continentur nihil est notins nihil certius vt stultissimum esse necesse sit qui illis fidem esse habendam neget There is nothing more knowen nothing more certaine then the holy Scriptures which are contayned in the wrytiâ—ges of the Prophets Apostles in so much that it were a most foolishe thing for any man to deny them Here first to make Bellarmine insinuate that he houldeth the authority of the Church in any thing to be doubtfull and vncertaine our minister of his owne brayne haith added these wordes other meanes may deceane me whereas there is not a fillable thereof in Bellarmine Secondly this place as we see is produced by him against the authority of the Church whereas indeede it is directed against the Swink feldians who denying the Scriptures relyed vpon their priuate illuminations as hereafter shall appeare by displaying a strang corruption and wresting of Bellarmines saying practised by M. Whyte in pag. 17. at the letter q. of which place of Bellarmine this here alledged is a parcell Thus our minister extremely strayneth euery Authority that he setteth downe till at the length it burst out into an open and inexcusable corruption The 2 Paragraph Bellarmine corrupted in proofe that the Scriptures are the onely rule of Faith Againe pag 17. to proue that all poyntes in controuersy must definitiuely be determined by the writen word alone without any respect to the Churches Authority in the explication thereof he marcheth owte once againe making Bellarmine his buckler thereupon alledgeth these wordes of his The rule of Faith must be certaine and knowen for if it be not certaine it is no rule at all If it be not knowen it is no rule to vs but but nothing is more certaine nothing better knowen then the sacred Scriptures contayned in the writinges of the Prophets and Apostles wherefore the sacred Scripture is the rule of Faith most certaine and most saife and God haith taught by corporall letters which we might see read what he would haue vs beleue concerning him Obserue here the refractory and incorrigible frowardnes of our minister and how artificiall and exact he sheweth him self in his art of corrupting For Bellarmine in this Chapter as is aboue touched writeth against the Swinkfeldians who denyed the Scripture to be the worde of God and rested onely vpon their priuate and hiddeÌ„ reuelations and answearably hereto the Tytle of this Chapter is Libris qui Canonicâ— appellaâ—tur verbum dei contineri That the word of God is contayned in those bookes which are called Canonicall Now the wordes at large are thus in Bellarmine Regula fides certa notaque c. The Rule of faith ought to be certaine and knowen for if it be not knowen it can be no Rule to vs and if it be not certaine it can be no Rule at all But the reuelation of the priuate spirit although in it self it might be certayne yet to vs it can no way be certaine except haply it be warraÌ„ted with diuyne testimonies to wit true miracles And then some sixe lynes after At sacris Scripturis c. But nothing is more knowen nothing more certaine then the sacred Scriptures which are contayned in the bookes of the Prophets Apostles And some fourtie or fiftie lynes after Quare cum sacra Scriptura Regula crodendi c. Wherefore seing the holy Scripture is a most certaine and a most secure rule of beleefe doubtlesse he can not be wyse who neglecting the same committeth him self to the iudgment of the priuate spirit which is often deceiptfull but euer vncertayne And againe some twenty lynes after Non igitur omnes vulgó c. Teerefore God teacheth not all men by internall inspirations what he wonld haue the faithfull to beleue of him or what they are to doe but it is his pleasure to instruct vs by corporall letters which we might see and reade Here now I referre this point to the most earneste protestant in England if he be Candid and ingenious with what face M. Whyte could alledg Bellarmine in this place to proue from him that the Scripture onely is the Iudg Rule of Faith for so doth the minister entytle that page thereby to make Bellarmine to reiect all Authority of the Church in exposition thereof all Apostolicall Traditions where we see vpon what different occasion from that he writeth in this Chapter against the Swinkfeldians Now here let vs note the particuler sleightes vsed in this corruption First M. Whyte you tye together without any c. or other word or note signifying the contrary seuerall sentences of Bellarmine for your greater aduantage as though one did immediatly folow the other though they lye in Bellarmine distinct by interposition of many lynes Secondly you haue concealed three seuerall parcels of different sentences expressing Bel. true mynde herein and all these parcels are euen partes and therefore the fowler fault of the sentences alledged by you Your concealemeÌ„ts are these Porro priuati Spiritus reuelatio