MR. PILKINTON HIS PARALLELA DISPARALLED.

AND The Catholicke Roman faith main­tained against Protestantisme.

By ANT. CHAMPNEY Sorbonist, and author of the Manuall of Controuersies, impugned by the said Mr. Pilkinton.

WEE WISH THAT THOSE WOVLD departe from their owne frowardnes, who against Christ, carry the ensigne of Christ, and against the Gospell, bragge of the Gospell which they vnderstande not. Aug. ep. 61. ad Dulcit.

Cited by Mr. Pilkinton against himselfe.

AT S. OMERS, For IOHN HEIGHAM.

With permission, Anno 1620.

Mr. PILKINTON HIS PARALLELA DISPARALLED. AND THE CATHOLICKE ROMAN faith maintained against Protestantisme.

By ANT. CHAMPNEY Sorbonist and author of the Manuall of Controuersies impugned by the said Mr. Pilkinton.

‘Wee wish that those would departe from their owne frowardnes, who against Christ, carry the ensigne of Christ, and against the Gospel, bragge of the Gospel which they vnderstande not.’Aug. ep. 61. ad Dulcit. Cited by Mr. Pilkinton against himselfe.

To Mr. George Abbat, called by some, Archbishoppe of Canturbury.

IT is now three whole yeeres I appealed to your iudgment in a matter of difference and con­trouersie betwixte a minister of your owne makinge, or allo­wance att least, Mr. Francis Mason, and my selfe; concerninge the vocation and consecration aswell of your owne person, [Page 4] as of all the rest of the protestant Bishops and ministers in England. And thoughe hitherto I haue receiued no notice of anie Sentences geuen by you in this Controuersie (because for seeinge as I suppose, that you cannot passe your Sentēce thereupon, without preiudice either of your owne interest, or reputation, you willinglie dis­semble the matter) yett am I moued to demaun­de your iudgment in another difference, betwixt another minister of yours, Mr. Richarde Pilkin­ton, and my selfe. For where as I sett forth fiue yeeres a goe a briefe Manuall of Controuersies, contayninge onlie seauen sheetes of Paper, proo­uinge all the cheefest heades of controuersie by Scriptures only; he, this last yeare, to crosse the same, hath printed a fowle great booke of fifty sheetes, callinge it, Parallela. Which booke he dedicateth to you. In whose Epistle Dedicatorie, thoughe there be as manie falsities and imperti­nencies, as there are in so manies lines of the rest of his booke; yet shall they passe without other touch in particular, then this generall re­prehension (as either refutinge themselues, or not worthy refutinge of purpose) only I cannot omitte these brauinge wordes of his which fol­lowe. This popish agent (he meaneth the author of the Manual) I haue vndertaken, and stripped him of his armour, which he hath vsurped, shewinge his proofes to be as weake, as his positions are wicked, that his blinde religion may appeare vnto all to be nothinge but an heape of vntruthes [Page 5] without patronage of holy Scriptures. Which encounter I nowe offer vnto the viewe of the world, vnder the shield of your graces protection, who first encoura­ged mee to this battell, and canne best of all men iudge (as the most experienced ge­nerall in this sacred warfare) on which side the truth propendeth. In which wordes he doth not onlie vainlie bragge of the victorie al­readie achieued, but also acknowledgeth to haue receiued this taske from you, and perferringe your iudgment of his trauells before all other mens, offereth his booke vnto you, nothinge doubtinge either of your approbation or protec­tion. Therefore haue I made free choice of you for vmpiere betwixt him and me, to iudge whe­ther he hath indeede stryped me of myne Armour, as he braggeth, & whether his proofes or myne be stronger, and more pertinent to the purpose for which they are produced. I say of the proofes onlie, for of the positions themselues, I houlde you not a fitt or competent iudge. And were it not, that I am verie confident in the clearenes of my cause, and am also persuaded that you will not preiudice your reputation with the world so farre, as to giue your iudgment against a mani­fest truth, I would not be so vnaduised as to put my cause into so vnequall and partiall a iudge his handes, as all men knowe you to be, betweene me and myne aduersarie. Neuertheles the premis­ses beinge considered I will not refuse your iud­gement in this cause: Only I will request of you [Page 6] to peruse that which hath been sayd on either parte, before you geue your iudgment of the cause it selfe; And this I thinke I may iustlie demaunde of you, without incurringe anie spe­ciall obligation of particular grace or fauour: which beinge performed, I freelie permitt you to passe your opinion of the difference, as you shall thinke most conformable to equitie, and important for your owne reputation. Whereof, I maruell not a litle, you had so smal reguarde, as to lett goe foorth into the viewe of the worlde, with so much testimonie of your allo­wance and approbation, such a peece of stuffe as Mr. Pilkinton hath sett to sale in this booke. Which (to speake without preiudice of others that may seeme to contēd with him for the price of ignorance, impertinencie and peruersitie) I thinke is one of the seeliest and shallowest thinges that hath seen sunne in this age▪ And therefore a iudicious friende (hauinge looked a litle into it) tould me I was not to expect anie honour by vndertakinge such an aduersarie. Wherefore I aduise you for your owne credit sake, to be more warie hereafter, then to lett such birdes flye abroade with your name in their forehead. [...]r the blemishe and staine which they bringe with them, will sticke as faste in your face, as [...] [...]th in that of the author, yea by so much the faster, by howe much more eminent your name and authoritie is, or ought to be aboue his. And so wishinge you from my verie hearte more loue and affection to the [Page 7] Catholike truth and veritie, then hitherto you haue sh [...]wed, without which your parte will infalliblie be with the Father of all falshoode: For, qui non credit iam iudicatus est, heIoan. 3. 18 that beleeueth not is alreadie iudged; I leaue you to his disposition whose prouidence is neuer deceiued; thoughe his will whereby he wisheth vs well, be not allwayes fulfilled, we our selues only beinge in faulte thereof.

Your true friende, thoughe enemie to your errours, A. CHAMPNEY.

TO THE IVDICIOVS READER.

IN the yeare 1614. (good reader) I put forth in print at the request of a friend, a briefe Enchiridion or Manuall of controuersies, proouinge the Catholike faith in 38. seuerall heades of controuersie by the text of holy Scripture it selfe; which contayninge but onlie seauen sheetes of paper, Mr. Richarde Pilkinton, who stileth himselfe doctor of Diuinitie, after fower whole yeeres, pretendeth to answre, and for that purpose hath sett forth a booke of fiftie sheetes thinkinge to couer by multitude of wordes, that which with force of argument he could not impeache nor make obscure. His booke came but to my handes the last of Februarie this present yeere, when I was both indisposed in my health, & had newlie receiued a command from those who could commaunde me, to transporte myselfe from Paris, where then I liued, to Douay. So that vntill the four­teenth of May, I could not begin to thinke seriously of any reply to him, thoughe I had in the meane while runne ouer some parte of his booke, and alsoe noted some­thinge therein to that purpose. Where Mr. Pilkinton may peraduenture say as he saith of the Manuall, that it well appeareth to haue [...]ee [...] do [...]e in haste, and yett not in such shorte [Page 9] tyme but another might well haue made diuers such replies in the same space; as Apelles answe­red to one, who sheweinge him a picture, and sayinge he had made it in one day: But be ytt that Mr. Pilkintons witt and dexteritie, coulde haue performed much more in the same tyme, yett I confesse that mine coulde doe noe better; the other imployments wherein the greatest parte of my tyme is taken vpp, lyinge vppon me. Neither doth Mr. Pilkinton neede much to bragge of his dexteritie and expedition in this kinde; seeinge he hath bestowed fower whole yeeres or verie neere in answereinge only seauen sheetes of paper, and that also so shallowly and seelily, that there is much lesse difficultie to refute his aunswere, then to Coppie out or transcribe his wor­des. I haue replyed to all he saith as it lyeth in his booke so farr as I goe with him, rela­tinge his owne wordes, least he shoulde complayne of ill dealinge, as if somethinge of moment were lefte vntouched; And both he and the reader may likewise vn­derstande, that I might with as much faci­litie haue refuted the rest of his booke, had it been either necessarie or proffitable to haue bestowed the labour in transcribinge it, and cost in printinge it. I would wishe thee good reader to take speciall notice of the preface, which may serue thee as a key not only to this small treatise, but also to [Page 10] other workes of greater moment, and ge­nerally to all controuersies. In the answe­reinge whereof as Mr. Pilkinton hath been more laborious, so hath he also shewed himselfe more impertinent and peruerse. Reade the whole with attention if thy lei­sure will permitte thee, and compare dili­gentlie his proofes and myne together, & after doe not spare to giue thy Censure thereon as thou shalt thinke good in gods name. And if thou receiuest anie proffit by my small labour, I shall thinke it well bestowed, and as fullie recompensed as I expect or desire in this worlde. God euer keepe thee and me also. This first of Iuly. 1619.

APPROBATIO.

Ego infrascriptus S. Th. Doctor & Collegij An­glorum Duaceni Praeses, legi libellum inscriptum Mr. Pilkinton his Pararelle Disparelled, Autore Magistro Antonio Champneyo S. Th. Doctore Sor­bonico: nihilque in eo reperi aduersum fidem Ca­tholicam vel bonos mores, sed eandem fidem Ca­tholicam in nonnullis propugnatam, & aduersarij ineptias & fraudes detectas. Quocirca iudico eun­dem vtiliter praelo committi posse.

