
e Tract. de Eccl. p. 221.  Thus using the name of Luther, the more fully to express the libidenous life and custom of Luther.  
Now to all these confessions of his own & other protestants, it can not be replied that himself did write thus when he was a papist, and before his revolt: for of his life during his stay in the papacy, you shall hear his own report, that 
f Upon the Epistle to the Galathians in engl. in ca 1. fol. 35.  he honoured the Pope of mere conscience, kept chastity, poverty, and obedience, and whatsoever (saith he) I did, I did it with a single heart, of good zeal, and for the glory of god, fearing grievously the last day, and desirous to be saved from the bottom of my heart. Thus he confesseth of the integrity of his mind and intention, during the time of his continuing a catholic. And thus much of his inclination to lust and wantonness.  
Now touching Luther's pride (forbearing his own sayings delivered most insolently, in contempt of the ancient Fathers, and of King Henry the eight) I will content myself with the testimonies only of protestants, who particularly inveighed against him for his pride. Zuinglius, in regard of his insupportable pride, thus saith of him. 
g To 2. Res. add confess. Luth. fol. 478  En ut totum etc. Behold how Satan laboureth wholly to possess this man. And OEcolampadius admonisheth Luther, 
h In resp. ad confess. Luth.  to beware, lest being puffed up by arogancy and pride, he be seduced by Satan. answerably hereto Conradus Regius a learned and famous protestant, thus writeth of him. 
i In libro German. con. Io. Hos. de caena Domini.  Deus propter peccatum superbiae etc. God, by reason of the sin of pride wherewith Luther was puffed up (as many of his own writings do witness) haith taken away his true spirit f●om him, as he did from the Prophets 3. Reg. 22. and in place thereof, haith given him a proud, angry, and lying spirit.  
To conclude, omitting divers other learned protestants testimonies, the Divines of Tigur being Caluenistes, thus censure Luther's book written against the Sacramentaries, and Zwinglians, that it was 
k In confess. Germanicè im pressa, Tigur●. An 1544. in 8. fol. 3.  Liber plenus demoniis, plenus impudici● dicteriis: scatet tracundia et furore. And thus we find in what height of spirit, and elation of mind, he did write against his own brethren, and how for the same he was rebuked by them.  
Now having displayed in part Luther's deportment, and this, either from his own mouth, or from the confessions of his own brethren: I refer two things to the Readers consideration, one, whether our D. did aver an untruth or no, in iustifiing, that whatsoever could be produced against Luther's life & conversation, was malignantly forged only by us his enemies.  
The second (and that much more importing) whether it standeth with probability of reason, or the accustomed course of Gods proceeding (who ever electeth means suitable and proportionable to their ends) to make choice, for the restoring and replanting the truth of his Gospel and Religion (supposing it was then decayed) of a man whose course of life, writings, and doctrine, do even breathe only pride, contumacy, sensuality, Sardanapalisme, and luxury.  
Here now M. white I have thought good in the enumeration of your lies, to end with Luther, as originally from him, you first did suck your lying doctrine. Only I will conclude with this, that since you are entered with our vulgar multitude (who chiefly rest upon the outward grain and appearance of things) into the number and catalogue of our new evangelical Prophets: I would wish such your followers, to entertain an impartial view and consideration of this and other your forgeries and sleights, which if they do, doubtless they shall in the end find and acknowledge, that you are guided therein even by that ghostly enemy of man's soul, who once said: 
l 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.    

white DIED BLACK  
THE THIRD PART. Containing divers impertinences or absurd Illations, or reasonings, drawn from Master white his alleged Authorities.  

The 1. Paragraph. Werein are discovered strange Illations or arguinge, in proof that the Scriptures are the sole rule of Faith, & against Traditions.  
Having in the two precedent parts set down many corruptions and lies practised by M. white: it now followeth according to my former intended Method, that I also display divers of his impertinent and absurd inferences and arguments (for these three points, to wit, corrupting, lying, & idly or absurdly disputing, are the three several threads whereof the whole work of his Treatise is woven. In all which (though different in themselves) he still retaineth one and the same intention of deceit, like the loadstone, which though often changeth his place, yet never changeth it centre.  
Now touching those his impertinences and loose illations, the Reader is to conceive, that they consist in his alleging of such testimonies both of Scriptures, Fathers, and Catholic writers, as being truly set down, do not nevertheless impugn that point of our Catholic doctrine, against which they were by him so urged. Which course of writing, whether it may be ascribed to our Doctor's ignorance & want of learning, or rather (which is more probable) to his malice against the Catholic Faith, and desire to deceive the simple and unlearned, or lastly to the beggary of his cause, being devoid of better arguments, I leave to himself to decide. But howsoever it is, here I am to advertise the Reader, that in perusing of such authorities produced by M. white, he would ever recur to the true state of the question, and particularly that he would apply the said sentences, to that very point or touch wherein the life of the question consisteth, and then he shall find how rovingly, & wandringly they are directed, still glancing by, upon some ignorant or wilful mistaking or other, never reaching the mark intended. And so he may apply the words of Tertulian, though in a different sense, to the loose writings of M. white and such others Quemcunque conceperint ventum argumentationis scorpii isti, quocunque se acumine impegerint, una tam linea ista: 
Tertull. adverse. Gnost.  to wit the line drawn from our understanding to the main point in controversy.  
And here M. white can not say, in excuse of himself, that such testimonies of this nature are produced by him only to prove so much and no more, as the words in their literal and acknowledged sense, do immediately import: Which evasion is insufficient for two respects.  
First because the proofs of that which literally & plainly they signify, is not in controversy between the protestants and us, and therefore the iustifiing of so much being not denied by any learned Catholic, is needelesly undertaken.  
Secondly in that M. white doth most laboriously, painfully, and purposely, allege the said testimonies, to convince, and impugn, some one Catholic point or other, taught by us, and denied by the protestants, and this his drift and scope is manifested, either by his answerable entituling of the leaves wherein such authorities are found, or else by his own words precedent or subsequent to the said sentences.  
But to detain the Reader no longer from these his allegations: The first point of this kind which presenteth itself, is as touching the Rule of Faith, & rejecting of all Apostolical Traditions: For pag. 13. we thus read, digres. 3. Wherein by the Scriptures, Fathers, Reasons, and papists own confessions, it is showed, that the Scripture is the rule of Faith: As likewise he entitleth that leaf and some others following, in this manner. The Scripture only, is though judge & rule of Faith. And so answerably hereto, pag. 17. beating the former title, he thus saith. Shall the Libertynes be recalled from their blind revelations, to their written text: and shall not the papists be revoked from their uncertain Traditions to the same rule?  
