The answere vnto the nine points of controuersy, proposed by our late soueraygne (of famous memory) vnto M. Fisher of the Society of Iesus And the reioynder vnto the reply of D. Francis VVhite minister. With the picture of the sayd minister, or censure of his writings prefixed.

A seauenth Example, about Traditions. §. 7.

•• will conclude this section with an example or two 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of your simplicity in vsing of distinctiōs. For your ••istinctions are eyther senselesse, or else you establish ••hat doctrine which most of all you impugne. Take his example hereof. The Iesuits principle that, there 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Tradition vnwritten, & that this is the prime ground of ••ayth, more fundamentall then Scripture, you most lar∣••ely labour to refell, and tearme it pag. 91. an Anti∣••hristian, and impudent assertion, to depresse the written ••ord of God, & exalt the prophane, bastardly, Apocriphal ••••aditions of the Pope. This is bitter inough, & yet cer∣••••ynly you teach that there be traditions maintay∣••ing and vpholding the Scripture in authority, or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 you speake ineptly, not knowing what you affir∣••e. For some two pages before this your reproch∣full

words, to wit pag. 89. you thus distinguish about Traditions: The Church hath no perpetuall Traditions but such, as are EYTHER contayned in Scripture, OR which are subseruient to MAINTAINE the Fayth, Verity and AVTHORITY of the Scripture, & the doctrine there∣of. Thus you.

I demand of you; These subseruient Traditious a∣bout fayth and doctrine, be they contayned in Scrip∣ture or not? If they be your distinction is senselesse, one member thereof not being condistinct agaynst the other: for if subseruient traditions be traditions cōtayned in Scripture, what more inept then to say, traditions eyther contayned in Scripture, or subser∣uient? If they be not contayned in Scripture, but condistinct from them, then according to your di∣stinction there be some traditions, not contayned in Scripture, which maintayne and vphold the autho∣rity of Scripture, and the verity and doctrine there∣of. If you grant this (as you must, vnlesse you will grant your distinction be voyd of iudgment) then must you also grant tradition to be more fundamen∣tall then Scripture. For thus I argue: That which is the ground of the authority of Scripture, is more fundamētall then Scripture: That which doth man∣tayne, and vphold the authority of Scripture, is the ground and foundation of the authority of Scriptu∣re: Ergo, That which doth vphold and mantayne the authority of Scripture, is more fundamentall then Scripture. Now your selfe ascribe vnto Tradition subseruient, condistinct agaynst written Tradition, the office of mantayning the authority of Scripture. So that, eyther you know not what you doe write, or else by your owne distinctions you are conuinced

to establish that very doctrine which elsewhere you so sharpely censure, as Antichristian, impudēt, prophane, bastardly. Certainly you are a seely Disputant about matters of Theodogy.

No more sense or iudgement is there in the di∣stinctiō you make of holy Belieuers into triumphant & militant pag. 49. The tearme (Church) (say you) is taken in the holy Scripture for the vniuersall number of holy belieuers in all ages: and more strictly for the whole number of holy belieuers vnder the new Testament, Hebr. 12.23. Apoc. 5.9 Ephes. 5.25.27. And thus it com∣prehendeth both the Church militant & triumphant. Thus you: distinguishing the Church of belieuers into mi∣litant and Triumphant; whence it is consequent that the Triumphant Saynts in heauen are belieuers. What more ridiculous, and agaynst the prime and knowne Notion of Triumphant Saynts? It may be God permitted you to stumble vpon this grosse sim∣plicity, through want of reflexion, that you might thereby be warned to reflect vpon the foulenes of another doctrine, which wittingly & willfully you mantayne, though being no lesse exorbitant then this. The doctrine is, that your Protestant Militant Church is a multitude, who (a) 1.1 by diuine illumination see manifestly the truth of thinges belieued of the Blessed Trinity, and other mysteryes; & that, you are like not vnto men (b) 1.2 which see a farre off a certayne obscure glim∣mering of the light, but vnto men that coming to the place where the light is, behold the sayd light in it selfe. Verily to tearme the Church militant, a multitude of BE∣HOLDERS resolued of truth, by manifest light & euidence, is as Exoticall, and as idle Gibberish in Christian Theology, as to call the Church triūphant

a multitude of BELEEVERS, that warre and walke by Fayth. As for your Protestant triūphant Church, if they did not formerly belieue in this life the word of God, without seing the light, lustre, and resplen∣dant verity of the doctrine thereof (as you pretend they did not,) I do not doubt but they are belieuers in the next world, to wit, in the number of them, of whom the Apostle writeth,* 1.3 credunt & contremiscunt.

Notes

• (a) 1.1

  Iohn White in his Defence pag. 309.
• (b) 1.2

  Francis White Or∣thodoxe pag. 108.
• * 1.3

  Ioan. 2.9.