Matthaeus Kellisonus.

[Page 11]Mr. PILKINTONS PARALLEL DISPARALLELD.

Mr. Pilkintō after his owne Epistle Dedicatorie to his Gratious Pa­tron of Canterburie, and his sha­peles aunswere to my shorte Epistle to the reader (for soe exact he would seeme to be that he letteth nothinge passe without an answere) he beginneth his encounter as followeth.

PILKINTON.

A briefe Synopsis of popishe positions auou­ched by the Manualist, directlie contradicted by the Fathers.

CHAMPNEY.

I may err and fayle, as all other men may; but obstinate in errour by gods grace I shall neuer be. Neither will I euer be but a scholer and childe of the orthodox Fathers. If therefore by ouersight, ig­norance or errour which are defects incident to all men, I haue vttered anie thinge contrarie to theire doctrine, I doe here willinglie and wittinglie recall and retract it. But lett vs heare the directe contra­dictions you speake of.

PILK.

All articles of faith are not contayned so Thesis pa­pist. 1. much as indirectlie and implicitlie in the holy Scriptures.

CHAMP.

You were verie ill aduised to vse such euident corrupt dealinge in the verie first line of your booke. [Page 12] This position, sett downe by you, is no more myne, then your Parallel, is my Manuall. But you prooue your selfe a fitt scholler of your old Maisters. My position is this. All such articles as are of faith, are not contayned so much as indirectlie or implici [...]lie in holie scriptures, but onlie so far as the scriptures con­tayne and testifie the aucthoritie of the Churche and Tradition. To this position lett vs nowe see your Antithesis of the Fathers.

PILK.

In those thinges that are plainlie set downe in the holy scripture, all poinctes are founde that concerne either beliefe or life.

CHAMP.

If your wittes had been at home when you wroteAntithesis Aug. lib. 2 de doctr. christ. c. 6. this, you would easilie haue seen this doctrine of S. August: to haue hadd no opposition with my posi­tion. For my proposition, were it sett downe in these wordes. All articles of faith are contayned in scriptures so far as they testifie the Authoritie of the Churche, and Traditions. Which you will not, as I suppose, deny to be the verie same in sence with the position sett downe in the Ma [...]uall; I would learne of you wherein you putt the antithesis betwixt this position, and that of S. August. But lett S. August.Cont. Cres­con. lib. 1. cap. 33. himselfe be iudge of this matter. Althoughe (saith he) no example of this thinge (speaking of the va­liditie of Baptisme, ministred by heretickes) be brought out of holie scriptures, yett doe we followe the truth of the same scriptures in this point, whilst we doe that which pleaseth the whole Churche, which the authoritie of the scripture doth commend. Wher­by you see S. August. to teache some articles of faith not otherwise to be contayned in holy scriptures, but so far onlie as they commend vnto vs the autho­ritie of the Churche, which is that my position saith; and therefore your antithesis is in your owne brayne that seemeth to be at oddes with all true doctrine. [Page 13] And marueyle truly it is to me, with what counte­nance you produce S. Aug. doctrine, as thoughe you attributed to him some authoritie, seinge in theLib 2. d [...] doct. chri. cap. 5. verie chapter immediatelie goinge before the place alleadged by you, amongst the other canonicall boo­kes of holy scriptures, he numbreth the bookes, of Ecclesiasticus, Sapientia, Tobie, [...]udith, and the Machabees all reiected by you: and beginninge the chapter where you would take your antithesis, saith thus. In his omnibus libris timentes Deum, & pie­tate mansueti quaerunt voluntatem Dei. In all these bookes, those that feare God, and are indued with true pietie seeke the will of God. If nowe you ma­ke anie esteeme of S. August. iudgment, what case are you in, that reiect these bookes of holy scripture as apocriphall, whence he saith all pious and those that feare God, do seeke his will: but this onlie by the way.

PILK.

The holy Apostles deliuered by worde of Thesis pa­pist. 2. mouth moe things to be beleeued and obserued by this churche, then either they founde writ­ten or wrote themselues.

We knowe not the disposition of ourAntithesis Ireneus lib. 3. c. 1▪ saluation from anie other then from them by whom the Ghospell came to vs, which first they preached, and after by the will of God deliuered vnto vs in the holy scriptu­res to be the foundation and pillar of our faith.

CHAMP.

If you had taken but ordinarie heede what you wrote, you woulde not haue sayde that my position hath anie opposition with S. Ireneus; who sayth not that the Apostles wrote all they preached, as he should haue don to make your antithesis good, but onlie that they wrote the same gospell which they [Page 14] preached, and not a different or contrarie doctrine to their preachinge, as some prophane heretickes of whom he maketh there mentiō impudentlie taught, which sence of this Father your selfe acknowledge pag. 5. But if you will needes make this consequen­ce they wrote that which they preached, ergo, they wrote all that they preached, (as you must argue if you will make anie antithesis betwixt my position and S. Ireneus his doctrine) I will say that either you haue forgotten your logicke, or that you neuer had anie. For to make or inferre an vniuersall proposi­tion, of an indefinite in n [...]n necessarijs, is most ab­surde, as you shall see by these examples. Homo est albus vel caluus, ergo omnis homo est a [...]us vel caluus▪ or, the kinge writeth that he speaketh and thinketh, therefore he writeth all he speaketh or thinketh. Moreouer, of S. Ireneus his iudgment concerninge traditions, you might haue informed your selfe by the chapter immediatelie followinge that which you cite, where he hath these wordes. When we appeall to that tradition (which descendinge from the Apostles, is by the succession of priestes in the Churche preserued) they, to wit heretikes, reiect Traditions.

PILK.

The scriptures are darke and difficult to be Thesis pa­pist. 3. vnderstoode, and all articles of faith are not clearelie layde downe in them.

All thinges are cleare in the holy scrip­turesAntithesis Epiphan. haeresi 76. to them that come to them with a godlie minde.

CHAMP.

The position of the Manuall which you ayme at as this. All places of holy scripture containinge ar­ticles of faith (the obstinate misbeleefe whereof is damnable) are not easie to be vnderstoode, but require some rule to be interpreted by. Nowe if you will [Page 15] maintaine this position to be opposite to S. Epipha­nius, you must graunte that your doctrine is oppo­site to him, which I euidentlie shewe in this man­ner. In the roll of positions which you say are forgéd by me against you, and are sett downe by you in the next page of your booke; This in the second. All places of holie scripture conteininge articles of faith, are easie to be vnderstoode, which proposition if you will reiect as none of yours, as you doe in the place mentioned; then must necessarilie the contra­dictorie proposition which is the same with mine here carped at by you, and wich you say is opposite to S. Epiphanius be, yours, and then doe you con­tradict S. Epiphanius, if you will say that I doe. Or if you will confesse the truth, and acknowledge this latter proposition. to be yours, as doubtles it is, why doe you then charge me with forgeinge it a­gainst you? Accorde your owne sayinges, and then shall I knowe what to answere vnto. In the meane while, you are vnfortunate to stumble so grosselie (if contradictinge your selfe in so shorte a space may be termed onlie stumblinge) in the verie entrance of your dispute. My position shall be shewed agreeable both with holy Scriptures and auncient Fathers in due place. And as for your authoritie alleaged out of S. Epiphanius, if it be in him (as I knowe no [...] whether it be or noe, for it is cited by you so at large that I cannot finde it) it may haue this true sence and meaninge; That all thinges are cleare in scrip­tures to such, as come to them with this minde to vnderstande them as the catholicke Churche and the true pastors thereof interpret them. Which sayinge hath noe contrarietie at all with my posi­tion. For I doe not say that the scriptures are harde to be vnderstoode by the churche, or that they neede another rule to be interpreted by then the Churches vnderstandinge and interpretation.

PILK.

The sence of the holy scriptures geuen by the Thesis pa­pist. 4. churche is vnfalliblie true; as are also the defi­nitions and declarations of faith deliuered by the same, and euerie one is bounde vppon his damnation not to reiect the iudgment therof.

Who knoweth not that the holie scrip­turesAntithesis Aug. lib 2 de Bapt. c [...]nt▪ D [...] ­n [...]tist. c. 3. as well of the old as newe testament is contayned in certaine boundes and so is to be preferred before all the latter writin­ges of Bishoppes, that noe man ought to doubte att all or call in question, whether it be true or right, whatsoeuer is written therein; when as the writinges of Bishopes that haue been or are written after the ca­non confirmed, may lawfullie be reprehen­ded, both by the wiser speache of anie that is more skilfull in that matter, and by gra­uer authoritie of other Bishopps and wis­dome of the learned, and also by councells if they haue in anie point wandred from the truth: and euen nationall and prouincial councells doe giue place to those that are collected out of the whole vniuersall Chri­stian worlde: and generall counsells them­selues are often amended, the former by the latter, as often as by tryal & experience the thinge was opened, that before was shutt; or knowne that was hidd; without anie swellinge of sacrilegious pride, or stiffe necke of arrogancie, or contention of dead­lie enuie, with holy humilitie, with Ca­tholicke peace, with Christian charitie.

CHAMP.