But that we may the better behold how valiantly our minister impugneth all Traditions, by erecting the Scripture as sole rule of Faith: we are here to call unto mind what the Catholic Church teacheth in this point.  
It than teacheth, that the word of God is to limit and confine our Faith, and that nothing is to be accounted as matter of faith, which receiveth not it proof from thence. Hereupon it teacheth further, that this word is either written, which is commonly called the Scripture, or else delivered by Christ & his Church, and this comprehendeth Traditions. Both these we believe 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 written, rather than delivered by speech, (for this is merely extrinsical to the point) but because the said word proceeded from them, who were infallibly and immediately directed therein by the assistance of the holy Ghost.  
This supposed, let us see how M. white proveth that the written word is only the rule of Faith, and consequently that there are no Traditions of the Church which may also in part be a rule thereof,  
First then our Doctor urgeth to this end several places of Scripture, as (among others) that of Solomon. 
a prou. 2. 1.  The scripture will make a man understand righteousness, and judgement, and equity, & every good path. Again that of Esay. 
b Esa. 8.  We must repair to the Law, to the testimony: if any speak not according to that word, there is no light in him. Also out of Malachy. 
c Malach. 4.  Remember the Law of Moses my servant, which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes & judgements. In like sort he allegeth, that Abraham answering the rich glutton, said, that 
d Luc. 16.  his brethren had Moses and the Prophets.  
Now that the Reader may see, how well these texts are to the point controverted, I will set some of them down in form of Argument, and so apply them to M. Whytes purpose. As first thus. Solomon said of the Scriptures of the old Testament. The Scripture will make a man understand righteousness, and judgement, and equity, and every good path: Ergo now in the time of Christianity, there are no Traditions, but the Scripture of the old Testament, it the only rule of Faith. Again, Remember the Law of Moses my servant, which I commanded him in Horeb, for all Israel, with the statutes & judgements; Therefore no Traditions. Lastly. The brethren of the rich glutton had Moses and the Prophets: Therefore no points of Christian Faith, are to be proved from any Traditions of the Church. Strangely, wildly, & most exorbitantly concluded: for what reference have these texts with the rule of Faith, the which is not so much as glanced at in any one of them? or granting that they had, why should the old Testament, be a pattern for the Faith professed in the new Testament, since all Christians do grant, that the time of Grace, is enriched with many privileges and immunities, whereof the old Law was altogether deprived?  
After these and such like texts of Scripture, he descendeth, to prove the soresaid point, from the testimonies of the ancient Fathers: as, to omit divers others, he allegeth Tertulian saying. 
e cont. Hermog.  The Scripture is the rule of Faith, which we grant, 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 only to be proved) that it is Regula totalis, an entire & sole rule of Faith, without the help of any Traditions, and as large in extent as our faith is.  
Also S. Augustine thus writing 
f De nupr. & concup. ad Valer. l. 2. ca 33.  This controversy depending between us, requires a judge, let Christ therefore judge, and let the Apostle Paul judge with him, because Christ also speaketh in his Apostle. As if Christ & his Apostles could not aswell speak in Traditions, as in writings, or because granting that that particular controversy there meant by S. Augustine, was proved from the writings of S. Paul: therefore all other Articles of Christian Religion, should thence also receive their sole proof. Again Gregory Nyssen terming the Scripture, 
g Orat. de iis qui adeunt Hietoes.  a straight and inflexible Rule, as in that the Scriptute is inflexible and inchangeable for those points which it proveth, therefore it alone and no Apostolical traditions, is to prove any article of our Faith. Last he introdu●eth S. Austin again saying. 
De doct. chris. li. 2. ca 42.  Whatsoever thing it be that a man learns out of the Scripture, if it be hurtful, there it is condemned, if it be profitable, there it is found. Which place particularly concerning conversation of life, as virtue and vice, of both which, the Scripture most fully discourseth, how it may condemn Apostolical traditions, which may deliver supernatural and high mysteries of Christian faith, I leave to the censure of any iudceous man.  
This done, he next falleth to the sentences of more late Catholic writers, as first of S. Thomas Aquinas saying. 
k Lect. 1. in 1. Tim. 6.  The doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets, is Canonical, because it is the Rule of our understanding,  
But what do these words force, only in the behalf of Scripture, and against Apostolical Traditions, since in lead they do not peculiarly concern the Scripture, but (as the words literally import) that the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets in general, whether it be written or unwritten, is Canonical. Again he urgeth S. Thomas the second time 
l 1. q. Art. 8.  Our Faith reste●h and st●eth itself, upon the revelation given to the Apostles and Prophets, which write the Canonical books, and not upon revelation (if any such have been made) to any other Doctors. But who denies that the prophets & Apostles did write the canonical books? Or who reacheth that our Faith ought to rest upon the revelation of any other Doctors than the Prophets & the Apostles? Or show any reason (which is the chief point in this sentence to be showed) why the revelations of the Prophets, and especially the Apostles, may not aswell comprehend traditions, as the written word.  
In like sort he bringeth in Gerson saying. 
m de come. sub utr. spec.  Scripture is the Rule of our faith, which being well understood, no authority of men is to be admitted against it. As I have said before, we do teach that the Scripture is the Rule of Faith, but not the sole Rule, which M. white ought to prove. Again we willingly acknowledge, that no authority of man is to stand against the Scripture: but what doth this impeach Apostolical traditions, which are no more the bare authority of man, than the Scripture itself, both equally proceeding from God, by the assistance of the holy Ghost?  
Finally he comes in with Perisius, writing that 
n de ration. Co●. l. 2. ca 19  The Authority of no Saint, is of infallible truth: for S. Augustine gives that honour only to the sacred Scriptures.  
But here the question is not touching the tradition of any other Saints, then only of our Saviour & his Apostles, and the whole Church: yet we see Peresius here speaking of Saints, must needs mean only of Particular Saints, or holy men since the times of the Apostles, seeing otherwise he should teach (which were most wicked) that the authority of the Apostles and the Evangelists, are not of infallible truth.  
Besides S. Augustine in that place restraineth, without any reference at all to Traditions, his meaning only to the writings of private Doctors, in respect of the sacred Scripture: and in this regard (still speaking of books written) we all grant that the Scripture is of an infallible truth.  
Such unprofitable and waste testimonies M. white is accustomed to heap together in his book, the which, that they shall not so easily be espied, he subtly (for the most part) mingleth them with other Authorities more pertinent, at least in outward for the etc. show of words: like a good Captain, who rangeth his worst & weakest soldiers, in the midst & th●ong of the more experienced, so making those forms to serve only to increase (in the enemy's eye) the number, though not their force.   