et si in se certa sit nobis tamen nota nullo modo potest nisi forte diuinis testimoniis id est veris miraculis confirmetur And againe Sanus profecto non erit qui ea neglecta vz. the Scripture spiritus interui saepe fallacis semper incerti iudicio se coÌ„miserit And finally Non igitur omnes vulgoó per internum afflatum Deus docet All which your omissions are impaled and marked in the said english authority O how happy M. Whyte were you if you neuer had bene scholler since the tyme will come that you shall say with the Romane Emprour after he had subscribed to an vniust cause Vtinam literas nescirem For good thinges as learning are most perniceous to him who declyneth the true vse of them as you doe And in this respect you are to remember that the Arcke which was a blessing to the Israelites was yet a curse and hurt to the Philistians that abused it The 3. Paragraph Eckius fouly abused concerning the Authority of the Church and Traditions As heretofore he laboured to ouerthrow the doctrine of traditions from the corrupted testimonies of Catholicks and auncient Fathers so heare he endeuoreth from their lyke abused testimonies to intimate that we ascribe to them a greater perfection then we doe And to this end pag. 145. thereby the rather to cast vpon vs an vnworthy aspersion of vnderualewing the Scriptures he bringeth in Eckius in Enchirid. ca. 1. saying The Scripture receaueth all the authority it haith from the Church and from Tradition The wordes of this Author are these Scriptura non est authentica sine authoritate Ecclesiae whereby we see the wordes and from Tradition are falsly inserted by our deprauing minister making vs thereby to geue with we doe not a greater prerogatiue to Tradition then to Scripture And though perhaps he could light vpon those wordes and from Tradition in some other place or Chapter in Ecckius though in a different
in the tyme of Christianity there are no Traditions but the Scripture of the old Testament it the onely rule of Faith Againe Remember the Law of Moyses my seruant which I commaunded him in Horeb for all Israell with the statutes iudgments Therefore no Traditions Lastly The brethren of the rich glutton had Moyses and the Prophets Therefore no pointes of Christian Faith are to be proued froÌ„ any Traditions of the Church Strangly wildly most exorbitantly concluded for what reference haue these textes with the rule of Faith the which is not so much as glaunced at in any one of them or graunting that they had why should the old Testament be a paterne for the Faith professed in the new Testament since all Christians do graunt that the time of Grace is enriched with many priuiledges and immunities whereof the old Law was altogether depriued After these and such like textes of Scripture he descendeth to proue the soresaid point from the testimonies of the auncient Fathers as to omitt diuers others he alledgeth Tertulian saying The Scripture is the rule of Faith which we graunt for we teach that it is Regula partialis fidei a Rule of our faith in part yet hence it followeth not which is the point here onely to be proued that it is Regula totalis an entyre sole rule of Faith without the help of any Traditions and as large in extent as our faith is Also S. Augustine thus wryting This controuersy depending betwene vs requyres a Iudg let Christ therefore iudg and let the Apostle Paule iudg with him because Christ also speaketh in his Apostle As if Christ his Apostles could not aswell speake in Traditions as in writinges or because graunting that that particuler controuersie there ment by S. Augustine was proued from the wrytinges of S. Paule therefore all other Articles of Christian Religion should thence also receaue their sole proofe Againe Gregory Nyssen tearming the Scripture a strait and inflexible Rule as in that the Scriptute is inflexible and inchangeable for those pointes which it proueth therefore it alone and no Apostolicall traditions is to proue any article of our Faith Lastly he introduâ—eth S. Austine againe saying Whatsoeuer thing it be that a man learnes out of the Scripture if it be hurtfull there it is condemned if it be profitable there it is found Which place particulerly concerning conuersation of life as vertue and vyce of both which the Scripture most fully discourseth how it may condemne Apostolicall traditions which may deliuer supernaturall and high misteries of Christian faith I leaue to the censure of any iudceous man This done he next falleth to the sentences of more late Catholick writers as first of S. Thomas Aquinas saying The doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets is Canonicall because it is the Rule of our vnderstanding But what do these wordes force onely in the behalfe of Scripture and against Apostolicall Traditions since in leede they do not peculierly concerne the Scripture