You doe greatlie abuse your readers patience far­ceinge your booke with such impertinencies. And you doe no lesse wronge the holy Father S. August bringinge his wordes as cōtradictinge the churches infallibilitie in matters of faith, and interpretation of the scriptures, which he so often and so euidently restifieth. But to conuince you of wilfulnes in abu­singe S. Aug. it shall suffice to sett here before you that onlie Testimonie of the same holy Father which is expressed in the Manuall in proofe of this position which you would haue him to contradict. His wor­des there sett downe are these. Although noe exam­ple Aug. Lib. 1. cont. Crescen. cap. 33. is brought out of holie scripture of this thinge (that the Baptisme of heretickes is sufficient) yett doe we followe the truth of the same scripture in this point, whilst we doe that which pleaseth the whole Churche, which the authoritie of scriptures doth commend. And because the holie scripture cannot de­ceaue, whosoeuer feareth to be deceaued by the obscu­ritie of these questions, let [...] him consulte therevpon with the churche, which without all doubte the scriptures doe shewe. Iudge nowe with your selfe whether you or I speake more conformablie to S. Aug. That which you alleage out of him of the doc­trine of particular Bishopps or councells, compared with the doctrine of holy scripture, is altogether impertinent to your purpose. That which he saith of vniuersall councells that the former may be amē ­ded by the latter, is vnderstoode of matters pertay­ninge to manners or practise, which often are chan­ged accordinge as circumstances of tyme and place chaunge and alter, as experience teacheth, and not of matters of faith and beliefe, which are euer the same without anie chaunge or alteration. So that my position hath no other contrarietie with S. Aug. doctrine, then heate hath with white, or hearinge with seeinge.

PILK.Thesis pa­pist. 5.

Vniuersalitie is a note to finde out the churche by.

Attende not those companies that goeAntithesis Aug. in Psal. 39. the broade way, they are manie and who cann number them? and fewe goe in the narrowe way: bringe forth thy weights, & weighe them; see what a deale of chaffe for a littell corne.

CHAMP.

The farther you goe, the more your ignoraunce or obstinacie doth appeare. Are you not ashamed to make S. Aug. att oddes with the Apostles and Nycen Creede, both which make vniuersalitie a note & pro­priety of the true churche? Besides are you so shallow brayned that you see not, that S. Aug. speaketh here of baddly liuinge Christians, which make not diuer­se churches, but are as Chaffe in the same ba [...]ne or flore with the good Corne, and not of misbeleeuing heretiks and Sectaries which make theire conuenti­cles a parte out of the churche, and are neuer compa­rable to the true churche, for vniuersalitie either of time or place? Againe why doe you charge me in the page followinge with forgeinge this propositiō and fatheringe it vppon you: [...]he true churche of christe is not necessarilie Catholicke or vniuersall▪ either in respect of place or tyme: if you wil denie vniuersallity to be a note of the true churche? You are so busied to make contrarieties betwixt my positions and the fathers doctrine, that you runne into euident contra­dictions with your selfe, and that within the space of a litle leafe of paper. Either confesse the cause which you would defende to be so badd that it in­forceth you to these absurdities, or leaue the defence of it to some others of better skill and iudgment.

PILK.Thesis pa­pist. 6.▪

The true churche of God is visible and appa­rant, [Page 19] both to the saithfull beleeuers that are in it, and also to heretickes and others that are out of it.

What churche nowe freelie seruethAntithesis Athana. in epist ad so [...]. vitā agentes. Christ? For if it be godlie it is exposed to daungers; & if there be in anie place faith­full seruants of Christ, as in all places the­re are manie, they like vnto the great pro­phett Elias are secret, and hide themselues in dennes and caues of the earth, or wan­dringe vppe and downe, remayne in the wildernes.

CHAMP.

If you woulde haue proued the truth of my posi­tion and the conformitie thereof with the doctrine of S. Athanasius, you could not easilie haue donne it more effectuallie, then by the testimonie you brin­ge out of him to prooue the contrarie; so deuoyde of iudgment are you in all your sayinges. For the chur­che that is exposed to daungers, that is in all places, and is persecuted, is doubtles visible both to the faithfull, and to the heretikes. Yea those seruantes of Christ that like vnto Elias hide themselue [...] in dennes, and remaine in the wildernes, are not inuisible more then the catholickes nowe are in Englande, whereof some parte is in prison, others are in woodes and wildernesses, as these were of whom S. Athanasius speaketh. And if you could shewe such a visible chur­che of protestants before Martin Luther, you would not vse the shamelesse shift of an inuisible churche whereunto you are driuen by meere necessitie.

PILK.

S. Peter was by our Sauiour Christe constitu­ted Thesis pa­pist. 7. supreame heade or soueraigne Bishop, or pastour ouer his whole churche militant.

[Page 20]Christe gaue to all his Apostles equallAntithesis Cypriàn. de vnitat. power after his resurrection, and sayde as my Father sent me, so send I you, receiue the holy ghoste: whose sinnes you remitt, they are remitted: and a litle after; the rest of the Apostles were the same that Peeter was; endued with like fellowshippe both of honour and power.

CHAMP.

The equalitie of power to remitt sinnes, or as the diuines terme it power of order (of which equa­litie S. Cyprian speaketh) in all the Apostles, doth stande well with the supremacie of the power, of iurisdiction and gouernment, which S. Cyprian ge­ueth to S. Peeter. Againe all the Apostles were of equall power in respect of the rest of the churche, but not in respect of themselues. For one head was chosen saith S. Hierome that the occasion of schismeContra Io­uinianum. might be taken away. Where you are also to note, that if you will still persist to vrge the equalitie of power in all the Apostles, out of this testimonie of S. Cyprian; you must also in like manner conclude the equalitie of honour in them all, which notwith­standinge none of you dare to doe, in regarde of so manie prerogatiues clearly geuen to S. Peter▪ both in holy scriptures and by all antiquitie: For which rea­son Spalatensis who hath strugled more peruersly against S. Peter his supremacie, then anie other here­ticke hitherto, doth graunte vnto him a supremacie in diuerse respects, thinkinge thereby (as [...] hee is mali­cious and peruerse) by grauntinge him some parte of his due, more easilie to depriue him of the rest. Either cease therefore to impugne S. Peter his su­preamacie out of this testimonie of S. Cyprian, or if you will continue still to doe it, take his whole wordes and sence, and so shall you make him oppo­site to your selues.

PILK.

The Bishop of Rome is the lawfull and li­neall Thesis pa­pist. 8. successour of S. Peter, in that charge and office which our Sauiour gaue vnto S. Peter ouer his churche militant.

Lett none of vs make him selfe bishopAntithesis Cypr cited by S. Aug. lib 2. de bap. contr. Dona [...]. c. 2 of bishops, or by tyrannicall feare force his fellowes to necessitie of obedience, seeinge euerie bishop hath free libertie and licence of his owne power and may not iudge an­other, no more then another may iudge him, but lett vs expect the iudgment of our Lord Iesus. Christ, who onlie and alone hath power to prefer vs in the gouernmēt of the churche, and to iudge of our acts.

CHAMP.

I knowe not whether I shoulde ascribe it to igno­rance or peruersitie, that you produce this Testimo­nie as opposite to my position. For no man of com­mon sence that readeth in S. Aug. whence you cite it, but will iudge it most impertinentlie alleadged for your purpose. S. Cyprian there speakinge to his fellowe Bishopps of Affricke, willinge them to giue their opinions of the matter proposed (which was touchinge the Baptisme of heretickes) professinge to keepe vnion and communion with them that should iudge other waies then he did. And this without mention or intention to include in his speach the Bishope of Rome, but directeth his wor­des to the Bishops present for that particular matter which there he proposed vnto them.

PILK.

To holy Saincts and Angells in heauen, is due Thesis pa­pist. 9. more then ciuill honour and reuerence.

We honour the Angells with loue not [Page 22] seruice, we builde them no temples &c▪ ourAntithesis Aug. de vera relig. cap. 55. religion teacheth vs not to worshippe dead men.

CAMP.

Your ignorance or peruersitie if not both, lieth so open to all men, that nothinge else appeareth hither­to in you. If you had read S. Aug: and but halfe vn­derstoode him, you would neuer haue dreamed of anie Antithesis betwixt my position & his doctrine. Hee speakinge manifestlie of that seruice which is due onlie vnto God, called of diuines Latria whereof my position is not meant. And if to make your An­tithesis good, you will contend that there is no o­ther religious woshippe or seruice but onlie that which is called Latria and is only due vnto God, lear­ne of S. Aug▪ to correct your sencelesse errour. Who disputing against Faustus and haueinge confessed the religious worshippe of Martyrs, to preuent your er­rour, addeth these wordes. But with that worshippe C [...]t. Faust. lib. 20. cap. 21. which in Greeke is called Latria, and in Latin cannot be expressed in one worde, being a seruice due onlie to the diuinitie, we neither worshippe nor teache to be worshipped but God onlie. Reade the whole chapter and see his doctrine more at large and you shall finde that in S. Aug. opinion, Christian religion doth not forbidde the religious worshippe of ma [...]tirs who are no more to be called dead men, then Abraham Isaac and Iacob of whom our Sauiour himselfe testi­fieth that they are liuinge. Matt: 22: 32:

PILK.