The 2. Paragraph. Wherein are discussed certain Arguments drawn from Scriptures and Fathers, in proof that the sacred Scriptures, & the true sense there of, are made sufficiently known unto us without any approbation or explication of the Church.  
The next subject of his loose kind of Inferences, wherein I will insist, partly conspireth with the former, and is touching the absolute and supreme sovereignty of the Scriptures in determining of controversies, without any needful explication of god's Church, this assertion being indeed a head Theorem or principle with the sectaries of this age. For page 4●. M. white thus writeth. Digressio. 11. proving, that The Scripture itself, haith that outward authority whereupon our faith is built, and not the Church.  
Now here for the better vindicating and freeing us from all contumelious calumnies touching our supposed contempt of the Scriptures, as also for the more manifest discovery of M. Whytes weak arguing herein: the Reader is to take notice, that the Catholics do ascribe all due reverence, estimation, and respect to the Scripture whatsoever, acknowledging it to be gods ambassador, which vnfouldeth unto man upon earth, the sacred will and pleasure of our heavenly King: as also that it is the spiritual Tenure by the which we make claim to our eternal and celestial inheritance. In like sort they willingly confess, that Scripture is Scripture, and the word of God, before it receive any approbation from the Church: as also that this or that is the true sense of any particular text of the Scripture, before the Church do confirm the same. Notwithstanding, seeing the true sense of the Scripture, is as it were the very Soul which informeth the body of the letter, and that the Scripture is to be understood 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 God's 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 believe to be directed and guided therein by the same holy Ghost, according as the Scripture itself in several places 
1 1. Tim. 3. Mat. 18.  assureth us.  
But now let us come to the proves and testimonies produced by M. white, to convince, that the Scripture, so far forth as we are to take acknowledgement thereof (for this only is here the point of the doubt as I showed above) needeth not (for warranting to us 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 divers texts of Scripture containing the worth and dignity of itself, as when it is termed an 
2 1. Pet. 1.  Immor. all seed. The 
3 1. Cor. ●.  demonstration of the Spirit & power. that it is 
4 Heb. 4.  Lively & powerful: that 
5 Luc. 24.  it maketh our bear●●● to burn within us. that 
6 Io. 6.  It giveth a greater testimony to Christ, than john Baptist could give. that 
7 2. Pet. 1.  A voice from heaven is not so sure as it. that 
8 1. Io. 5.  It is the spirit which beareth witness to the truth thereof. that 
9 Ibid.  If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater, Lastly he allegeth those words of Christ. 
10 Io 5.  They which will not believe Moses' writings, will not believe him.  
Now let us see how towardly our Minister can conclude from these texts, against our former doctrine. The scripture is an immortal seed, and it is lively and powerful: Therefore it ought to receive no authority touching the manifesting of it true sense to us, from God's Church which is guided with the holy Ghost. Again. It is the demonstration of the Spirit and power, and it maketh our hearts to burn within us: Therefore it ought to receive no authority etc. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of god is greater, and he that believeth not Moses' writings, will not believe Christ: Therefore the Scripture ought to receive no authority &c: What inferences are these? Or who would think, that a learned minister of god's word, the via lactea, 
r For so is M. Wh. cited by Purchase in his late book.  a Doctor made only for desert, before his due ordinary time: Finally that M. white (since this very name is supposed to comprehend worth enough) should thus exorbitantly, and extravagantly infer and conclude, contrary to all precepts of art & Logical rules?  
But to pass on, the more in his judgement to depress the Authority of the Church, he bringeth in D. Stapleton, though most impertinently alleged, saying. 
12 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 admit, who acknowledge the Church to be a thing different from god who is the first truth though guided by his Spirit. Again he produceth to the like effect S. Ambrose, who thus writeth. 
13 l. 5. Ep. 11.  Let God himself teach me them● steries of heaven, not man who knoweth not himself: Whom may I believe in the things of god, better than god himself? which sentence also we embrace, yet do affirm that god teacheth us 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 man's private and uncertain spirit.  
Also Salutanus is brought by him saying. 
14 l. 3. damn provid.  All that men say needs reasons and witnesses, but God's word is witness to itself, because it followeth necessarily, that whatsoever the incorrupt truth speaketh, must needs be an incorrupt witness of itself: As if what the Church, assisted by the holy Ghost, said, were the saying only of man, or as if the question were here, whether God's word be God's word before it be defined by the Church (which no man denieth) and not whether the members of the Church (which indeed is the point here issuable) is to accept of God's 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. 
15 Contra Faust. l. 32. ca 19  You see this is your endeavours to take away from us the authorities of the Scriptures, and that every one's mind might be his Author what to allow, and what to disallow in every text, and so he is not for his faith made subject to the Scripture, but maketh the Scripture subject to himself etc.  
Which words how they can touch the Catholics, I see not, seeing they seek not to take away the Authority of the Scriptures, which they willingly reverence, neither teach they, that every one's mind ought to be an author what to allow, or what to disallow in the exposition of any text, for they rely herein upon the judgement of God's universal Church, the former being indeed rather peculiar to the sectaries of this age, in regard of their private interpreting spirit. And presently after, he also citeth S. Augustine again in the former book. Why dost thou not rather submits thyself to evangelical Authority, so steedfast, so stable, so renowned, and by certain succession commended from the Apostles to our times: that thou mayst believe, that thou mayst behold, that thou mayst learn, all those things which hinder thee from doing it through thine own vain & perverse opinion. How can these words be tentred & shamed to us Catholics? Or how can it be termed a man's own vain and perverse opinion by receiving evangelical Authority as it is manifested to us, not by our own 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. white discourseth, matching and coupling together through his malice and ignorance in arguing, adulterate and bastard conclusions, with legitimate premises. And after the like manner even in the first leaf here alleged, though somewhat before these last testimonies, he urgeth certain texts of Scripture intended of Christ, as 
15 Io. 20.  The Scriptures are written that we may believe in him. Again. 
16 1. Io. 5.  He that believeth in him, haith a witness in himself. Thirdly 
17 Ephe●. 2.  We are all built upon the foundation of the Apostles & Prophets. Christ himself being the head corner stone, in whom all the building is coupled together by the spirit.  
