The orthodox faith and vvay to the Church explaned and iustified in answer to a popish treatise, entituled, White died blacke; wherein T.W. p. in his triple accusation of D. White for impostures, vntruths, and absurd illations, is proued a trifler: and the present controuersies betweene vs and the Romanists are more fully deliuered and cleared. By Francis White Bachelour in Diuinitie, and elder brother of Doctor Iohn White.

Vntruth 2. M. White charged to deny that, concerning Tradition, which other Protestants grant.

T. W. Maister White laboureth to proue, that the Prote∣stants

Church receiueth not necessarily any one Tradition; and in his table, No part of our faith standeth vpon Tra∣dition: and pag. 47. The Scripture proueth it selfe to be the very word of God, & receiueth not authoririe frō the Church: But Maister Whites brethren, Doctor Whitakera, Maister Hookerb, and Doctor Couelc, affirme the contrarie to this, &c.

Answ. None of Maister Whites brethren will, or can charge him with falshood as you pretend, but they generally accord with him in both his assertions, being rightly vnderstood.

1. He maintaineth, that no part of our faith dependeth or is builded vpon Tradition, in the same manner as vp∣on the Scripture: Not vpon Tradition, as the foundation of beleefe, or as the last resolution of faith; But as a subordi∣nate helpe, administring cause, or externall testimonie to the truth. And accordingly Doctor Whitakerd speaketh, and no otherwise. But you haue wilfully omitted the lat∣ter part of the said Doctors words, wherein he explicates his meaning.

2. In the next assertion M. White acknowledgeth, that the ministerie of the Church induceth vs, to assent to the Scripture. But you will haue Tradition and the ministerie of the Church (vnderstanding the presente Church) not onely an adiuuant cause of beleefe: but a foundation and principle thereoff, of equall or greater authoritie then the Scripture. And for proofe hereof you reason as followeth.

T. W. If any maine article of faith be taught by Traditi∣on onely; then Maister Whites assertion is false, saying; No part of our faith standeth vpon Tradition. But some maine part of our faith; to wit, that the Gospell and Acts are the sa∣cred word of God, is taught by Tradition onely; according to the testimonie of M. Hooker and D. Couel. Ergo, It is false which M. White affirmeth, that no part of our faith standeth vpon Tradition.

Answ. Maister Hookerg affirmeth two things: 1. The first outward motiue leading men to esteeme of the Scripture, is the authority of Gods Church. 2. Afterwards by bestowing our labour in hearing or reading the mysteries thereof, we finde by the thing or matter it selfe, that which giueth vs full satisfaction.

According to this iudicious Author, the authority and testimony of the Church, is the first motiue and meanes to leade vs to the knowledge of the holy Scriptures; and when we are led by the hand of the Church vnto them, and by the ministery thereof are holpen about the sence and interpretation, they containe in themselues a diuine authoritie, verity, and light, whereby people come to infused faith.

And from this assertion, I answer the Papists obiecti∣on; If any maine Article of our faith doe depend vpon Tradition, as a diuine principle thereof: then it is true which the Popish Priest saith, that some part of our faith is builded vpon Tradition. But if an article of faith de∣pend vpon Tradition, onely as an introduction and ad∣ministring cause thereof, then it is false, that some part of our faith is builded vpon Tradition.

Obiect. How is it possible to know that the Gospell of Mathew is diuine Scripture, and the Gospell of Nicode∣mus

bearing the same title, is not.

Answ. 1. To the knowing hereof, by an historicall and acquisite faith, the testimony and tradition of the church (especially the primitiue Church) is necessarie.

Secondly, to know this by a diuine and infused faith, (besides the authority of the Church:) the matter, character, and contents of the very booke, and compari∣son with other Scripture, do serue as an inward cause, to produce the said infused faith.

When Onesimus brought Saint Paules Epistle to Phi∣lemon; his bringing thereof, and reporting who was the Author, did authorise the Epistle so farre, as to make Philemon receiue and reade it: but vpon the perusall thereof, Philemon found matter and inward arguments in the very Epistle it selfe, whereby (the spirit of God co-working) he was fully induced to beleeue it as diuine and Apostolicall Scripture.

Notes

• a

  Whit••k. cont. Sc••pl. pag. 298.
• b

  Hooker. pol. ec••l pag 146.
• c

  Couel. def. pag. 31.
• d

  Whitaker. de Script. q. 3. c 5. Non nego tra∣ditionem eccle∣siasticam esse argumentum, quo argui & conuinci possit, qui libri Cano∣nici sunt, &c. sed dico hoc ex∣ternum tantum argumentum & testimonium esse. Contra Stapl. pag. 300. Testi∣monium ec∣clesiae non est causa fidei. tan∣quam externo argumento, &c.
• e

  Bellarm. de Sacram. l. 2. cap. ••5. Stapl. Rel. c. 5. q. 1. ar. 1 ad. 2. Nostra fides praesentis ecclesiae iudicio & authoritate nititur, non Apostolicae, &c. pag. 501.
• f

  Baron. tom. 1. an. 53. n. 11. Scripturarum fundamentum traditio. Siluest. Prier. cont. Luth. con∣clus. 56. Indulgentiae non innotuere nobis authoritate Scripturae, sed authoritate ecclesiae Roma∣nae, quae maior est.
• g

  Hook. eccles. Pol. l. 3. pag 147.
• Driedo de eccl. dog m l. 4. c. 4. pag. ••39. Enchirid. Colon pa. 70.