but as the wordes litterally import that the doctrine of the Apostles and Prophets in generall whether it be written or vnwritten is Canonicall Againe he vrgeth S. Thomas the second tyme Our Faith resteâ—h and stâ—eth it self vpon the reuelation geuen to the Apostles and Prophets which write the Canonicall bookes and not vpon reuelation if any such haue bene made to any other Doctors But who denies that the prophets Apostles did write the canonicall bookes Or who reacheth that our Faith ought to rest vpon the reuelation of any other Doctors then the Prophets the Apostles Or shew any reason which is the cheif point in this sentence to be shewed why the reuelations of the Prophets and especially the Apostles may not aswell comprehend traditions as the writen word In like sort he bringeth in Gerson saying Scripture is the Rule of our faith which being well vnderstoode noe authority of men is to be admitted against it As I haue said before we do teach that the Scripture is the Rule of Faith but not the sole Rule which M. Whyte ought to proue Againe we willingly acknowledg that no authority of man is to stand against the Scripture but what doth this impeach Apostolicall traditions which are nomore the bare authority of man then the Scripture it self both equally proceding froÌ„ God by the assistance of the holy Ghost Finally he comes in with Perisius wryting that The Authority of no Sainct is of infallible truth for S. Augustine geues that honour onely to the sacred Scriptures But here the question is not touching the tradition of any other Sainctes then onely of our Sauiour his Apostles and the whole Church yet we see Peresius here speaking of Sainctes must needes meane only of Particuler Sainctes or holy men since the tymes of the Apostles seing otherwise he should teach which were most wicked that the authority of the Apostles and the Euangelistes are not of infallible truth Besides S. Augustine in that place restrayneth without any reference at all to Traditions his meaning onely to the writinges of priuate Doctors in respect of the sacred Scripture and in this reguard still speaking of bookes written we all graunt that the Scripture is of an infallible truth Such vnprofitable and wast testimonies M. Whyte is accustomed to heape together in his booke the which that they shall not so easely be espied he subtilly for the most part mingleth them with other Authorities more pertinent at least in outward for the c shew of wordes lyke a good Captaine who rangeth his worst weakest souldiers in the middest thâ—ong of the more experienced so making those formes to serue onely to encrease in the enemies eye the number though not their force The 2. Paragraph Wherein are discussed certaine Arguments drawne from Scriptures and Fathers in proofe that the sacred Scriptures the true sense there of are made sufficiently known vnto vs without any approbation or explication of the Church The next subiect of his loose kind of Inferences wherein I will insist partly conspireth with the former and is touching the absolute and supreme soueraigâ—ty of the Scriptures in determining of controuersies without any needefull explicatioÌ„ of gods Church this assertion being indeede a head Theoreme or principle with the sectaries of this age For page 4â— M. Whyte thus writeth Digressio 11. prouing that The Scripture it self haith that outward authority whereupon our faith is built and not the Church Now here for the better vindicating and freeing vs from all contumelious calumnies touching our supposed contempt of the Scriptures as also for the more manifest discouery of M. Whytes weake arguing herein the Reader is to take notice that the Catholicks do ascribe all due reuerence estimation and respect to the Scripture whatsoeuer acknowledging it to be gods embassadour which vnfouldeth vnto man vpon earth the sacred will and pleasure of our heauenly King as also that it is the spirituall
much as intimated here at all And what praises are here ascribed to the Scriptures may truly belonge vnto them after we are assured of their being and expositions by the warrant of Gods Church Thus we fynde that the further we enter into our ministers booke the greater ouercharge of bootelesse and vnnecessary testimonies do euer present them selues to vs manifesting vnto the iudiceous and obseruant Reader that this worke though the first borne of his braine is abortiue imperfect and weake from all which stoare of impertinent proofes thus vauntingly by him alledged demonstratiuely forsooth to confirme what he still pretendeth to prooue We may euict one irrefragable demonstration ex posteriori to wit that M. Whyte is absolutly ignorant in the doctrine of demonstrations The 5. Paragraph Wherein are examined strange kindes of arguinges against the authority of the Church M. Whyte labouring to depresse the Churches