Now to what end he mustereth all these sentences of Scripture god himself knoweth: for neither do they derogate any thing from the Church's Authority, since indeed they do not concern it, neither do they ascribe any more to Christ, than all Catholics do acknowledge and believe. But it seemeth M. white thought it good policy thus to lead serth in triumph, whole squadrons of texts, and other humane testimonies, that so they might seem powerful and terrible (how weak soever otherwise through his misapplications they were) against the Church's Authority, the eye of the unlearned. But to end this Paragraph, here the Reader may see, in how many impertinent allegations M. white haith insisted, even within the reading of two leaves together, and all implicitly directed to charge the Catholics with their disualuing the Scriptures, through their acknowledging the Churches lawful authority, as if to contemn the church of God, were an argument with him, the more to admire the word of god. Thus he seemeth to partake (though in a different example ● with a certain man recorded by Sulpitius, 
18 Sulpitius Severus Epist. Hist. Eccl. so writeth of Ithacius.  with whom every one studious of virtue or abstinence, was suspected with the heresy of the Priscilianistes.   

The 3. Paragraph. Wherein are examined some of M. Whytes preofes against the Church's visibility.  
An other passage whereupon our minister spendeth his frothy and immaterial proofs, is touching the invisiblenes of the Church: first bearing the Reader in hand that by invisibility he meaneth not an utter extinction or disparition of the true Church, and faith: yet after in effect he recalleth the same and thus writeth. pag. 87. When we say the Church is invisible, we mean that all the external government thereof, may come to decay, in that the local and personal succession of pastors may be interrupted, the discipline hindered, the preachers scattered, and all the outward exercise and government of religion suspended, whereby it shall come to pass, that in all the world you can not see any one particular Church professing the true faith whereunto you may sa●fly join yourself, by reason persecution and heresies, shall have overflowed all Churches, as noah's flood did the world etc. Thus you see how liberally and fully he here delivereth (though in the beginning of that Chapter he speaketh more mincingly thereof.) Now if the discipline may be hindered, the preachers scattered &c. then shall not the word be preached, nor the Sacraments ministered, which are (at least by our adversaries principles) inseparable marks of the true Church, and consequently, they being taken away, the Church for the time, must be utterly extinct.  
This being the true meaning of M. white, he undertaketh to prove that the Catholics do generally teach, the like invisibility of God's Church, and therefore he thus styleth those leaves, The papists say the Church is invisible, which invisibility to be taught by the Catholics, that he may prove, he haileth in all sayings of any one Catholic Doctor or other, which show only that the Church of God, is more conspicuous at one time then an other, which we all grant, yet from thence it can not be enforced, that therefore by the Catholic doctrine, it may be sometimes so latent, as that it can not be known where it is.  
But to fortify this his false assertion, he allegeth Pererius in these words. 
3 In Daniel. pag. 714.  In the rhyme of Antiehrist there shall be no Sacrament in public places, neither shall ●ay public honour be given it, but privately and privily shall it be kept and honoured. In the same manner he urgeth Ouandus, 
4 Breviloq. in 4. sent. d 18. p. 602.  that the mass in the time of Antichrist shall be celebrated but in very few places, so that it shall seem to be ceased. Now (to omit that if the mass shall be celebrated in few places, then must it be in some places, & if in some places, then is the Church visible even in those places) what illation is this?  
The Eucharist or the mass, shall not be publicly honoured or celebrated in antichrist's time, but only in private or in secret: therefore than the Church shall be invisible and unknown. The silynes of which argument is controlled even by the woeful experience of our own country at this present, where the world seeth that the Mass and other Catholic Sacraments, are exercised only in private houses, and not in public Churches; & yet who will from hence conclude, that the Catholic Church here in England, is latent and invisible, since the immovable constancy and perseverance of English Catholics, haith made them known and remarkable to all the parts of Christendom.  
He next allegeth divers Catholics, jointly teaching, 
5 Bosius de sig. Eccl. l. 24. ca 9 Dom. a Soro 2. d. 46. q. 1. art. 1.  that in the time of Antichrist, The Sacrifice of the Eucharist shall be taken away, which point being granted, yet proveth not that the true faith of Christ shall so fall away, that none can then be named who shall profess the same. For seeing that the celebrating of the Eucharist, is an external worship of god, which though it be suspended for the time, yet it is not necessarily accompanied with an invisibility of the Church, and a vanishing away of the true Faith of Christ, even in regard of the persons who should perform the same. For this point is likewise made manifest by the imprisoned priests here in England, whose public exercise of their Religion, though it be prohibited and restrained, yet are they well known to the state, by professing themselves in these times of pressures (through a true heroical and spiritual fortitude) members of the Catholic Church.  
Next to the former testimonies, he marshalleth Gregory De Valentia thus writing. 
6 Anal. fid. l. 6. ca 4.  When we say, the Church is always conspicuous, this must not be taken, as if we thought it might at every season be discerned alike easily. For we know that it is sometimes tossed with the waves of errors, schisms, and persecutions, that to such as are unskilful, and do not discreetly evough weigh the circumstances of times and things, it shall be very hard to be known etc. Therefore we deny not, but that it will be harder to discern the Church at some times, then at other some: yet this we avouch, that it always might be discerned, by such as could wisly esteem things. Thus this Catholic Author with whom D. Stapleton is alleged 
7 Relect. contr. 1. q. 3. p. 30.  by M. white, to conspire herein. Now what doth this testimony make against us, since it chiefly proveth, that the splendour of God's Church, is more radiant and shining, at one time, then at an other (which we willingly grant) but it is impertinently urged to prove that it should be absolutely eclipsed, (the point that ought to be evicted) nay it clearly convinceth the contrary. For first the former words say that the Church is always conspicuous. Secondly, that the Church is always discerned by those who wisely esteem of things, therefore to such it is always visible: And thus doth M. Whytes own testimony, recoil with great force upon himself.  
After our Doctor haith ended with Catholic modern wruters, he beginneth to prove the invisibility of the Church, from the authority of the ancient Fathers, and among others (whom for brevity I pretermit) he allegeth S. Chrisostome, and ushereth his authority with this preface. And that Chrisostome thought, the Church might be sometimes invisible, appeareth by the 49. homily upon Matthew where he saith. Since the time that heresy haith invaded the Church: it can no way be known which is the true Church of Christ, but by the Scriptures only, in this confusion, it can no ways else be known. From which words, I do collect a continual visibleness of the Church: for if the Scriptures be ever able to make the Church known, then by them it is ever made visible, and consequently, (since the scriptures have ever hitherto been preserved, and through God's good providence no doubt shall be even to the end of the world) the Church haith been, and shall be at all times made known and visible through the means of the Scripture. And thus disputing only ad hominem, do I turn the point of M. Whytes reason upon himself.  
