the said booke being to coÌ„fute the Protestants notes by the said Doctors wordes also concealed by M. Whyte which doe immediatly precede the sentence vrged by him For there speaking of the preaching of the Gospell and of the ministration of the Sacraments he saith Adâ—menta ornamenta These are furthere â—â—â—es ornaments of the true Church non ipsius nota insignia but not markes or signes therof Here you see how Ieweshsly M. Whyte haith circumcysed this poore Authority in paring away both the first and latter part thereof But seing his inexcusable faultines not onely in this place but in most of his deprauationes is to set downe one part of a testimony and fraudulently to hyde an other part let him remember the greouous punishment inflicted by the Apostle vpon Ananias for bringing halfe and concealing the other halfe Act. 5 The 5. Paragraph Gregory Valentia corrupted in behalf of the Protestantes markes of the Church In proofe of the Protestantes markes of the Church to wit Truth of doctrine and administration of the Sacraments M. Whyte pag. 137. alledgeth Valentia Com. Theol. Tom. 3. disp 1.9.1 punct 7. parag 18. saying Among whomsoeuer the truth of Doctrine and Sacraments are houlden thereby it is knowne the Church is there But for the true displaying of this baise iugling minister I will set downe the wordes at large as that learned Author deliuered them him self Nos autem fatemur saith he neque veritate dâ—ctrinae neque legitimo sacramentorum vsu Ecclesiam Christi carere posse apud quos haec omninó sint salua exiis constare veram EcclesiaÌ„ Sed negamus tamen veritatem doctrinae legitimum sacramentorum vsum idoneas notas esse discernendae Ecclesiae ' But we confesse that the Church of Christ can neither wante truth of doctrine nor lawfull vse of Sacramentes and amongst whom these are altogether saife or sincere of them to consist the true Church But yet we deny the truth of doctrine and lawfull vse of Sacramentes to be fit markes of discerning the Church Here M. Doctor first I must admire the profundity of your indgment producing by an vnknown kind of pollicy a most famous learned man contradicting him self in one and the same sentence yea not onely contradictinge the tytle of his disputation which is the Marckes of the Church which the sectaries assigne are euidently confuted but euen the many and different profes which for sixe pages he continueth against the said markes assigned by protestantes But because this so great an ouersight is more then probable let vs examine brefely your demeanour towardes him You alledg in a different letter as though they were the Authors expresse wordes these folowing Among whomsoeuer the truth of doctrine and Sacraments are houlden thereby it is knowne the Church is there Him self sayeth Apud quos haec omuino sint salna ex iis constare veram Ecclesiam Amongst whom these are altogether sincere of them to consist the true Church That which Valentia speaketh of the persons of whom the Church consisteth your worship pleaseth to apply to the markes by which it is to be knowne as though there weare no difference betwixt the members of the Church the externall badges tokens whereby the said church is discerned But peraduâ—nture you will pretend for your excuse the alledging in the mergeÌ„t of your boke these latin wordes ex us constare veram Ecclesiâ—m But the truth is this doth rather plead you guilty of grosse ignorance in not knowing how to translate aright or as I rather think of laboured and affected malice who hauing sene and perused the place would so desperatly produce it against the manifeste sence of the wordes and the direct intention of the Author And though the word constare doth not onely signify to consist or stande but som-tymes likewise to be manifest or knowne yet in the place cyted neither the wordes precedent nor subsequent nor the scope or â—rift of the Author will permitt it yea they all conuince and conclude the contrary But if it were lawfull for me M. Whyte in wordes Amphibologicall which haue a double sence without all respect either to the subiect or matter treated the intention of the speaker or other circumstance to translate or apply the worde onely for myne owne aduauntage I would easely defend against your learneâ—st Doctor-ship sundâ—y of the celestiall signes to be liuing and sensible creatures and so much more to be esteeâ—ed tâ—en your self for I would likewise vpon the same â—round defend your self to be no substance but a mere accident Into such grosse absurdities doth your beggerly heresâ—e euer plunge you The 