To pray to the angells and Saincts in heauen Thesis pa­pist. 10. is lawfull and derogateth no whit at all from the mediation of Christ.

The martirs are nominated in their pla­ceAntithesis Aug. lib. 22 de ci [...]. Dei c. 10. and order, but yett are not prayed vnto by the priest that offereth Sacrifice. That prayer which is not made by Christ, not [Page 23] onlie doth not abolish sinne, but it selfe isAug. Psal. 108▪ turned into sinne.

CHAMP.

Thoughe I be alreadie wearie of your impertinen­cies, yett will I not stick to refute this last, which is as apparant as the rest. First therefore, thoughe you take the wordes of S. Aug. as nakedlie as you sett them downe, yett doe they sounde noe Antithesis with my position, hee onlie denyinge, that Sacrifice is to be offered to martyrs which the manuall affir­meth not. Secondlie S. Aug. speaketh onlie of such inuocation▪ as the heathens vsed to theire false Gods, as you your selfe cannot denie if you would but read that same chapter, which is by you alleaged, and ther­fore his doctrine cannot cōtradict my position which maketh not Saincts to be Gods, nor yett to be wor­shipped as such. Furthermore in this your allegation, I note the shamefull beggarie and miserie of your cause, which is such that you cannott begge or bor­rowe of the holy Fathers the least seeminge couer for one soare without gaulinge or discoueringe ano­ther. For whilst you would couer your heresie of not prayinge to Saincts with a patch borrowed of S. Aug: you shameleslie discouer and lay open that o­ther he [...]esie of yours wherein you denie the sacrifice of the churche. I will sett downe S. Aug: wordes that all such as are not as wilfullie blinde as your sel­fe may see both your vanitie in this Antithesis, & the confutation of your heresie against the sacrifice of the newe Testament.

The Gentils (saith he) built temples, erected alters, Aug. de ciuit. lib. 22. c. 10. ordered priests, and did sacrifice to such Gods; (to witt Hercules, Romulus and the like) But we builde not churches to our Martyrs as to Gods, but memo­ries as to men departed▪ whose soules liue with God; neither doe we erect altars there to Sacrifice thereon to the Martyrs, but we Sacrifice to one God, whoe is our God, and the God also of the Martyrs: in which [Page 24] sacrifice they are named in theire place and rancke, as men of God who vanquished the world in confessinge him bu they are not inuocated (to witt as Gods) by the priest that sacrificeth, for he sacrificeth to God and not to them▪ thoughe he sacrifice in their memo­rie, because he it the priest of God and not of them. And the sacrifice is the Boddie of Christ, &c. Your other testimonie out of S. Aug. vppon the psalme 108. is yett more foolishlie alleaged. As thoughe for soothe those prayers which are made to God by his Saincts, were not made vnto him by his sonne our Sauiour? Your peruersitie hath made you intollera­blie ignorant if you thinke so. Againe S. Aug. there speaketh nothinge of prayers made to Saincts, but of prayers made by Iudas, who sellinge and betrayinge Christ, did not onlie not pray by him, but against him, which being so, hence I gather that if you sawe and read S. Aug. your selfe, you haue a most wicked minde, wittinglie labouringe to induce you [...]lesse ca­refull and warie reader into errour. A degree of ma­lice almost proper to the deuill himselfe.

PILK.

The like may bee verified of the rest.

CHAMP.

If you cal this verifyinge, I desire you should alway plead against me, and neuer for me. For hitherto ha­ue you not verified anie apparant contrarietie bet­wixt my position and the fathers doctrine, thoughe you bragginglie pretend to bringe direct contradic­tion betweene them. And in this dare I stand to the iudgment of your owne patron of Canterburie, vp­pon condition that he will read the places in the fa­thers cited by you. I will except that of S. Cyprian brought for the 7. Antithesis, which though no mo­re true indeede then the rest, yett hath it a more ap­parancie in wordes then the rest, and so is willinglie vnderstoode by your selfe, and all the aduersaries of S. Peters primacie.

After your Antithesis you putt downe a roll of [Page 25] forged positions as thoughe I had imposed them vp­pon you and your fellowe protestants. To which I answere first in generall, that if it had not pleased you to winke att, and ouerlooke that which I say neither confusedlie nor obscurelie in my preface, you would not (if you would haue sayd the truth) charge me with forgeing anie positions against you. I will here sett downe myne owne wordes which shall cleare me of that imputation, I thinke euen with mine ad­uersaries, if they be not wilfullie malignant. Thus therefore I say there. First I jett downe the Catholike pag. 12. Roman beliefe in direct and plaine positions &c. And last of all I putt downe the position contradictorie to the Catholike doctrine▪ to the end that the indfferent reader may more easilie iudge, whether doctrine hath better grounde in holy Scripture. And further that he that will impugne this treatise, may see, what he hath to prooue if hee wil prooue any thinge to purpose. That is if he will prooue anie thinge against the Catholike Faith, which onlie I vndertake in the Manuall to prooue, and not to impugne or disprooue the pro­testants, further then the proofe of one contradic­torie, is the disproofe of the other. Without reason therefore doe you charge me with forgeinge posi­tions, thoughe amongst these which I sett downe vnder this note in the margent, Protestants positiōs, some were founde, which they doe not mantayne (which whether it be so or no we shall presentlie examine) for I putt the position contradictorie to the Catholike, vnder the title of protestant position for this cause (as I haue sayde before) that if anie protestant will denie or impugne the catholike posi­tion prooued by me, he may see the direct position which he is to prooue.

If therefore there be anie of the catholique posi­tions sett downe by me, admitted and acknowled­ged as true and orthodoxe, then is not the contra­dictorie position inforced or imposed vppon them to prooue. But if they reiect all the Catholicke posi­tions [Page 26] as false and erroneous (as they will be found to doe) then must they whether they will or noe, ack­nowledge the contradictorie position to be theirs, vnles they will graunt that both contradictorie posi­tions may be true or both false, which noe man euer yett admitted. And thus much sir for your charge of forged positions in generall, now we will examine the particular.

PILK. POSITIO I.

Forged positions.

All Articles of faith are contayned expressly in holy Scripture.

CHAMP.

Of this position thus sett downe it is true, you say, that it is forged, but it is by your selfe, not by mee: for it is no where sett downe by me. The position of mine which you aime at beinge this page 20. vn­der this note: Protestant position 1. All articles of faith are so expresselie contained in scripture as out of them onlie full proofe may be made thereof. Which position if you will denie to be yours; take here your owne wordes in witnes against you. If you Pilk. page 35. meane the sence and substance, and that which may be deduced by necessarie consequence, then it is false that full proofe cannot be made of all articles of faith out of scripture. I am content to bringe your owne Testimonie onlie in a thinge so manifest, without further proofe out of other of your owne sect. Onlie I cannot sufficientlie marueyle, what complexion you are of, that haue so littell care and feelinge of your owne credit, and of the cause you would de­fend, that you committ so manie fowle fayles in so fewe lines. Certainlie if you hold on in this manner, you shall haue the prise of all either falle or foolishe fellowes that euer blotted paper, but let vs proceede further.

PILK. POSITIO II.

All places of holy scriptures contayninge [Page 27] articles of faith are easie to be vnderstoode.

CHAMP.

You fayle in puttinge downe this position also, (so harde it is for you to deale honestlie) which in the Manuall is sett downe thus. All places of holy scripture contayninge articles of faith, the obstinate misbeleefe where of is damnable, are easie to be vnder­stoode, and therefore require noe rule to be interpre­ted by. Which proposition you cannot denie to be yours without denyinge your selfe. For doe you not remember that in your third Antithesis, you say I contradict S. Epiphaniu▪ for sayinge that the scrip­tures are darke and difficult to be vnderstoode? why doe you therfore denie this position, All places of scripture contain [...] matters of faith, are easie to be vnderstoode, here sett downe by you to be yours, vnles you will also cōtradict that holy Father, which you falselie obiect vnto me? but it is is a bootles thinge to tell you of contradictions, they are so fre­quent with you. Therfore to lett that passe that you may knowe if you were so ignorant in your owne doctrine as you knewe it not before, that it is good protestant doctrine, heare your Father and founder Luther what he saith of his matter. We must geue Luth in prafat. assertionis art. à Leo­ne damna­tor. De seruo arbitrio. this sentence the scripture beinge iudge that it is of it selfe most certaine, most easie, most open or apparant, interpreter of it selfe, proouinge all thinges, iudgeing all thinges, and illustratinge all thinges. And in another place. I say of the whole scripture. I will haue noe part thereof to be obscure. And this shall suffice for the present to purge me of forgerie in this matter, hauinge more to say thereof hereafter when we shall come to speake of the article it selfe if we goe together so farre.

PILK. POSITIO III.

The true churche of Christ is not necessa­rilie Catholike or vniuersall neither in respect of tyme nor place.

CHAMP.