And this may suffice touching M. Whytes weak proving of the latency of Christ's Church: where the Reader may behold a long team (as it were) of his lame, feeble, and impotent authorities, one still following an other, taken from the writings of Catholic Doctors and the Fathers, whereof some do neither fortify, nor hurt his cause, and others do prove even contrary to that, for which he allegeth them. In regard of which his dull, gross, and absurd kind of reasoning and arguing, if it be true in Philosophy, that the understanding doth work better, or worse, as the spirits are more or less pure, and that the spirits are become more or less pure, according to the quality of the nutriment that the body taketh: I must then conclude, that when M. white penned this his Treatise particularly for his dear Countrymen of Lancashyre (as himself saith) it seemeth he then remaining there, did use to feed much on his Lancashire dish, the Goose.   

The 4. Paragraph. Wherein are discussed certain proofs of M. W. in behalf of the protestants marks of the Church.  
M. white, in page 104. and some few leaves after, discoursing of the notes of the Church, undertaketh to prove, that The true doctrine of faith, and lawful use of the Sacraments, are the proper and infallible marks, whereby it must be judged which is the true Church.  
In proof hereof, he produceth divers passages of Scripture, where our Saviour said, 
7 Io. 10.  My sheep here my voice. And again. 
8 Mat. 18.  Where two or three are gathered together in my name: there am I in the midst of them. In like sort those words of S. Matthew. 
9 Mat. 7.  You shall know the false prophets by their fruits. And finally that saying of S. Paul, 
10 Gal. 6.  As many as walk, according to this rule (meaning according to the rule of a true Faith) peace upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. Again those words of the Apostle touching the Church. 
11 Ephe. 2.  that It is the household of God, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. As also where it is said, that the Scripture is a 
m 2. Pet. 1.  shining light.  
Now what Alchemist in the world can abstract out of any of these texts, that sense or meaning which shall prove, that true doctrine is a sufficient mark to us, whereby we may infallibly discern, which is the true Church of God? He may as easily draw fire out of water, or earth out of air, between which, there are no symbolizing qualities. For let us see how probably we can infer, what is intended out of the said Scriptures: as thus. Christ saith, My sheep here my voice: Therefore true doctrine is to us a sign of the true Church. Again, Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them: Therefore we are to learn the true Church from the true doctrine. Strangely inferred: for how shall we know (ever abstracting the Authority of the Church) who are Christ's sheep? or who are they which are gathered together in his name? If it be replied, they are those who have true doctrine: then I demand, how can we be assured who have true doctrine? If it be answered, they have true doctrine, who hear the word truly preached, & enjoy a perfect ministration of the Sacraments: then I ask, how shall I be acertained, that such do hear the word truly preached, and enjoy a perfect ministration of the Sacraments? But here my answer is at a stand, and flieth for sanctuary, to his apocalyptical and revealing spirit. Thus it is clear in what circles & mazes M. white, or any other walketh, through the vain suggestions and imaginations, of a light, vaperous, & giddy brain.  
The like connexion with the former conclusion, have the other places of Scripture above cited: The which after he haith set down, than page 107. he descendeth to the Authorities of Fathers, and Catholic Authors, labouring (though most weakly) to hail from their words, his former Illation. To this end he bringeth in S. Epiphanius saying of an heretic 
12 li. 2. haer. ca 48.  This man is found altogether different from the holy Scriptures etc. If then he be dissenting from them, he is altogether an alien from the holy Catholic Church.  
Here we grant, that in the true nature of faith, who dissenteth from the Scriptures, dissenteth from the Church, but yet this proveth not, that the doctrine of faith, or administration of the Sacraments, may serve to us, as marks, to demonstrate out the Church. Again he produceth M. Raynouldes affirming that 13 The true Church, and the true faith, are so knit 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 known to us then the Church, and couseqnently that it ought to serve to us, as a clear and evident mark, to point out aswell to the unlearned, as learned, which is the true Church.  
Add hereto, that these words even in M. Whytes sense, as much impugn him as us: for if they imply faith to be a mark of the Church: they also reciprocally imply the Church to be a mark of the true Faith.  
Finally, to omit many other testimonies of Catholics produced to the like end (whose particular answers do rise from the circumstances of the places, and therefore here omitted) he labouring to show, that Faith is known before the Church, and consequently that it is a note thereof: bringeth in Picus Mirandula thus speaking of the Scriptures. 
14 Resert. Possen.  They do not move, they do not persuade, but they enforce us, they dry●e us forward, they violently constrain us. Thou readest words rudely and homely, but such as are quick, lively, flaming, shining, piercing to the bottom of the spirit, and by their admirable power, transforming the whole man.  
Now who can infer out of these words, that the Scripture is known to us before the Church, seeing indeed the priority of the one or the other, is not so much as intimated here at all? And what praises are here ascribed to the Scriptures, may truly belong unto them after we are assured of their being, and expositions by the warrant of God's Church.  
Thus we find, that the further we enter into our minister's book, the greater overcharge of bootless and unnecessary testimonies, do ever present themselves to us, manifesting unto the iudiceous and observant Reader, that this work (though the first borne of his brain) is abortive, imperfect, and weak, from all which store of impertinent proofs thus vauntingly by him alleged, demonstratively (forsooth) to confirm, what he still pretendeth to prove: We may evict one irrefragable demonstration ex posteriori, to wit, that M. white is absolutely ignorant in the doctrine of demonstrations.   

The 5. Paragraph Wherein are examined strange kinds of arguinges, against the authority of the Church.  
M. white labouring to depress the Church's awhority, and ever more and more venting out his venom and poison against her, in the some of that good spirit wherein he speaketh, undertaketh pag. 126. & some others following, to prove, that the teaching of the Church is to be examined (for so he entitleth those leaves) As also he saith, It is necessary for every particular man, to examine and judge of the things the Church teacheth him; thus giving the reins to every private and ignorant fellow, under the tecture & pretext of gods secret illuminations, to judge his own judge, and so to call in question, the reputation & honour of her from whose chaste loins even himself is (at least originally) descended. But that we may better see how little conducing his testimonies alleged are to the purpose: let us first set down what the Catholics do freely grant & teach in this point.  
They jointly teach, that the bound of subjecting one's self to the Church's Authority, is properly incumbent upon Christians, who are made members of the Church by baptism, and consequently do owe their obedience thereunto, and not upon infidels or jews, who are not obliged to embrace Christian Religion, except they see it confirmed by miracles, or some other enforcing reasons of credibility: Nevertheless, though an heretic do sin, in doubting of the Church's Authority, yet supposing that his doubt and sin, he doth not evil to examine the doctrine of the Church, according to the Scriptures, if so be he proceedeth herein, only with a desire of finding the truth.  