6 Paragraph Bellarmine egregiously corrupted against the Markes of the Church M. Whyte desiring to extenuate the worth and to obscure the splendor of those glorious markes which the Catholick Church as so many cleare rayes moste plentifully affordeth produceth pag. 137. Cardinal Bellarmine as saying They make it not euidently true that is the Church but euidently probable Here M. D. as it semes wanted lantorne and candle light but most certainely he wanted either honesty or knowledg or both in best confirmation whereof I will onely set downe the wordes of Bellarmine him selfe de notes eccl lib. 4. ca. 3. Est autem initio obseruandum Ecclesiam Catholicam esse c. It is in the beginning to be obserued that the Catholick Church is a Soon which on euery side powreth out the clearest beames of light so that by them she may most easely be knowne For she haith many Markes or testimonies and signes which discerneth her from all false religions of Paganes Iewes Heritykes And they do not make it euidently true that she is the true Church of God but yea they make it euidently `credible for that is said euidently true that is seene either in it self or in it principles that is said euidently credible which is not seene either in it selfe or in it principles yet which haith so many and so graue Testimonies as that euery wyse man deseruedly ought to beleue it Here the minister all excuses set apart must nedes confesse that he haith falsly corrupted the text of Bellarmine changing this parcell euidently credible into euidently probable betwene which two there is no lesse difference then betwixt him self and an honest man which is not small For example if but one hundreth of learned and sincere writers should confesse that D. Whyte had corrupted thâ—â— bookes in sundry places this confession would make it euidently credible that D. Whyte were an impostor or deceauer a mercionary minister and the lyke but if onely two or three should auouch it as many of equall authority deny it then it were but euidently probable If the matter were brought to this issue him self would plainely see the greateste difference betwixt these two And I dare bouldly say that with lesser labour I will â—â—panell an hundreth who will all geue their verdictes against his soulest forgeries then
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
of Rome produceth pag. 188 S. Ciprian in these wordes Nay Ciprian saith The vnity of Bishopes is broken when euen runne from theire owne to the Bishope of Rome which wordes if they had bene true being much materiall caused me diligently to peruse the Epistle quoted but indede agreable to my expectation I found none such and therefore truly deemed them to be framed in the fournace of M. Whytes forgeries And though in the Epistle cyted S. Ciprian reprehēdeth certaine heritikes who being iudicially cōuicted in Africk sayled to Rome with the marchandise of their lyes ◠endeuoring by their subtill and cunning rashnes to break the concord of Bishopes yet was he so farr from disprouing of any lawfull Appeale to Rome as that in the same place he auoucheth Rome to be the Chaire of Peter and principall Church from whence preistly vnity aryseth yea he scorned the said heritykes as not knowing◠the Romanes to be those vnto whom vntruth could haue no accesse and withall further affirming that the truth should sayle after them to Rome which with proofe of the thing certaine should cōuince their lying tongues All which doth plainely make knowen S. Ciprianes true conceipt of Romes superiority and indeede doth strongly confirme our Catholick doctrine concerning Appeales For if those heritykes censured by the Bishopes of Africk to auoyde their present punishment appealed to Rome no doubt this argueth that Appeales to Rome were in vse as then and though the Appellantes were heritykes yet in that otherwise their Appeale had bene plainely vaine foolish and fruitlesse it manifestly supposeth the foresaid Authority of admitting Appeales to reside in the Bishope of Rome Further though S. Ciprian reprehended them being lawfully conuicted for their further Appealing and not submitting them selues to their immediate Pastors yet doth he no-where so much as insinuate vpon iust occasions the vnlawfulnes of Appeales but euen in this very place doth imply the contrary by his sending after the foresaid heritikes to the Romane Church to enforme her of the truth which if it had not bene in regard of her foresaid Superiority or Primacy had bene altogether neede-les peraduenture inconuenient And whereas M. Whyte a litle