This position you sett downe trulie, which I mar­uel that you denie to be yours. Bycause the contra­dictorie position being admitted for true, as it must necessarilie be, if this be false, your protestant chur­che, which noe witt nor coninge can euer shewe to haue hadd either kinde of vniuersalitie, must of necessitie be a forged or counterfait churche. And for what other cause thinke you did Luther in the Creede, turned by him into Dutch, in steede of the Catholicke churche, thrust in the Christian churche, but to auoyde the force of the worde Catholicke? which he did so dislike, that his disciples in the con­ferrence att Altemberge reiected a certayne propo­sitionColloquiū Altemb. fol. 154. ascribed to him wherein was this worde Ca­tholicke, [...]lleadginge for a sufficient reason of theire so doinge, because that worde Catholicke did not sauour Luthers phrase. And for full proofe that this position is truly protestanticall, reade the laborious booke De authore & essentia protestanticae Ecclesiae authore Richardo Smitheo, printed this yeare contai­ninge tenne ineuitable demonstrations taken out of the protestants owne doctrine, that Luther was the author of the sayde protestants churche, whence it necessarilie is concluded, that in theire doctrine the true church is not necessarilie Catholicke, neither in respect of tyme or place.

PILK. POSITIO IV.

The true churche of Christ may be without a lawfull personnall succession.

CHAMP.

If you denie this position to be true in your doc­trine, then must you necessarilie graunt the contra­dictorie to be true; which if you doe your newlie re­formed churche, will euidentlie appeare no lawfull churche. And for further proofe of the want of suc­cession of pastours in your Englishe Churche, I re­ferr you to my booke in answere to Mr. Mason, [Page 29] which till it be answered (I say answered indeede, and not onlie replyed vnto in a heape of wordes as you haue donne to my Manuall) I shall euer holde as a sufficient proofe, and as for your Sister churches of Fraunce, they make profession in theire verie con­fession of their [...] faith, that the state of the churche Art. 31, haueinge been interrupted, it was necessarie that God shoulde raise vppe men by extraordinarie meanes to re­paire his church a newe which was ruined Iudge you therefore whether they denie the position which you say is forged by me against you.

PILK. POSITIO V.

The lawfull succession of pastours, may be without Consecration or authenticall mis­sion by anie ordinarie power residinge in the Churche.

CHAMP.

If you houlde your Sister churches of France to be lawfull churches you cannot denie this position to be true in your doctrine, as appeareth by theire confes­sion euen nowe alleaged whereunto I referr you. And as for the consecration of your pastours of your newe churche of Englande, it is so farr from beinge ordinarie, that it was neuer hearde of before KingeCap. 12. Edwarde the sixt his raigne, when first it was deui­sed as I haue euidentlie prooued in my booke against Mr. Mason. And therefore thoughe you would seeme to denie this position in worde, yett must you necessarilie admitte it in deede, vnles you wil graunt freelie (that which is true) that you haue no true pastours att all.

PILK. POSITIO VI.

It is not necessarie for euerie mans saluation that he be baptized.

CHAMP.

It seemeth you haue not yett learned the rudi­ments of your religion, seinge you number this po­sition [Page 30] amōgst those that you esteeme forged against you. See therefore for your better instruction in this point of Catechisme, your grande maister in refor­mation Iohn Caluin in Antidoto Concilij ad Sess. cap. 5. and lib. 4. instit. cap. 16. §. 24. 25. Peter Mar­tyr another of your maysters vppon these wordes of the Apostle. Alinqui filij vesiri in mundi essent. 1. Cor. Fulke Marci 1. Sect. 5. with the whole crue of Puritans or Caluinistes. Or if you will not looke so farr, see the first dayes conferrence of Hampton Courte, and see what you finde there of this point. And either blushe at your ignorance in the principales of your religion, or if you like not the doctrine, leaue the companie where it is taught, and vnite your selfe to the Catholicke Churche where it is abhorred.

PILK. POSITIO VII.

Matrimonie contracted betweene Christians is but a ciuill contract.

CHAMP.

You are soone wearie of honest dealinge, and quicklie returne to your accustomed falsifications. I doe blushe in your behalfe that I am forced to tell you so often of it in so fewe lines. The position in the Manuall addeth to the wordes sett downe by you; And not Sacrament properlie. Which if you had added, you would haue been ashamed to haue saide the position to be forged. If you will cauill & say that thoughe it be no Sacrament, yett is it not a bare ciuill contract: I, will not stande here to debate that question with you beinge not materiall to my purpose, which was to prooue Matrimonie to be a Sacrament, accordinge to the catholicke doctrine, aboue and besides the ciuill contract therein contay­ned, and if you should be vrged to shewe in the pre­cise nature of matrimonie, anie thinge more then a ciuill contract, seeinge you denie it to be a Sacramēt, you would I knowe be troubled, and would not [Page 31] easilie quitte your selfe of that bussines. And Caluin whose authoritie is of some weight with you, com­pareth it to the arte of husbandrie, barbinge and weauinge lib. 4. Instit. cap. 18. §. 34.

PILK. POSITIO VIII.

Baptisme and the lordes supper are not in­struments of Grace, but onlie signes of gods good will towardes vs, or meanes to stirre vppe faith in vs.

CHAMP.

Heere againe I am constrained to tell you of your false dealinge. The position sett downe by me is this. Neither Baptisme nor the other Sacraments of the newe lawe geue grace as cause thereof, but are onlie signes of gods good will towardes vs, or mea­nes to stirre vppe Fayth in vs. What materiall di­uersitie you will finde betwixt this position and the 25. article of your churche, I knowe not. It saith thus. Sacraments be not onlie badges or tokens of chri­stian mens profession, but rather they be certaine sure witnesses and effectuall signes of grace, and gods good­will towardes vs, by which he doth worke inuisiblie in vs, and not onlie quicken, but also confirme and stregthen our fayth in him. And your maister in refor­mation Caluin speaketh yett more conformablie to the position sett downe by me; heare his owne wor­des. This onlie office is inioyned to the Sacraments to Instit. li. 4. c 14. § 6. & 17. witnes to vs and confirme in vs gods good will. And againe. The Sacraments are to vs from God, as are messengers of gladd bidinge from men; or as an ernest pennie in stricking couenants; as not geueinge anie gra­ce of themselues, but declare and shewe, and as they are earnest money or tokens) doe ratifie in vs those thinges which by gods liberalitie are geuen vnto vs. And for more cleare explication of his meaninge he vseth in the 18. Section follwinge the examples of the raynbowe, and of Gedions fleece. And this shall suffice for this present to cleare me of [Page 32] forgerie, and to prooue you ignorant in the princi­pales of your owne erroneous doctrine, vnles perad­uenture you be ashamed of it and therefore denie it to be yours.

PILK. POSITIO IX.

Iustification is onlie remission of sinnes.

CHAMP.

You are as obstinate in false dealinge as if you had sworne neuer to deale truelie. The position in the manuall is sett downe in these wordes. Iustification is onlie the remission of sinnes without renmation of spirit or interiour Sanctification. which position if you dare to denie to be trulie protestanticall, all those of your sect that haue written of Iustification will condemne you of ignorance in theire doctrine.

PILK. POSITIO X.

By Iustification sinne is onlie couered and not quite taken away.

CHAMP.

Why did you omitte to say as I said, seeing the position sett downe by me is so breife in these wor­des. By Iustification sinne is onlie couered or not im­puted; and not washed or quite taken away? Surelie for noe other cause I thinke, but to keepe your selfe in custome with clippinge and gueldinge, as he did that did steale strawes to keepe his fingers in we with filchinge; but peraduenture you feared the wor­de not imputed, so often abused by your maysters; and the worde washed, vsed in the holy Scriptures. Howsoeuer your errour in imputinge to me sorgerie in this position is not pardonable. Cannot you vtter one position but with manifest falsification or palpa­ble ignorance or both? Reade onlie the seconde arti­cle of Luther (for I will trouble you with no moeLuther in aser. 2. ar. referrences att this tyme and see his doctrine in this point. His wordes are these. It is another thinge that al sinnes are remitted, and another that all sinnes are taken away. Baptisme doth remitte all, but it [Page 33] taketh none quite away, but beginneth onlie to take them away Againe your knowne doctrine of im­putatiue and not inherent iustice, doth it not neces­sarilie inforce you to say, that our sinnes are only co­uered or not imputed, but not washed and quite taken away?

PILK. POSITIO XI.

Man thoughe holpen by Gods grace, hath not free will, either to fly ame euill, or to doe good auaylinge to his Saluation, but in both is forced to doe that which God hath ordayned he shoul­de doe.

CHAMP.

This position haue you trulie sett downe. But why doe you say that it is forged? The sole title of your first maister Luther his booke de seruo arburio. might haue taught you that it is his professed doc­trine. Reade further his 36. article where besides ma­nie other thinges to this purpose he hath these ex­presseLuth as­sert. àr. 36▪ wordes. I said ill that freewill before grace is a meere rule: But I shoulde haue sayde that frewill is a fiction or a title without the thinge. Because it is in no mans power to thinke either good or badd, but all thinges (as Wicleffe his article condemned at Con­stance ri helie teacheth) doe happen by absolute necessitie

And thus you see Sir your Catalogue of antithe­sis and roll of forged posi [...]ions which you muster in the beginninge of your booke, to deceiue your l [...]sse warie reader, and disgrace your aduersarie, is blowne away more easilie, then a Cop-webb is broken with the winde, to your owne irrecouerable disgrace and dishonour, vnless you prooue more solide and sincere in the rest of your booke. Which if you doe not, I shall much marueyle if euer you be more imployed by your Metropolitane, either to defend your owne, or impugne the Catholicke doctrine.