Now let us see what Authorities M. white allegeth to prove his former positions. First he urgeth those words of the Apostle, 
a 1. Thes. 5.  Try all things, & hold that which is good. As also those of our Sau. 
b 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 speak of myself. And again that of S. john. 
c 1. Io. 4.  dearly beloved believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God. In like sort those words of Christ. 
d Mat. 7.  Beware of false prophets, by their fruits you shall know them. And finally (besides the example of the men of Beraea searching the Scriptures, 
e Act. 17. ) he urgeth that where the Apostle counseleth the Hebrews, that 
f Hebr. 5.  Through long custom, they should have their wits exercised both to discern good and evil. But for greater perspicuity, let us shape one or two of these texts, to the true point here of the question. Thus then. Try all things, and hold what is good: therefore every private man may undertake to censure the whole Church of God. Which words indeed do not press the doubt, seeing both those words, and that place of S. john, c. 4. are directed properly to such only, to whom it belongeth to try and examine, both doctrine, and spirits, to wit, not to every particular member of the Church, but only to the Bishops and Pastors thereof, who are 
a Ezech. 33.  Speculatores domus Israel. Again if by this text every private man, may try, reject, or allow, all things at his pleasure: then may he reject or allow (as himself thinketh good) the holy Scriptures: for in the former words of the Apostle there is no limitation at all. But to proceed to an other text.  
Beware of false prophets, by their fruits you shall know them: therefore every private man is to examine the doctrine of all the Prophets and Pastors of the Church assembled together in a lawful general Council. Again the men of Berea (who were no Christians) were allowed to try the doctrine of S. Paul: therefore every Christian (who by force of his second birth or regeneration, is made a member and son of the Church) may examine, control, and reject, the public faith of the said Church.  
Doctor-lyke inferred, as if there were no disparity herein, between him who is not a Christian (& consequently acknowledgeth not any submission or reverence to god's Church) and an other who is a Christian, and therefore in his baptism doth implicitly resign himself, and his judgement, to the Authority of the Church.  
With the like want of connection or true reference, M. white presseth to the same purpose, the testimonies of certain ancient Fathers, whose drift in such their writings, was to wish men to examine by the Scriptures, the doctrine of private and particular men, lest, as the Apostle saith, Circumferantur omni vento doctrinae. 
b Eph. 4.  all which he will needs extend, to the discussing of the doctrine of the whole Church. And thus particularly he allegeth that saying of S. Chrysostome. 
c Chrisost. in Act. ho. 33.  Seeing we take the Scriptures which are so true and plain, it will be an easy matter for you to judge. And tell me, hast thou any wit or judgement? For it is not a man's part, barely to receive whatsoever he heareth. Say not, I am no scholar, and can be no judge, I can condemn no opinion, for this is but a shift etc. The scope only of which place, is (as is said) to refute the doctrine of every new sectary even from the Scriptures, a course which we willingly admit and allow.  
Thus you see how our minister is not ashamed to pervert and detort, the grave Authority of this ancient Father.  
But here the Reader is to understand, that M. W. his chief project in this first part of his book, is to depress with all contempt & scorn, the venerable authority of the Church. For the more facilitating whereof, he masketh this his intent, under the shadow of ascribing all reverence and honour to the Scriptures, both for their sufficiency, as containing expressly all things necessary to salvation, as also for their absolute Sovereignty and Prerogative, in determining inappealeably, all controversies of faith and religion whatsoever. The which course is not embraced by him (or any other sectary) so much for any peculiar honour they bear to the Scriptures: But that by this sleight and evasion, they may decline the weight and force of all proofs & authorities, deduced either from the unanimous consent of Fathers, from Ecumenical and general Counsels, or unintermitted practice of the Church: And so all doubts of Faith, being for their proofs reduced only to the written word, their own private spirit only, must finally decree, how the said word is to be understood, either for the impugning or defending, of any such points controverted.   

The 6. Paragraph Wherein are examined sundry arguments framed by M. W. against the unity of Catholics, in matters of Religion.  
Not many leaves after, M. white, as well knowing the force of unity in Faith, since it is true, that God 
1 Cor. 14.  Non est dissensionis Deus, sed pacis, goeth about to show, that the Catholics enjoy not any unity and concord in their doctrine, and therefore he thus styleth those leaves. The papists have no unity in doctrine. And page .156. he further saith. The papists agree in nothing wherein they descent from us. If either M. W. or any other can prove so much, I must grant that he greatly advauntageth his cause, seeing those words of the Prophet 
2 Isay. 19  Concurrere faciam Aegiptios contra Aegiptios, are tipically understood of the intestine wars and dissensions maintained by the professors of false doctrine. This his vaunt he beginneth to exemplify in divers particulars, in the proof whereof, the iudiceous Reader shall find, that this our impartinent minister (for so he may well be termed, since he altogether insisteth in such unnecessary and immaterial stuff) endeavoureth most calumniously to blear the judgements of the ignorant, they not being able at the first sight, to perceive the very tuch of any doubt or question between the protestants and us. Many authorities of Catholics he produceth to this end, the sense and meaning of which, he most strangely perverteth from the true intention of the writer, which receive their full satisfaction, from the circumstances of the place.  
But now here I am (according to my former prescribed method) to display the weakness of such testimonies, which being acknowledged in their true & native sense and construction, do nothing at all contradict the Catholic doctrine against which they are urged, and consequently do not convince any want of unity in doctrine among the Catholics. First then he allegeth against prayer in an unknown tongue, Contarenus. 
3 Christ. Instruct. p. 212  The prayers which men understand not, want the fruit which they should reap if they understood them: for they might both specially intent their minds to god, for the obtaining even in special of that, which with their mouths they beg: and also through their pious sense of their prayer then uttered, they should be more edified. They want therefore this fruit. Thus far Contarenus.  
Now here M. W. is to know, that Contarenus doth not here absolutely condemn prayer in a strange tongue (which is the life of this controversy between the protestants and us, since they say it is merely unlawful, and we hold it lawful) but only seems to prefer prayer in a vulgar and known tongue before it, which in regard only of the particular fruit above specified, is in the judgement of most (if not all Catholics) more profitable than the other, though the other have certain peculiar helps and advantages to itself: But what is this to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of praying in a strange tongue? or what kind of logic is this: Prayer for some particular reasons, is better in a vulgar tongue then in a strange tongue: therefore it is absolutely unlawful in a strange tongue? In like sort, touching latin service, 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. 