before cyteth these wordes of S. Ciprian vnlesse peraduenture a few desperate and gracelesse persons think the Authority of the Bishopes in Africk that iudged them to be lesse it is plaine by the text that he maketh not this comparison with the Bishop of Rome but with those hereticall Bishopes which were censured and condemned by the Bishopes of Africk To conclude when M. Whyte sheweth me in the Epistle cyted of S. Ciprian these wordes obiected the vnity of Bishopes is broken when men runne from their owne to the Bishope of Rome I will publikely declaime him the cuningest Optician or rather Magician that the whole ministery of England affordeth The 10 Paragraph The Rhemists abused concerning the Authority of the Church Againe pag. 119. our fraudulent Doctor laboureth much to induce his credulous Readers to beleue that we hold that the Church can at her pleasure make that Scripture which is not and vnmake that which once is scripture thereupon saying that the papists haue a principle among them that the Scripres receiue all their authority from the Church he seketh to proue it in the next lynes from a testimony of the Rhemistes gal 6. thus alledging them The Scriptures are not knowne to be true neither are Christians bound to receaue them without the attestation of the Church Here againe he curtayleth their sentence concealing such their wordes as do lymite the Churches authority therein and wherein they do acknowledg an infallible truth of the Scriptures before any approbation of the Church therefore you shall haue their wordes alledged at large The Scriptures say they which are indeede of the Holy Ghosts indyting being put into the Churches tryall are found proued and testifyed vnto the world to be such and not made true altered or amended by the same without which attestation of the Church the holy Scriptures in them selues were alwayes true before but not so knowne to be to all Christians nor they so bound to take them Here the Rhemistes onely say that the truth of the Scriptures can not be made knowne to vs without the attestation of the Church And that this is all which M. Whyte can collect from this testimony which we willingly graunt Yet where the Rhemistes in this very place do vse wordes of reuerence to the Scriptures embrace their infallibility as these The Scriptures are not made true altered or amended by the Church And againe without the attestation of the Church the holy Scriptures in themselues were alwayes true As also wheare it is set downe by them in the mergent euen in that place The Church maketh not canonicall Scripture but declareth that it is so These I say though parcels of the former sentence or merginall explications thereof the D. haith after his accustomed maner most calumniously ouerskipped Thus it will still be found that the sphere of this his learned Treatise what glorious motion soeuer it semeth hitherto to haue in the sight of his ignorant fauorites turneth vpon the poles of shame full corruptions lying deceiptes The 11. Paragraph Cardinall Cusanus corrupted concerning the same subiect Againe continuing his former proiect pag. 51. he bringeth in the Cardinall Cusanus saying Epist. 3. pa. 3. When the Church changeth her Iudgment God also changeth his This he vrgeth to make vs mantayne that God doth so subiect his iudgment to the church that supposing for it is a mere supposall the church should alter or change any essentiall or fundamentall poynte of faith whatsoeuer by interpreting the Scripture otherwyse then before it did for M. Whyte setteth this sentence downe without any restraint so conformably thereto styleth the page The sence of Scripture changed with the tyme that then god also doth chāg his mynde therein so warrantiug the truth of this new stamped article But let vs see how the wordes do lye in Cusanus thus they are Sicut quondam coniugium praeferebatur Castitati c. As in former tymes meaninge in the firster ages of the world matrimony was preferred by the Church before Chastity so was it preferred euen by God But after the Iudgment of the Church being changed therein meaning after the world was fully peopled gods Iudgment it changed also If therefore the Church doth Iudg any act to be of great merite in reguard of the present circumstances and in an other tyme after shall Iudg an other act to be of greater valew c. it is euident that the greatnes of the merite doth much depende vpon the Iudgment of the Church Thus what is here spoken onely of the diuersity of merit of one and the same action according to the different circumstances of tyme or place M. Whyte will needes extend besides the intention of the Author to the chang of any dogmaticall point how great soeuer of