And before I goe anie further with you, I would [Page 34] haue you to vnderstande, that when I putt downe the position contradictorie to the Catholicke, I doe not distinguishe betwixt this or that sect of pro­testants, but include them all that hold or teache against the Catholicke doctrine, whether they be Lu­therans, Zuinglians, Anabaptists or Parlamentariās, all which with the rest of all the re malignāt broode, I vnderstande by the name of protestants. Nowe I will goe forwarde with you in this order; I will first sett downe the wordes of the Manuall in sections as you haue deuided it, then I will putt downe your answere in your owne wordes, and lastlie I will add myne owne reply.

THE PREFACE TO THE READER.
MANVALL. SECTION I.

THis briefe treatise (courteous rea­der) beinge at the request of a friende speedilie compiled, may serue to conuince them of manifest calum­nie, who no lesse vntrulie, then bouldlie doe affirme the doctrine of the Catholicke Romane Churche, to be either against ho­ly scriptures, or at least to haue no grounde from them. And it may also geue satisfac­tion vnto such, as more vppon the confi­dent boldenes of them that affirme the Ro­mane Religion to be destitute of scriptures, then vppon anie other reason, are drawne either to thinke this to be true, or at [Page 35] least to doubte of the truthe of the contrarie.

PILK.

He that aduisedlie shall read your Manuall of Controuersies, will easilie beleeue you were in haste when you contriued it, forgettinge that wise speach of Cato, reported by Hierome (Sat Epistola 26 ad Pamma­chium. cito, si sat bene) For whether it were your great celeritie, which is the mother of manie slippes, or whether it be the badnes of your cau­se, that admitteth noe iust, scarse probable proofe, so perfunctorilie and lightlie (tanquam canis à nido) you haue touched these matters, as if of purpose you would haue setled in the mindes of men, that which you labour to ouer­throwe. So that if poperie haue noe surer foo­tinge in the sacred worde of God, then this which you haue found for it, then it will ap­peare noe calumnnie, but a manifest veritie, that the Roman religion is without grounde of scripture.

CHAMP.

Mr. Pilkinton thoughe your wordes be manie, & as emptie of substance as they are full of falsities, and therefore will neither quitte labour nor cost to relate them, yett will I sustaine so much paines, as to sett them downe as they lye, so farr as I shall goe with you, I say so farr as I shall goe with you, because I in­tend not to loose so much tyme as to looke thorowe your whole booke. As for the slippes therefore you speake of, if you shall make good but one quarter so manie in my whole booke (notwithstandinge the the celeritie I vsed in compilinge it) as I haue allrea­die marked grosse and flatt falls in three pages onlie [Page 36] of yours (after fower whole yeres studie in the wor­ke) I promise you faithfullie I will commend it to the fire, to be forged a newe. And thoughe Catho­licke religion (which you disdainsullie call poperie) had no other footinge in holy Scripture, then that which I haue sett downe in proofe of it, yett will it be better grounded, then your protestantisme, euen by the iudgment of your owne freindes and myne aduersaries, if they will but with one sparke of iudg­ment and indifferrencie parallel your proofes and myne together.

PILK.

First you confesse that the Scripture is not the totall but the partiall rule of your faith, therefore that parte of your faith, which is with out the compasse of this rule, hath no proofe or grounde from it, for the rule is that whereby euerie thin­ge is prooued. Nowe the thinges without theHosiut confes 92. pag. 38 [...]. post principium. compasse of this rule, your selfe acknowledge to be manie, yea the greatest parte of the Gospell, for the least parte is come vnto vs by writinge as others teache and your selfe accorde: therefore a small parte of your faith can claime this birth­right from the Scriptures, but is auouched by your teachers, beleeued by your hearers onlie on the creditt of tradition, which euerie one might knowe if anie of your deuines woulde consigne vnto vs a catologue of your traditions; A mat­ter that in conscience they ought to doe, fithCōe. Trid. sess. 4. your counsell chargeth to geue equall reuerence to traditions, as is afforded to holy scriptures. And yett none of you haue performed this taske, least your aduersaries should see the pouertie of your religion, how naked it is of the protection [Page 37] of scriptures; And your selues haue a startinge hole to fly vnto vnwritten verities and tradi­tions, when you cannot deriue your doctrine from the written worde of God.

CHAMP.

I confesse the Scriptures to be a partiall rule of our faith, if we speake of those thinge which are expres­slie contayned in Scripture, and therefore I say there must necessarilie be a more vniuersal rule of saith thē the expresse Scriptures, by which rule we receiue and beleeue the Scriptures themselues to be such. And this is true by the iudgment of manie most iudicious protestants. Notwithstāndinge the Manuall expres­slie teacheth that all articles of saith are contained in scriptures, so fair as they testifie the authoritie of the churche and veritie of traditions. In which sence the scriptures may trulie be sayde to be a totall rule of our faith.

Where you say that others teache and I accorde, that the least parte of the Gospell is come to vs by writinge: For my selfe I answere with as much mo­destie as I may, that you sowlie belie me. For I neuer so much as dreamed anie such thinge. If you groonde this ficton vppon that which I say, I here must Hooker li. 3 pa. 146. & lib. 1. p. 86. with manie moe cited in the prote­stāt Apol. p. 620. needes be a more vniuersall rule of faith then the scrip­tures, vnderstandinge me that moe thinges in num­ber are taught vs by tradition alone, then by the written worde, (which interpretation you seeme to make of my wordes) I cannot trulie blame my manner of speach, but either your dull or captious vnderstandinge; my wordes are plaine, that because we beleeue some thinges without expresse scriptu­re, as that there is a holy scripture, and that it is con­tayned in these and these bookes, which is no where expressed in holy scripture, there must necessarilie be some other rule more vniuersall, that is, which tea­cheth some thinges besides that which is directlie expressed in the holy scripture.

[Page 38]You cite in the margent Hosius whom it seemeth you vnderstande in the same manner (I say it see­meth, for whether it be for negligence or fraude, you make no reference for what purpose you cite him, neither doe you putt downe his wordes, for so might you haue been taken trippinge) but I finde nothin­ge in him soundinge to this purpose. Hee hath this indeede, that the scripture commaundinge vs to hea­re our pastonrs with whome Christe promised to be alwayes vntill the end of the worlde; it is founde true that S. Hierome saith, that the scriptures con­taine all thinges.

Our diuines you say are bound in conscience to deliuer vnto you a catologue of our traditions, seinge the Councell of Trent chargeth to geue equall credit to traditions and to holy Scripture. But you are fow­ly deceaued; For our diuines are bounde to receiue those traditions which the churche deliuereth vnto them, and to desend them against your Cauills, and not prescribe vnto the churche what traditions shee shoulde receiue. This pride and arrogance pertaineth properlie to you Sectmaisters, who preferr your ow­ne priuate opinions before the iudgment of the whole churche, which pride is the verie roote and cause of all heresie and errour that hath been in the worlde.

PILK.

Neuertheles the moste of these positions hereLinda pa­nopl li. 4. cap. 6. Bellar. li. 4. de ver­bo non scripto. c. 7 & 9. Peresius de tradit. by you fathered on it (and I doubte not but you haue chosen the clearest) are confessed by your owne side not to be of its kindred, but bred and beleeued onlie vppon tradition S. Peters beinge at Rome, the Popes Supremacie and succession, prayer to Saincts, reliques, images, purgatorie, seuen Sacraments, Exorcismes, exufflations, & vnction in Baptisme, reall presence, transsub­stantiation, [Page 39] communion vnder one kinde, sacrificeSoto con [...]. Brentium. lib. 2. cap. 68. of Masse, confirmation, pennance, orders, ex­treame vnction, matrimonie, meritt of workes, monkery, with verie many more not expressed by you: so that when you and your sellowes bringes the scriptures to patronise these points, you fairlie imitate the ancient heretickes, whoAthan [...]. orat. 1. cont. knowinge theire opinions to haue no commu­nion with the scriptures, yett alleage them to seduce the simple sort.

CHAMP.

You are resolued I perceiue to be shameleslie im­pudent; not blushinge to write that the moste of the points proued by me out of Scripture to be confessed by catholickes to be beleeued onlie vppon tradition, and namelie all these sett downe in your wordes nowe related. Why doe you deale so vnderboarde as not to sett downe the Authors wordes whose names you putt in the margent? you feare the tryall and therefore you walke in obscuritie. So manie falsi­ties as you haue been taken with alreadie, will make your reader warie enoughe to beleeue you noe fur­ther, thē he seeth proofe of your sayinges. And whe­ther you and yours, or limitate more fairlie the an­cient heretikes in alleaginge Scriptures for theire er­rours to deceaue the simple, it will appeare by the progresse of our dispute.

PILK.

And how can you persuade the worlde thatCusan epi. 2. & 7. Bellar. de verbo lib. 4. c. 7. Baron an­no. 53. num. 11. you purpose in deede to make the scriptures the grounde of your faith, which are branded by your men to be inconstant, and mutable, fitted to the tyme, and variablie vnderstoode, to be in­sufficient and imperfect, and explicated by a councell, they firmelie prooue that which before [Page 40] they did not, that heerein they are ouertopped byStapl. l. 9. de princip doct c. 1. Hosius de auth scrip. l 3 p. 530 Greg. va­lent. traditions, for that without traditions they fir­melie subsist not, but without them traditions haue theire strenghte, that the authoritie they haue towardes men is deriued from the churche, and without it they haue litle force, which churche with you is the Pope. Therefore for all your plea of the scriptures, the Pope is the Atlas of your faith.