4 In ●. Cor. 14.  What Catholic denieth this, if he have only respect to the edification & instruction of the hearers, and of nothing else? But seeing the public Liturgies and prayers of the Church, are principally directed to other ends, then to the instruction of the standers by, what doth this testimony force against the contrary practice of the Church therein?  
Again for the evacuating of the force and operation of confession of sins, he bringeth in Cajetan teaching that 
5 3. Tho. q. 8. art. 4.  A man by contrition without any confession, is made clean, & a formal member of the Church. which indeed is the general doctrine of all Catholics: and therefore the received position with them in the schools is, that Attrition (being a grieving for our sins in a lower degree) with Confession, is answerable to Contrition, without actual Confession.  
Yet here is to be noted, that true Contrition (which is a repenting for our sins in the highest degree, only for the love of God) can not be without Confession, at least in voto, and desire, seeing he can not be truly and perfectly penitent, who neglecteth the ordinary means (if opportunity serve for the obtaining of them) appointed by God for the expiation of sin. Now who seeth not the independency of this inference, Sin is remitted by Contrition without Confession: therefore Confession is absolutely to be taken away. Most demonstratively concluded, as if every man had true and perfect Contrition, or having it, were infallibly assured thereof: and yet this is M. Whytes trysting kind of arguing.  
In like sort touching justification by works, which (according to our Catholic doctrine) are to be done in state of grace, and not by force of nature, and derive their worth, not from the worker, but both from the promise of God, as also from the passion of our Saviour, (in the blood whereof they receive a new tincture) the Doctor idly introduceth S. Thomas Aquinas thus teaching. 
6 In Galat. 3. Lect. 4.  No works, either Ceremonial, or Moral, are the cause why any man is just before God etc. And in an other place the same S. Thomas, 
7 In Rom. 3. Lect. 4.  The Apostle showeth justification to be wrought by faith only: there is in the work of the Law, no hope of justification, but by faith only. As if the question were, whether Ceremonial, judaical, and Legal works, did justify (which all Catholics deny) and not works now in the new Testament, as is above explained.  
Finally as unwilling to be over laboursome & painful, in setting downe more of M. Whytes trifling & childish stuff of this nature, seeing in this sense, that saying holdeth. Absurdum est res fu●●les, nimis seriò redarguere: I will therefore (forbearing divers others) conclude with the testimony which, against the merit of works he urgeth out of C. Bellarmine (a place before alleged, being a wilful corruption, in concealing the words immediately following explaining the sense, but here urged as a mere impertinency, though taking the words in that very sense wherein M. W. pretendeth) his words are these. 
8 de justif. l. 5. ca 7.  In reguarde of the uncertainty of our own righteousness, and because of the danger of vainglory: The saifest way is to put our confidence in the sole mercy of God. Now wherein doth he impugn the Catholic doctrine of merit, who teacheth (for the greater humbling of ourselves, and by reason of our manifold sins committed against god, and of our uncertainty of knowing whether the works done by us, be performed in such sort, as they are truly pleasing to God) that we should for greater security, ascribe nothing to ourselves, but only like the Centurion, should sly to the boundless and infinite mercy of his divine Majesty. Wherefore M. W. can not dispute thus from the Cardinal's words. In regard of the uncertainty of our own righteousness, and because of the danger of vain glory, the saifest way is to put our sole confidence in the sole mercy of God: Therefore works in general do not merit, or therefore works done in true humility, and proceeding from one that is righteous, donot merit. For the doubt here which Bellarmine intimateth, resteth not in the doctrine of merit, but in the uncertainty of our doing of them, to wit, whether th●y are performed by us in that state, and with all those due circumstances, as are requisite for them that they may merit. But it seemeth that M. W. can not fall upon any obscure sentences of Catholics, but instantly he striveth to turn them as if they were the sayings of his own brethren, like the fire which coveteth to convert every thing it toucheth into itself.  
This done M. white page 159. descendeth to show the different opinions of Catholics touching some points of the real presence, as first whether (after the bread and wine being changed by the words of Consecration into the body and blood of Christ) the accidences do remain without a subject, or that they have their inherence in the quantity, or that the body of Christ sustaineth them, or the like.  
Secondly, how the accidents remaining after consecration, have power to nourish, to wit, whether the thing nourished therewith, proceed from the quantity, or that the substance of bread and wine returneth again, and so it causeth the nutrition, or that the accidences by God's power, are changed into the thing nourished, or some such like manner.  
Thus our minister goeth on discoursing very soberly, how it appeareth from these and the like examples, that the papists agree not in their doctrine; and further thus saith. You may see by these few examples, how the papists are divided about the principal articles of their faith etc. But here the iudiceous Reader may see, that touching the fust sort of Catholic testimonies above explained, we find no difference of judgement at all, between the Catholics by him alleged, and other Catholics. And as concerning their several opinions about those secondary questions of the blessed Sacrament, they are only points 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 wine, be really, and truly changed by the words of consecration, into the Body and blood of Christ, the which all Catholics whatsoever do jointly and constantly believe. And as concerning those other doubts resulting out of the former confessed Article. and urged here by M. white, they are only indifferences, and philosophical questions disputed in the schools, and by several men, severally maintained, without any breach of faith. But here I should make bold (on the contrary part) to put M. M. white in mind touching the division in doctrine among the protestants (a point heretofore touched in this Treatise) that they are such, even by the acknowledgement of themselves, as do wound the soundness of Christian faith: I think the displaying thereof would be little pleasing unto him, grateful to his cause. But for this present I will forbear, and will only add hereto (for the greater disadvantage of our adversaries, that when a Catholic obstinately, and pertinaceously, mantaineth any heresy (for such accounted by the Church) he, ipso facto, divideth himself from the Church, and so seaceth to be a member there of, as several times we grant it happeneth: But the case is otherwise among the protestants. For albeit each of them doth defend his several opinions in the weightiest points of faith: yet they nevertheless account one an other, as members of one and the same Church, as we see by experience it fale out, not only between the Lutherans and the Caluenistes, but also between our English protestants, and the puritanes, who (notwithstanding the great disparity of faith and doctrine among them) do in their own opinions, make up one and the same protestants Church: and do still repute each other, as faithful brethren of the said Church, and zealous professors of the gospel.  