there Sozomen doth thus wryte Veterem Ecâ—lesiu â—â—aeditionem esse vt qu Casâ—ties gradum sacerdo â—â—em consâ—euti fuisseur postea minime vxores duderenâ— qui autem post nuptias adteum or dinem vocati essent hit ab vxoribus quas habebaâ—â— minime separarentur â—ta quidem liceâ— Coniuglie pâ—rs fâ—ant Paphnutius It is an ancient Tradition of the Church what such as be vnmaried when they enter the degree of preisthood should not after taâ—â—e to them selues any wyues But those who being afore maried and after arcealled to that order should not be therefore seperated froÌ„ theire wyues and this Paphnutius though him self vnmaried perswaded the Councell vnto and thus far Sozomen of this poynt Now I referre to the iudtecous reader how worthily and sincerely M. Whyte halth quoted Paphnutius out of Sozomen for interpreting of S. Paules wordes in defence of Preistes mariage in generall without any distinction of tymes whereas in deede Sozomen Paphnutius and the Councell of Nyce did absolutely forbid mariage of the Cleargy after their ordination of preisthood directly opposite against the most generall practise of our english ministers who for the most part first seeke after a steeple and then a woman and thus with them a fat benefyce and a sister in the Lord for heresy euer lyes groueling in sensuality are become in our new euangelicall philosophy the terminus ad quem whereunto all other their motions doe finally propend and are directed The 3. Paragraph S. Augustine corrupted against fasting The Doctor through his great auersion which he haith of fasting and of forbidden meates for certaine dayes pag. 307. wryteth that the auncient Monkes made no distinction of meates alledgeth in the margent for proofe thereof S. Augustine de mor. Eccl. li. 1. ca. 33. Now you shall see how truly he auoucheth the Father herein for in that very Chapiter not to insist of his speaking of the Monkes fasting in those wordes Ieiunia prorsut incredibilia multâ—s exercere didâ—ci I haue learned that many Monkes did practise eueÌ„ incredible fastes he thus wryteth touching forbearaÌ„ce of the eating of flesh multi non vescuntur carnibus c. Many Monkes do not feede vpon flesh though they are not perswaded superstitiously that flesh is an vncleane meate after againe Continent se illi qui possunt quâ—â—tamen sunt innumerabiles a carnibus a vino c. Such Monks as in body are hable who yet are innumerable do abstaine from flesh and from wyne Here it is euident what the custome of the ancient Monkes was in those tymes how different from the practise of the new gospellers since infinite of them eating fish neuer tasted of flesh whereas to the contrary I dare auouch in the behalf of this my sanctifyed minister that euen out of conscience he forbeares to feede of superstitious fish But indeede M. Whyte doth well to shew himself so resolute an aduocate as afore of venety in the mariage of Preisles so now of Epicurisme since he well knoweth that there is a secret reference and mutuall dependency betwene these two most spirituall and ghostly Characters of our late stamped gospell a poynte so cleare that euen the Poets do tell vs that Venus was euer much befrended by Ceres and Bacchus The 4. Paragraph Baronius notoriously corrupted in proofe that heritykes can worke true miracles To depryue the Catholick Church of her glory of most certaine and vndoubted miracles wherewith god haith seuerall tymes sealed vp the truth of the faith professed by her Doctors our minister laboureth to proue from the confession of Catholickes that woorking of true miracles are also common to heritikes therefore no peculiar note of the true Church or Faith Now to this end pag. 301. he alledgeth Baronius Annal. An. 68. nu 22. touching the miracles of Simon Magus Simon made Images to walk would lye in the fyre without hurt flye in the ayre make bread of stones he could open doares fast shut vnloose boundes of Iron c. But doth out M. here leaue his accustomed trade of corrupting think you No for he paireth the testimony round aboute for euen both immediatly before and immediatly after the Authority alledged he concealeth Baronius his owne wordes wherein he acknowledgeth that these were no miracles by impostures and sleightes onely For thus he wryteth before Quaenam autem hat fuerâ—t â—â—m reue◠á non essent tament ab hominibus videri videbantur referam c. I will relate what prestigies or steightes those of Simons were