CHAMP.

That the scriptures are branded by anie of our mē to be inconstant, mutable or fitted to the tyme, is your owne slaunderous fiction; or if it be not, bring foorth your author and iustifie your selfe of so sha­meles a slaunder. That the scriptures may be diuers­slie vnderstoode if you denie, who is he of all your fellowes that wil beleeue you? Surelie noe man that is awake, but will thinke rather that you dreamed when you wrote this, then he will thinke that the scriptures cannot be vnderstoode diuerslie, which beinge so euident by daylie experience, that noe man in his senses can denie it, who seeth not the necessitie of some iudgment to determine which is the true sence and meaninge thereof. But that is the thinge you feare, which rather then you will graunt, you say that which a drunken man woulde be ashamed to haue sayde.

The insufficiencie of the scriptures to instruct the churche in al matters of faith, stādeth right wel with theire sufficiencie to prooue those thinges which are contained expreslie in them; And therefore your ar­gument whereby you would conclude against me, the insufficiencie of scriptures to prooue anie article of faith, because I say it is not sufficient to prooue all the Articles of faith is more then childish, and like vnto this. The first chapter of Genesis is no [...] sufficient to prooue all the articles of christian faith, [Page 41] therefore it is not sufficient to prooue that God created the worlde. Woulde you (I pray you) ad­mitte this argument as good? I thinke not, thoughe I knowe you impertinent enoughe; why therefore doe you goe aboute to conclude your purpose a­gainst your aduersarie by the like argument? leaue for shame to make your selfe so ridiculous, seinge you write your selfe so doctor of Diuinitie. As for the worde imperfect, I doe not knowe anie catholicke that doth vse it; yett if it haue no other meaninge then insufficient to prooue all the articles of faith, it is not reprehensible & helpeth your cause nothinge at all. The authoritie of the churche, councell, and tradition in explication of scriptures, is as friuolusly alleaged by you, to impugne the authoritie of the same scriptures, as if you shoulde say the authoritie of the iudges or customes in England or anie other kingdome, to interprete or expounde the Lawe doth violate and impeach the authoritie of the Lawe. Your impertinencies are without measure or number.

The Pope is not the Churche as you more then childishlie terme him, but he is the heade & cheefe pastour of Gods Churche militant here vppon earth, malgree all your spite and malice, and therefore are you bound to heare and obey him, if you woulde heare our Sauiour Christ, who hath expreslie sayde of all the pastours of his churche, he that heareth Luc. 10. you, heareth me: but because you depise to heare our Sauiour Christe, who addeth in the same place, he that despiseth you, despiseth me, therefore you scorne to heare your pastour.

MANVALL. SECT. II.

But before thou proceede to viewe the thinge it selfe, I desire thee to consider wel these fewe points followinge. First that no proofe of anie point of christian beliefe [Page 42] can be so direct and full out of holy scrip­ture, that may not be deluded by false in­terpretation. For the damned Arrians, and most other heretikes coulde interprete all places of holy scripture, brought by the catholikes against theire heresie, in such sence, as beinge so vnderstoode, they make nothinge against it: yea that noe lesse seelie then peruerse heretike Legate (burned in Smithfielde not longe since for Arrianisme) coulde not be conuinced of heresie by on­lie scripture. Such proofes therefore of ca­tholicke doctrine as cannot be deluded by anie interpretation, are not to be expected out of holie scripture.

PILK.

An vnskilfull pilot that maketh shipwracke ere he getts out of the hauen. You will prooue your faith out of holy scriptures, and presentlie you will tell vs that your prooses are not so direct and full, but your aduersaries may delude them, and that none such must be expected from you: much like the soolishe or at our who vsuallie pro­poundinge three or fower points to speake of, euer forgott one of them, and then charged his ad­uersaries that they had bewitched him. So the weakenes of your arguments, is imputed to the delusion of your opposites.

CHAMP.

A blinde aduersarie that doth not see what he hath to impugne. I proposed in my Manuall to shewe the catholicke doctrine to haue true grounde in the holy scriptures, and this Parallelist woulde haue such con­uinceinge [Page 43] testimonies, as may not be deluded by anie false interpretation: we shall belike see that he will play the man egregiouslie when it shall come to his turne, to prooue his owne doctrine, and will bringe such testimonies for himselfe as he requireth of me, In the meane tyme lett vs heare the rest of his learned discourse.

PILK.

But to your bold and rusticke assertion, that noe articles of faith are so fullie prooued out of the scripture; but may be deluded by false inter­pretation, the Fathers shall answere, nothinge can delude them that search the scripture.

CHAMP.

Which of the fathers say this? why doe you not name them? you putt in the margent Theophilact and Chrisostome, but not as authors of this your sen­celes assertion, that none canne be deluded that search the scriptures. but you geue a reason thereof out of the fathers, let vs heare it.

PILK.

For they (the scriptures) are the candle whe­reby Theophil. in l. the theese is espied. Chrisostome saith that Manichees and all heretickes deceiue the simple; if we haue the sences of our mindes exercised to Chrisost. hom. 8. ad Hebr. discerne good and euill, we may be able to escape them, But howe may our sences become practised? by the vse of the scriptures and often readinge.

CHAMP.

What is all this to prooue that anie testimonie of scripture may not be deluded by a false interpretatiō? that is, that a peeuishe or a peruerse aduersarie, can­not vnderstande or interprete it otherwise then it is meant. These fathers sayinges (be they trulie rela­ted by you or noe, which I list not nowe examine) haue this manifest sence, that a catholicke man, con­uersant [Page 44] in scriptures, who vnderstandeth them in the sence of the churche, cannot be deceiued by heretic­kes, but espieth quicklie their theeuish driftes, which is true, but farr▪ frō that which you shoulde prooue: to witt that noe hereticke can so interprete the testi­monie of holy scripture, but that he must necessarilie remaine conuinced of his heresie by them.

PILK.

S. August auoucheth that all articles of faith Aug. de doctr. christ. li. 2 cap. 9. are plainlie sett downe in holy scriptures, and that so euidentlie that diuers of them neede noe interpretation att all: as that Christ must suf­fer and rise againe the third day, and that repen­tance and remission of sinnes must be preached in his name in all nations begininge at Hierusa­lem as it needeth noe interpreter; this gospell of the kingdome shall be preached in all the worlde and then shall be the end as it needeth noe in­terpreter; yee shall be my witnesses in Hierusalem and in all Iudea & Samaria and the whole earth as it needeth noe interpretour; suffer both to growe vntill the haruest: and when it needeth an interpretour the Lorde himselfe did interprete it, whome no man dare contradict. Your owne Lib. 6. in princip. praefat. Stapleton affirmeth the Popes Supremacie, which is noe meane article of your faith to be fullie and abundantlie prooued out of the scripture.

CHAMP.

Conclude out of all these wordes (be they trulie related or otherwise for it importeth not to examine them) that the testimonies of scripture for anie one pointe of faith, may be so conueincinge that they cannott by anie false interpretation be deluded, and you shall say something to the purpose, otherwise all [Page 45] your wordes are but idle and impertinent bablinge not worthe the readinge.

PILK.

But lett it be graunted that the scriptures may be thus deluded as you woulde haue them, it neither helpeth you nor hurteth me. Sith what­soeuer you adde to bringe fulnes vnto them, whe­ther traditions or councells, is equallie subiect, if not more to delusion then the written worde of God.

CHAMP.

I woulde you wist that I disdaine to take anie thin­ge of guyfte or graunt of you; that pertayneth to the defence of the catholicke truth; denie therefore hardelie that which you can without blushinge, and graunt me no more then that I extort from you by force of argument, and after good deliberation shape me answere to these demandes followinge. First is it not a cheefe article of Christiā beleefe that the son­ne of God is of equall or one substance and glorie with his father? and secondlie is not this article as clearlie and as often sett downe in the scripture, as anie other articles of our beliefe? And thirdlie did not the Arrians delude by false interpretation all the proofes of the sayde article, so that they remained not conuinced by anie of them, nor all of them toge­ther? which of all these three propositions will you denie? you will not as I suppose finde anie probable ground to denie anie of them. And yett if you graunt them all (as they are all most manifestlie true) that is clearlie concluded which I affirme, and you denie; to witt that noe testimonie of holy scripture can be so direct, and conuincinge, but that it may be elu­ded by false interpretation. You say be it so, what doth this either helpe me or hurte you. But you are verie shorte sighted or rather starke blinde, if you see not this, For it helpeth me in that it deliuereth me of [Page 46] the charge or obligation to bringe such testimonie of holy scripture in proofe of the article of our ca­tholicke beleefe, as cannot by anie tergiuersation or false interpretatiō be miscōstrued or misunderstoode by you, which you would seeme to tye me vnto, it hurteth you, because it euidentlie sheweth that the sole scriptures are not sufficiēt to conuince anie wil­full or obstinate hereticke in anie article of faith, as you affirme it to be.