Here now I will close up this third and last part of this small Treatise, wherein I trust I have discovered M. Whytes disjointed and loose kind of writing, all which his reasonings and authorities (serving only as a taste to the Reader, what more he may expect in this kind, if the ministers whole book should be judicially perused) are taken out (dividing his book into three parts) only of the first part, and fewer then twenty leaves 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 have omitted, and purposely made choice of such passages, within the former small compass of his book, as do minister several and divers testimonies of this nature, of one and the same subject. It were over laboursome to examine his whole book in this sort, since indeed it is throughout even loaded with an overcharge of the like bootless testimonies, he still filling up many blanks and spaces thereof, with such idle impertinencies, the which 〈…〉, may seem to cross our Catholic doctrine, yet indeed the transparency of them is such, as they cause not so much as any reflection in the eye and understanding of the iudiceons, but in regard of their emptiness and want of force, they may be resembled (to speak in S. Peter's words 2. Pet. 2.) to wells without water, and clouds carried about with tempests.    

THE Conclusion.  
WOrthy and iudiceous Academians, here now I am to give a f●ll stop unto my pen, since I hope (according to my undertaken task) I have discovered such store of impostures in this my adversaries book, as that they may in reason be sufficient to disopinion you of his supposed worth and estimation. He is I grant your son, in respect whereof I know you can not but with a motherly and compassionate eye, behold his blemishes, and inwardly lament to see your white thus soiled. Notwithstanding it resteth on your part (even for the salving of your own honours) to withdraw hereafter your favours from so undeserving a branch; since pity it is, that learning, ingenuity, and integrity (whereunto yourselves deservedly pretend) should become a sanctuary to collusion, falsehood, and impurity.  
And now seeing here I have untwisted the chief threads whereupon the whole loom of his Treatise is woven: I doubt not but out of your own cleare-eyd judgements, you will immediately look upon the same, as it is in itself fraughted with such unworthy stuff, and not as it haith received light and grace from the weak opinion of the ignorant, and seduced multitude: which I rather expect peculiarly at your hands, since your selnes know, that in a true view of any thing, refracted beams never afford a perfect sight. And thus to your own censure and chastisement I remit M. white, whom not without just 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. jer. 27.  
And next to come to thee (good reader) here thou seest what scars do remain upon the face of this our ministers reputation, himself first playing the corrupter, than a liar, and then a trifling writer. But seeing thou art now partly instructed of the ministers foul deportment herein, I appeal even to thine own conscience, whether thou art inwardly persuaded, that he haith any honesty, any faith, any Religion, finally, any fear of God, who is not afraid thus shamelessly, profanely, and heathnishly, to handle the highest mysteries of Christianity. And if thou seest reason to be induced so to think, what stupor and dullness of understanding, yea what madness then is it in thyself, to adventure thy souls everlasting salvation, or damnation upon the bare affiance and credit of so persideous and corrupt a writer. Therefore let this man's want of sincerity and true dealing, awaken thy judgement in the disquisition of gods infallible truth. Make trial by thine own particular search, whether these deceipts, wherewith I charge the Doctor, be true or no: and if thou findest that he stands guilty thereof, then retire back, and instantly cast of both him and his doctrine, assuring thyself, that the cause which he justifieth is wrong, in that God (who ones said 
d psal. 100  Ambulans in via immaculata, hi● mihi ministrabat) will not suffer his sacred will to be revealed by such impostors and deceivers. Let not the already conceived opinion of his learning, oversway thy judgement, but rather say with thyself, that faith must needs be erroneous, which can not sufficiently be maintained by learning, except withal it be maintained with lying, seeing truth needeth not the support of falsehood. Be assured that though for the time M. W. or any other of our adversaries, see●e to make good their cause by their much writing, whereby in a vulgar eye, they vent out good store of literature and reading, yet after such their works are diligently perused and answered, by laying open their falsehoods, corruptions, and such other collusions: the Catholic cause (as experience haith taught) is greatly advauntaged thereby, themselves by this means running into greater disestimation and contempt even of their own followers: Such is the sweetness of god's providence, that the Israelites of the Catholic Church are ever in the end delivered from the hands of the Egyptians, and see their enemies drowned in the red sea of shame and confusion 
c ps. 121.  Non commovebitur in a●ernum qui habitat in jerusalem.  
But now last M. white to come more nearly to yourself, with whom I must in a word or two take leave: Tell me even between god and your own conscience (if as yet you retain any touch of conscience) did you not write this your book with a fearful trembling hand, in remembering, that as god (according to his justice) doth ever punish all kind of sins: so particularly he poureth out his viols of wrath and indignation in greater abundance, upon those who seduce the ignorant by such deceivable means? How many poor souls shall rise against you at the most dreadful day, who shall continue in eternal torments, for being misled by this your most poisonous, corrupt, and lying writings? Are not your own personal sins sufficient to draw on your perdition, but you must be loaded with the everlasting overthrow of divers others souls to further the same? If severe punishments be to be inflicted upon them, who will expunge or deface, any one public record of civil and temporal matters: what confusion then are they to undergo, who not once, not twice, but many scoares of times, have wickedly corraded, corrupted, and belied (of which yourself is found most guilty) the ancient monuments of the primitive Fathers, and the writings of other most learned Doctors, wherein (next to the holy Scriptures) is contained the spiritual tenure of our Christian faith, and by the producing whereof, we make good our title, to the rich inheritance of man's salvation. Reflect upon your own case (you, even you) who remains in 
f Act. 8.  the gall of bitterness, & in the bond of iniquity. Your state yet is remediable, since so long as you have time of repentance, so long 
g Io. 11.  your sickness is not unto death. Wherefore make use of that short remnant, and suffer not earthly considerations of preferment, ambition, and the like, any longer to interpose themselves, between your sight and the truth. I shall be glad (as the light appeared to Adam to bewray his sin and shame) if this my discovery, may be of force to dispel that spiritual darkness of your malice against the Catholic Church, so repentingly acknowledging your inexcusable faultiness in your former work. Be not aggrieved at these my sharp admonitions (since the more severe, the more medicinable) but remember that the sight of Toby was restored, by the bitter gall of the fish. I can not but bewail your incorrigibleness, if this my council, proceeding only from Charity shall be so far from winning you to a better course, that (as in some natures it happeneth) it may be found to raise your malice hereafter against God's Church, to a highe● strain, like unto some medicines, which (as the Physicians say) if they do not purge the humour intended: themselves do turn into the said humour.  
But to conclude, M. white (howsoever you entertain my words) fare well, fear hell, fear damnation, and do not thus precipitately and desperately run upon the dint of gods most dreadful comminations & threats, himself thundering, 
h Ezech. 13.  Eritmanus mea super P●ophetas etc. M●handes shall be upon the Prophets that see v●ne things, and divine a lie: in the Council of my people they shall not be, & in the Scripture of the house of Israel, they shall not be written, neither shall they enter into the Land of Israel: And you shall know that I am the Lord God, for that they have deceived my people saying, Peace, & there is no peace.  
Laus Deo, & B. Virgini Mariae.