auuhority and euer more and more venting out his venome and poysen against her in the some of that good spirit wherein he speaketh vndertaketh pag. 126. some others following to proue that the teaching of the Church is to be examined for so he entituleth those leaues As also he saith It is necessary for euery particuler man to examine and iudge of the thinges the Church teacheth him thus geuing the raynes to euery priuate and ignorant fellow vnder the tecture pretext of gods secret illuminations to iudg his owne iudg and so to call in question the reputation honour of her from whose chast loynes euen him self is at least originally descended But that we may better see how little conducing his testimonies alledged are to the purpose let vs first set downe what the Catholickes do freely graunt teach in this point They ioyntly teach that the bound of subiecting ones self to the Churches Authority is properly incumbent vpon Christians who are made members of the Church by baptisme and consequently do owe their obedience thereunto and not vpon infidels or Iewes who are not obliged to embrace Christian Religion except they see it confirmed by miracles or some other enforcing reasons of credibility Neuerthelesse though an heritike do sinne in doubting of the Churches Authority yet supposing that his doubt and sinne he doth not euill to examine the doctrine of the Church according to the Scriptures if so be he procedeth herein onely with a desyre of fynding the truth Now let vs see what Authorities M. Whyte alledgeth to proue his former positions First he vrgeth those wordes of the Apostle Try all thinges hould that which is good As also those of our Sau. If any man will do the will of God he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speake of my self And againe that of S. Iohn Derely beloued beleue not euery spirit but try the spirits whether they be of God In like sort those wordes of Christ. Beware of false prophets by their frutes you shall know them And finally besides the example of the men of Beraea searching the Scriptures he vrgeth that where the Apostle counseleth the Hebrewes that Through longe custome they should haue their wittes exercised both to discerne good and euill But for greater perspicuity let vs shape one or two of these textes to the true point here of the question Thus then Try all thinges and hould what is good therefore euery priuate man may vndertake to censure the whole Church of God Which wordes indeede do not presse the doubt seeing both those wordes and that place of S. Iohn c. 4. are directed properly to such onely to whom it belongeth to trye and examine both doctrine and spirits to wit not to euery particuler member of the Church but onely to the Bishops and Pastors thereof who are Speculatores domus Israel Againe if by this text euery priuate man may trye reiect or allow all thinges at his pleasure then may he reiect or allow as him self thinketh good the holy Scriptures for in the former wordes of the Apostle there is no limitation at all But to procede to an other text Beware of false prophets by their frutes you shall knowe them therefore euery priuate man is to examine the doctrine of all the Prophets and Pastors of the Church assembled together in a lawfull generall Councell Againe the men of Berea who were no Christians were allowed to trye the doctrine of S. Paule therefore euery Christian who by force of his second birth or regeneration is made a member and sonne of the Church may examine controule and reiect the publick faith of the said Church Doctor-lyke inferred as if there were no disparity herein betwene him who is not a Christian consequently acknowledgeth not any submission or reuerence to gods Church and an other who is a Christian and therefore in his baptisme doth implicitly resigne him self and his Iudgment to the Authority of the Church With the lyke want of connection or true referēce M. Whyte presseth to the same purpose the testimonies of certaine auncient Fathers whose drift in such their writinges was to wish men to examine by the Scriptures the doctrine of priuate and particuler men lest as the Apostle saith Circumferantur omni vento doctrinae all which he will needes extend to the discussing of the doctrine of the whole Church And thus particulerly he alledgeth that saying of S. Chrysostome Seeing we take the Scriptures which are so true and plaine it will be an easy matter for you to iudge And tell me hast thou any wit or iudgment For it is not a mannes part barely to receaue whatsoeuer he heareth Say not I am no scholler and can be no Iudg I can condemne no opinion for this is but a shift c. The scope onely of which place is as is said to refute the doctrine of euery new sectary euen from the Scriptures a course which we willingly admit and allow Thus you see how our minister is not ashamed to