seeing indeed they were not true yet semed to be in the sight of men and the mentioneth those reckned by M. Whyte And after Baro. haith nuÌ„bred the said supposed miracles he thus instantly concludeth Hueusque de Simonis imposturis quibus haec per imaginem osteâ—debat visum cum nulla veritaâ—e consisterent Thus farr of the impostures of Simon which appeared but in show and in the eye seing indeede they were not truly performed Now I appeale to the iudiceous Reader with what â—andor and sincerity M. Whyte could produce part of the sentence of Baronius omitting both the beginning and endinge â—â— euict that true and vndoubted miracles are incident also to heritykes and consequently are no competent marke of the true Faith or Church Chapiter 7. Concerning the Sacramentes of the Euchaâ—lâ— and Pennance The 1. Paragraph â—â—â—armine corrupted against Transubstantiation OVR Doctor pag. 24. haith a soule deprauation touching the doctrine of TransubstantiatioÌ„ alledging Bellarmine saving de Euch. lib 2. ca. 2.3 That it may iustly be doubted whether the text be cleaâ—e enough â—o infeâ— Transubstaâ—tiatioâ— seing men sharpe learned such as Scotus was haâ—e thought the contrary The Reader shall see the whole periode of Bellarmine at large and so may discerne how strongly both he Scotus impugne transubstantiatioÌ„ as they are here by our M. traduced to doe Thus then Scotus dicit â—on exâ—are c. Scotus saith that there is no place of Scripture so expresse which fiâ—e Ecclesiae declaratiore without the â—â—claration or interpretation of the Church can euidently force transubstantiation And this is not altogether in probable for although the text of Scripture which aboue we haue alledged sâ—me so cleare 〈◊〉 that it is able to conuince hominem â—on proâ—eruâ—â— a man not obstinate neuerthelesse whether it do so or no iâ— may iâ—â—lâ— be doubted of seing that learned and sharp men such as Scotus was haue thought the contrary But Scotus â—ddâ—â—h that sâ—â—g the Catholick Church haith expounded the said text of Scripture in a generall Councell therefore saith he from the said Scripture so declared by the Chuâ—ch transuâ—stâ—â—tiation is manifestly proued Thus farâ— Bellarmine Now I doe aâ—ke that if we consider the whole coÌ„texture of this passage together whether according to the mynds of Bellarmine Scotus it maketh against transubstantiation or no I say it euen fortifyeth the Doctrine thereof For Bellarmine first
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
Tenure by the which we make claime to our eternall and celestiall enheritance In like sort they willingly confesse that Scripture is Scripture and the word of God before it receaue any approbation from the Church as also that this or that is the true sense of any particuler text of the Scripture before the Church do confirme the same Notwithstanding seing the true sense of the Scripture is as it were the very Soule which informeth the body of the letter and that the Scripture is to be vnderstoode by the Reader with that spirit with the which it was written to wit with the spirit of the holy Ghost Therefore we do hold that so far as concerneth our taking of notice that this or that is the Scripture of Gods word or that this is the true sense of such a passage thereof intended by the holy Ghost we are to recurre to the authority of the Church which we beleue to be directed and guided therein by the same holy Ghost according as the Scripture it self in seuerall places assureth vs. But now let vs come to the proues and testimonies produced by M. Whyte to conuince that the Scripture so far forth as we are to take acknowledgment thereof for this onely is here the point of the doubt as I shewed aboue needeth not for warranting to vs that it is the word of God or for explicating the true sense thereof and Authority or approbation of the Church And first he bringeth to this end diuers texts of Scripture contayning the worth and dignity of it self as when it is tearmed an Immor all seede The demonstration of the Spiâ—it power that it is Liuely powerfull that it maketh our bearâ—â—â— to burne within vs. that It geueth a greater testimony to Christ then Iohn Baptist could geue that A voice from heauen is not so sure as it that It is the spirit which beareth witnes to the truth thereof that If we receaue the witnes of men the witnes of God is greater Lastly he alledgeth those wordes of Christ. They which will not beleue Moyses wrytinges will not beleue him Now let vs see how towardly our Minister can conclude from these textes against our former