Whyte dyed black. Or A discouery of many most foule blemishes, impostures, and deceiptes, which D. Whyte haith practysed in his book entituled The way to the true Church Deuyded into 3 sortes Corruptions, or deprauations. Lyes. Impertinencies, or absurd reasoninges. Writen by T.W. p. And dedicated to the Vniuersity of Cambridge. Cum priuilegio.

The 12 Paragraph. The Canon Law corrupted concerning the Pope.

In nothing more doth M. Whyte manifest or con∣tinue his implacable hatred or his dexterity in falsifica∣tion, then against the Church and Pope of Rome: a∣mongest

many take this example folowing. pag. 433. I am affrayd (saih he) I haue bene to bold in medling with these matters: for the Church of Rome haith a Law within her self, that it is (and then foloweth in a different let∣ter as though they were the wordes of the Canon law) sacriledg to reason about the Popes doinges whose murders are excused lyke Sampsons, and theftes lyke the Hebrues, & Adultries lyke Iacobs. But here I must charg you with much fowle demeanour: for first you affirme that the wordes cyted are a Law of the Romane Church, whereas they are onely taken out of the glosse or com∣ment, which is a thing much different, and of incom∣parable lesse authority then the Law it self. Secondly whereas in the Law it is disputed what censure is to be geuen when the case is doubtfull whether the Pope haith sinned or noe, as by committing adultry or mur∣der: to which it is answeared, that in that case it is to be presumed in the Popes behalf, yea (saith the glos∣ser in this case) sacrilegii instar esset disputare de facto suo. Vel dic quod facta Papae accusantur vt homicidia Samsonis, & surta Hehraeorum, & adulterium Iacob. It were lyke Sa∣criledg (in that doubtfull case) to dispute of his fact. Or say that the deedes of the Pope are accused as the murders of Samson, the thefts of the Hehrues, & the Adultery of Ia∣cob. What is here spoken in defence of the pope which euery Christian ought not to performe in defence of his neighbour, to wit, in a case doubtfull, to think and speake the best? Are not those factes of Samson, the Hebrues, and Iacob, piously censured by the learnedst Doctors? But with what front do you auouch so abso∣lutely and in generall, that according to the law of the Romane Church it is sacriledg to reason about the Popes do¦inges, whereas the glosser saith onely In dubiis &c. when the case is doubtfull of the Popes fact, instar sacri∣legii &c. It were lyke Sacriledg to dispute of his fact. Will

you of doubtfull premisses inferre an absolute conclu∣sion? Would you take it kindly if in a case (admitting it but doubtfull) whether a certaine minister had beene drunke, should absolutely affirme that the protestants Church haith a Law within her self, that it is Sacriledg to reason about ministers doinges, whose drunkenes is excused as Noes &c.