peruert and detort the graue Authotitie of this auncient Father But here the Reader is to vnderstand that M. W. his cheif proiect in this first part of his booke is to depresse with all contempt scorne the venerable authority of the Church For the more facilitating whereof he masketh this his intent vnder the shadow of ascribing all reuerence and honour to the Scriptures both for their sufficiency as contayning expresly all thinges necessary to saluation as also for their absolute Soueraignty and Prerogatiue in determininge inappealeably all controuersies of faith and religion whatsoeuer The which course is not embraced by him or any other sectary so much for any peculier honour they beare to the Scriptures But that by this sleight and euasion they may declyne the waight and force of all proofes authorities deduced either frō the vnanimous consent of Fathers from Oecumenicall and generall Councels or vnintermitted practise of the Church And so all doubtes of Faith being for their proofes
that M. Whyte can not reply in answear hereto that because there are some other protestantes that do mantaine the said positions with him against his former learned brethren that therefore such his positions are freed from all imputation of vntruth and consequently him self of lying This his answeare is most insufficient First because some of his vntruthes do rest in affirming that not any one Father or any one protestant taught such or such a poynt or doctrine against which generall assertion including all Fathers and protâ—stantes if I can produce but any one Father or protestant as indeede I can for the most part produce many it is enough to conuince him of lying Secondly in that all Maister W. vntruthes do make head against the Catholick Faith and strengthen the protestantes religion in which respect they may be presumed to be the more wilfull it can not therefore with any shew of reason be otherwise conceaued that such learned protestants for the most part mantaining against the Catholicks the poynt or conclusion of faith out of which such assertions do ryse and therefore are not become parties against M. Whyte therein would euer defend against the Doctor the contrary assertions much weakning their owne cause thereby were it not that the euidency of the truth on the Catholick side doth force them thereunto And therefore it followeth euen in reason that the voluntary acknowledgment of any such one learned protestant ought to ouer balance weigh downe euen scoares of others not confessing so much so true is the saying of Irenen li. 4. ca. 14. Illa est vera sine contradiction probatio quae etiam ab aduersariis ipsis signa â—â—stiâ—iâ—atioAâ—â—s prosâ—rt But to make this poynt more perspicuous to the reader by example our minister in one place which hereafter shall be alledged anouchâ—th that the doctrine of Transubstantiation was neuer heard of before the Councell of Lateran for here he speaketh not of the definition of that Article but of the doctrine onely To conuince this as a most notorious vntruth I produce not Catholick authorities for they would seme to the readers eye ouer partiall but because all perfect differences are made vpon vnequall standinges I insist in dyuers learned protestantes otherwyse our professed enemies who do not beleue our Catholick doctrine herein as true neuerthelesse do confesse that such such Fathers liuing in the primitiue Church and therefore many ages before the foresaide Councell did teach the said doctrine of Transubstantiation Now here I say M. Whyte is not excused from lying in that he is able to bring forth other particuler protestantes teaching with him the said innouation of Transubstantiation euen at the same tyme and not before in reguard of his former learned brethren confessing the further antiquity thereof to the much disabling of their owne cause Now what can our Doctor obiect herein not their ignorance for they are the most accomplished protestantes for their literature that euer liued not their partiality in the cause for they here speake against them selues and do conspyre in the fnndamentall and primitiue point of faith therein with M. Whyte him self Onely therefore it is to be said that these protestantes thâ—s confessing to their owne preiudice are more ingenious vpright and lesse impudent in their wrytinges and M. Whyte and his compartners are of a canterized and seâ—red conscience not caring euen against their owne knowledg by their shameles mantayning of lyes to suppresse Gods truth and Religion Now this Basis and groundwork being immoueaable and this firmly laid let vs proceede to these his vntruthes The 1. Vntruth The first vntruth that Protestantes embrace that kinde of tryall which is by antiquity Therefore first in his preface to the Reader pag. penul thus you see the very front of his book is no lesse subiect to