doctrine The scripture is an immortall seede and it is liuely and powerfull Therefore it ought to receaue no authority touching the manifesting of it true sense to vs from Gods Church which is guided with the holy Ghost Againe It is the demonstration of the Spirit and power and it maketh our harts to burne within vs Therefore it ought to receaue no authority c. If we receaue the witnes of men the witnes of god is greater and he that beleueth not Moyses writings will not beleue Christ Therefore the Scripture ought to receaue no authority c What inferences are these Or who would think that a learned minister of gods word the via lactea a Doctor made onely for desert before his due ordinary tyme Finally that M. Whyte since this very name is supposed to comprehend woorth enough should thus exorbitantly and extrauagantly inferre and conclude contrary to all precepts of art Logicall rules But to passe on the more in his iudgment to depresse the Authority of the Church he bringeth in D. Stapleton though most impertinently alledged saying The Authority of the Church is but a thing created distinct from the first verity which position we willingly admitt who acknowledg the Church to be a thing different from god who is the first truth though guided by his Spirit Againe he produceth to the like effect S. Ambrose who thus writeth Let God him self teach me themâ— steries of heauen not man who knoweth not him self Whom may I beleue in the thinges of god better then god him self which sentence also we embrace yet do affirme that god teacheth vs more securely by the authority of the Church directed by his assistance and consequently not by the authority of man then by the mediation of each mannes priuate and vncertaine spirit Also Salutanus is brought by him saying All that men say needes reasons and witnesses but Gods word is witnes to it self bicause it followeth necessarily that whatsoeuer the incorrupt truth speaketh must needes be an incorrupt witnes of it self As if what the Church assisted by the holy Ghost said were the saying onely of man or as if the question were here whether Gods word be Gods word before it be defined by the Church which no man denyeth and not whether the members of the Church which indeede is the point here issuable is to accept of Gods word as his word by the Authority of his said Church In like sort pag. 53. to the former scope he produceth S. Augustine thus writing to the Manaches You see this is your endevourâ— to take away from vs the Authorityes of the Scriptures and that euery ones mind might be his Author what to allow and what to disalow in euery text and so he is not for his faith made subiect to the Scripture but maketh the Scripture subiect to him self c. Which wordes how they can touch the Catholickes I see not seing they seeke not to take away the Authority of the Scriptures which they willingly reuerence neither teach they that euery ones mind ought to be an authour what to allow or what to disalow in the exposition of any text for they rely herein vpon the iudgment of Gods vniuersall Church the former being indeede rather peculiar to the sectaries of this age in reguard of their priuate interpreting spirit And presently after he also cyteth S. Augustine againe in the former booke Why dost thou not rather submits thy self to Euangelicall Authority so steedfast so stable so renowned and by certaine succession commended from the Apostles to our tymes that thou maist beleue that thou maist behould that thou maist learne all those thinges which hinder thee from doing it through thine owne vaine peruerse opinion How can these wordes be tentred shamed to vs Catholickes Or how can it be tearmed a mannes owne vaine and peruerse opinion by receauing Euangelicall Authority as it is manifested to vs not by our owne imaginations but by the censure of the Church of God which is styled by the Apostle Columna firmamentum veritatis Thus we see how wandringly M. Whyte discourseth matching and coopling together through his malice and ignorance in arguing adulterate aud bastard conclusions with legitimate premisses And after the like manner euen in the first leafe here alledged though somwhat before these last testimonies he vrgeth certaine textes of Scripture intended of Christ as The Scriptures are written that we may beleue in him Againe He that beleueth in him haith a witnes in him selfe Thirdly We are all built vpon the foundation of the Apostles Prophets Christ him self being the head corner stone in whom all the building is coopled together by the spirit Now to