lying then before as I haue shewed it was to corrupting our minister still forgeating that a great sore in the body is more tollerable then a moale in the face there speaking of the Fathers of the primitiue tymes and of their IudgmeÌ„ts in matters of Faith betwene the protestantes vs thus writeth We are so well assured meaning of the resolution of the Fathers that we embrace that kind of tryall which is by antiquity and dayly fynde our aduersaries to be gauled thereby A most vast vntruth and acknowledged to be such euen by the most iudiceous protestantes For we fynde that wheareas M. Iewell with the lyke hipocrisy did appeale to the auncient Fathers at Paules Crosse euen his owne brethren did rebuke him greatly for those his inconsiderate speaches in so much that D. Humfrey the half-arch of the English Church in his dayes affirmeth that to vse his owne wordes M. Iewell gaue the papists therein too large a scope that he was iniurious to him selfe and after a manner spoyled him self and his Church To the lyke ende D. Whitaker but with extraordinary scurrility wryteth that The popish Religion is but a patched couerlet of the Fathers errours sowed together From whence it followeth that D. Whytaker would be loth inappealably to stand to their determinations Finally Luther him self the first mouer of our new Gospels Spheare so farr disclaymeth from the Fathers Iudgmentes as that he thus insolently traduceth them The Fathers of so many ages speaking of primitiue tymes haue bene blynd and most ignorant in the Scriptures they haue erred all their lyfe tyme vnlesse they were amended before their deathes they were neither Sainctes nor perteyning to the Church Thus Luther Here now is euident the vntruth of M. Whyte appealing to the Fathers since we fynd that the most learned members of his owne Church do reiect them with all contempt charging them with slat papistry which they would neuer haue done if they could haue vsed any other conuenient euasion Be affrayd M. Whyte of Gods iust reuenge for this your mantayning of euill by euill for thus you here do first by impugning the true faith of Christ then for your better warranting thereof in traducing the auncient and holy Fathers as enemies to the said Faith And remember the sentence Metum auget qui scelere scelus obruit The second vntruth Against Traditions But to procede to other vntruthes pag. 2. our M. Whyte laboureth to proue that the protestantes Church receaueth not nâ—cessarily any one Tradition and answearably thereto in his first Table before his booke he thus wryteth No part of our faith standeth vpon Tradition Now here his owne brethren will charge him with falshood For seing M. Whyte must and doth acknowledg that to beleue that such bookes as the wrytinges of the four Euangelistes the Actes of the Apostles the Epistles of S. Paule c. are the sacred word of god is a mayne article of both his and our Faith The falshood of his former Assertion is euidently euicted from the wordes of learned protestantes who teach that not from our pryuate spirit or scripture
the auncient Fathers and among others whom for breuity I pretermit he alledgeth S. Chrisostome and vshereth his authority with this preface And that Chrisostome thought the Church might be somtimes inuisible appeareth by the 49. homily vpon Mathew where he saith Since the tyme that heresy haith inuaded the Church it can no way be knowne which is the true Church of Christ but by the Scriptures onely in this confusion it can no wayes els be knowne From which wordes I do collect a continuall visiblenes of the Church for if the Scriptures be euer able to make the Church knowne then by them it is euer made visible and consequently since the scriptures haue euer hitherto bene preserued and through Gods good prouidence no doubt shall be euen to the end of the world the Church haith bene and shall be at all times made knowne and visible through the meanes of the Scripture And thus disputing onely ad hominem do I turne the point of M. Whytes reason vpon himself And this may suffice touching M. Whytes weake prouing of the latency of Christes Church where the Reader may behould a longe teame as it were of his lame feeble and impotent authorities one still following an other taken from the writinges of Catholick Doctors and the Fathers whereof some do neither fortify nor hurt his cause and others do proue euen contrary to that for which he alledgeth them In reguard of which his dull grosse and absurd kind of reasoning and arguing if it be true in Philosophy that the vnderstanding doth work better or worse as the spirits are more or lesse pure and that the spirits are become more or lesse pure according to the quality of the nutriment that the body taketh I must then conclude that when M. Whyte penned this his Treatise particulerly for his deare Countrymen of Lancashyre as himself saith it semeth he then remayning there did vse to feede much on his Lancashire dish the Goose. The 4. Paragraph Wherein are discussed certaine proofes of M. W. in behalf of the protestantes markes of the Church M. Whyte in page 104. and some few leaues after discoursing of the notes of the Church vndertaketh to proue that The true doctrine of faith and lawfull vse of the Sacramentes are the proper and infallible markes wherby it must be iudged which is the true Church In proofe hereof he produceth diuers passages of Scripture where our Sauiour said My sheepe here my voice And againe Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the middest of them In lyke sort those wordes of S. Mathew You shall know the false prophets by their frutes And finally that saying of S. Paule As many as walk according to this rule meaning according to the rule of a true Faith peace vpon them and mercy and vpon the Israell of God Againe those wordes of the Apostle touching the Church that It is the howshold of God built vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets As also where it is said that the Scripture is a shyning light Now what Alcumist in the world can abstract out of any of these textes that sense or meaning which shall prooue that true doctrine is a sufficient mark to vs whereby we may infallibly discerne which is the true Church of God He may as easely draw fyre out of water or earth out of ayre betwene which there are no symbolizing qualities For let vs see how probably we can inferre what is intended out of the said Scriptures as thus Christ saith My shepe here my voice Therefore true doctrine is to vs a signe of the true Church Againe Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the middest of them Therfore we are to learne the true Church from the true doctrine Strangely inferred for how shall we know euer abstracting the Authority of the Church who are Christes sheepe or who are they which are gathered together in his name If it be replyed they are those who haue true doctrine then I demaund how can we be assured who haue true doctrine If it be answeared they haue true doctrine who heare the word truly preached enioy a perfect ministration of the Sacraments then I aske how shall I be acertained that such do heare the word truly preached and enioy a perfect ministration of the Sacramentes But here my answear is at a stand and flieth for sanctuary to his Apocalypticall and reuealing spirit Thus it is cleare in what circles mazes M. Whyte or any other walketh through the vaine suggestions and imaginations of a light vaperous giddy braine The like connexion with the former conclusion haue the other places of Scripture aboue cyted The which after he haith set downe then page 107. he descendeth to the Authorities of Fathers and Catholick Authors labouring though most weakly to hayle from their wordes his former Illation To this end he bringeth in S. Epiphanius saying of an heritike This man is found altogether different from the holy Scriptures c. If then he be dissenting from them he is altogether an alyen from the holy Catholick Church Here we graunt that in the true nature of faith who dissenteth from the Scriptures dissenteth from the Church but yet this proueth not that the doctrine of faith or administration of the Sacramentes may serue to vs as markes to demonstrate out the Church Againe he produceth M. Raynouldes affirming that 13 The true Church and the true faith are so knitt together that the one inferreth and concludeth the other for from the true Church is concluded the true faith and from the true faith the true Church All this is true yet it followeth not from hence that faith is more knowne to vs then the Church and couseqnently that it ought to serue to vs as a cleare and euident mark to point out aswell to the vnlearned as learned which is the true Church Adde hereto that these wordes euen in M. Whytes sense asmuch impugne him as vs for if they imply faith to be a marke of the Church they also reciprocally imply the Church to be a marke of the true Faith Finally to omitte many other testimonies of Catholickes produced to the lyke end whose particuler answeares do ryse from the circumstances of the places and thâ—refore here omitted he labouring to shew that Faith is knowne before the Church and consequently that it is a note thereof bringeth in Picus Mirandula thus speaking of the Scriptures They do not moue they do not perswade but they enforce vs they dryâ—e vs forward they violently constraine vs. Thou readest wordes rudely and homely but such as are quick liuely flaming shyning pearcing to the bottome of the spirit and by their admirable power transforming the whole man Now who can inferr out of these wordes that the Scripture is knowne to vs before the Church seeing indeede the priority of the one or the other is not so