The reason that you alleage why it shoulde not helpe me, nor hurte you, that all criptures may be mis-interpreted, is altogether misapplyed, proo­ueinge not that for which it is alleaged, but rather disprooeuinge the proposition it selfe. But this is a small ouersight in your discourse, you say therefore; that whatsoeuer is added to the scriptures to interprete them, whether traditions or counsells, is equallie, if not more subiect to delusion: whereunto I answere. First that neither counsells nor traditions, are so subiect to misinterpretatiō as the scriptures are; And the rea­son is, because they expresse more particularlie theire owne sence and meaninge then the scriptures ordi­narilie doe, and consequentlie leaue not so much li­bertie of misinterpretatiō as they doe. Secōdlie I an­swere that whēsoeuer the testimonie of councells or traditions are drawne into doubte, and difficultie as often they are; (heretickes seruinge themselues of them, as they doe of the scriptures) they are to be vnderstoode accordinge to the iudgment of the pre­sent churche, which as a liuelie and liuinge iudge and interpreter, hath power to interprete aswell the coū ­sells and traditions when there is doubte of them, as it hath to interprete the scripture; which beeinge added they are not subiect to anie farther doubte or delusion.

PILK.Euseb l. 5. Hist. Eccl. c. 19. 20.

Concerninge Tradition, Eusebius will informe you, that in the Cittie of Rome, the rule of Ec­clesiasticall [Page 47] Tradition, was vexed with diuers nouelties: and as for councells howe shamefullie your Popes woulde haue corrupted that of Nice, the fathers of the first councell of Carthage, ha­ue formerlie manifested vnto the worlde, and howe vainlie at this day, your diuines delude the sixt Canon of the same councell, purposely made to geue equall honour, vnto the Patriarche, to patronize your Popes Monarchie, euerie bleare eie doth easilie perceiue.

CHAMP.

Your intention by inculcatinge these ould and ouerworne obiections, I meane these of councells, haue been answered an hundred tymes, being onlie to deturne your reader from the subiect in hand, and to drawe your aduersarie into like confusion of mat­ters with you, I will passe ouer those wordes of yours, expectinge your confutation of the answeres alreadie to these same obiections, before I will trou­ble my selfe to answere them againe, before the first answeres be confuted by you. That which Eusebius saith of vexinge traditions is true; marry it was by such as your selfe and your fellowe hetetikes, whose endeuours were frustrated by the catholike pastours: see him reader and marueil at Mr. Pilkintons witt in citing him.

PILK.

Nowe when you cannot fullie prooue your faith out of scriptures, you fall presentlie to wounde them with your slaunderous accusation, that they are not able to conuince heretickes, noe not such seelie ones as Legat, not perceuinge how euenlie you iumpe with ould heretikes, who whē they are conuinced by the scriptures, fall to rayle on them as thoughe they were not right, nor [Page 48] sufficientlie authorized, but various and not full to finde the truth by them without tradition.

CHAMP.

Why doe you not I pray your answere the instance made in Legat? [...] knowe well the reason; you can as well answere it, as you can beate downe Paules stee­ple with your fiste. You call it in this same section, a sheepishe obiection, but that is onlie a caluishe solu­tion. And that heretikes cannott be conuinced out of scripture onlie, hearken I pray you to aunciēt Ter­tullian who was better conuersant in these conflictes then either of vs, yea then both of vs putt together, thus he writeth. The conflict with the scriptures pro­fiteth nothinge but to turne either the stomacke or the braine. For which he geueth this reason.

This herefie receiueth not certaine scriptures (as theTert. de praescript. cap. 17. 18. 19. protestants for examples) and if it receiue anie, it araweth them to her purpose by additions and detrac­tions. And if it receiue the whole scriptures, it depra­ueth them by diuers expositions. Whereas the adulte­rous sence, doth no lesse destroy the truth then doth the corrupted letter. What wilt thou gaine then that arte cunninge in scriptures, when that which thou defen­dest is denyed, and that which thou denyest is defended? Thou shalt indeede loose nothinge but thy voyce with contēdinge, nor shalt thou gayne anie thinge but choler, hearinge blasphemies. The heretikes will say that we adulterate the scripture and bringe lyinge expositions, and that they defende the truth; Therefore must not ap­peale be made to the scriptures, nor must the conflict be in them, by which the victorie is either vncertayne, or little certaine, or none att all. But lett vs nowe goe forwarde.

PILK.

But lett this be the first issue betwixt you and me, whether scriptures onlie will fullie con­uince heretikes, wherein the negatiue, is yours, [Page 49] the affirmatiue mine, and thus I double it out of the worde of God. That which doth perfect the man of God to euerie good worke, enableth him fullie to conuince heretikes: for this is one may­ne dutie of his callinge, to conuince contradic­tours. But the scriptures doe perfect the man of God to euerie good worke, and particularlie S. Paule expresseth conuiction, therefore they teach him fullie to conuince heretickes.

CHAMP.

I verie willinglie accept of your chalenge and am content to ioyne issue with you in this point, desi­ringe no other iudge or vmpire of the victorie then your owne patron of Canterburie. To your double therefore out of the worde of God, I answere, that the minor or seconde proposition of your argument is not out of scripture, nor in it selfe true. For the pla­ce of scripture which you ayme at is this. All scrip­ture 2. Tim. 3. inspired by God i [...] profitable to teache, to argue, to correct, to instruct, in iustice, that the man of God may be perfect, instructed to euerie good worke. Out of which place if you woulde conclude anie thinge by lawfull argument, you shoulde argue thus. That which is profitable to teach, to argue, to correct and instruct in iustice, that the man of God may be perfect, instructed in euerie good worke, is sufficient so fullie to conuince heretikes of theire errour, that they cannot delude it by false interpretation. But all scripture ins­pired by God is such; therefore all scripture inspired by God is sufficient so fullie to conuince heretikes, that they cannot delude it by false interpretation. The con­clusion of which argument is the issue betwixt you and me. The medium you vse to prooue it are the wordes of the Apostle, which if you had putt downe simplie and whollie and not dubled (as you say) by curtayllinge them, you would easilie haue seene (if you see anie thinge) that they are as farr from cōclu­dinge [Page 50] your affirmatiue, as the argument followinge is from concludinge that which is put in the conclu­sion thereof. Marke it I pray you, and learne to argue better; especiallie when you dispute for the victorie in a matter of such moment as this is. That which is proffitable to nourishe, to exhilarate, and conforte or strengthen man, that he may be able to exercise all man-like functions and actions, is sufficient to de­fende him from his enemies, and to vanquishe them. Butt al wines are such. Therfore al wines are sufficiēt to defende a mā frō his enimies; & to vanquishe thē. By which argumēt, which is the verie same in forme that yours shoulde be, if you would haue formed it out of the Apostles wordes, you see (if you onlie are not blinde) how ridiculouslie you double your affir­matiue out of gods worde. Besides your argument is for diuers other respects either foolishe, or fraudu­bent. For S. Paule saith that all scripture, that is eue­rie parte & parcell of scripture is profitable to teache &c: yet you will not I hope say that euerie parcell of scripture is sufficient to conuince heretikes. Agayne the Apostle speaketh manifestlie of such scriptures as Timothy had learned from his childehoode, which without controuersie were onlie the scriptures of the old testament, of which you will not affirme that they are sufficient to conuince all heretikes. And so you see the liuinge wherewith you woulde double your affirmatiue to be so poore stuffe, that were your cloake doubled with no better lyninge, you would feele the winter could, noe lesse then if your cloake were simple: but lett vs see, peraduenture you haue better stuffe behynde.

PILK.

That way which Christ and his Apostles too­ke to conuince heretikes is a full and direct way: but they conuinced them by scripture only. The Saduces that were heretikes amongst the Iewes, denyinge the resurrection, werethus by Christ putt to silence, so were the false Apostles that vr­ged [Page 51] Circumsion, by the councell at Hierusalem, and thus Apollo confuted the Iewes, sheweinge by the scriptures that Iesus was Christe.

CHAMP.

These examples of Christe and the Apostles doe clearlie conuince your affirmatiue, wherein is our issue, to be false. For otherwise all these that hearde thē should haue been conuerted from theire errours, which they were not. And assuredlie if you take tho­se places of scripture vsed by our Sauiour Christe and the Apostles to be of themselues conuincinge, ab­stractinge from the authoritie of those that vsed thē, you will conuince your selfe to be a madde man and not a doctor of diuinitie. The way therfore that our Sauiour Christe and the Apostles then vsed, and which all the Doctors of gods churche haue euer sin­ce exercised to conuince heretikes by scripture, is doubtles most conuenient, and good, which is not in controuersie betweene you and me: but onlie whe­ther it be such as by noe false interpretation it may be auoyded, deluded or frustrated of the effect, which these verie examples brought by you, and the expe­rience of all times doe demōstrate to be true against you. And this might fullie suffice for that which you add, but least you may complaine of your wordes concealed I will sett them downe.

PILK.

Lastlie the fathers thus taught that heretic­kes might be conuinced solelie by the scriptures,Matt. 22. 32. Act. 15. 16. Act. 18. 28. Take from the heretikes their heathenishe lear­ninge that by scriptures onlie they must prooue theire opinions, & they cannot stande saith Ter­tullian. See howe nere vnto danger they be that refuse to exercise themselues in scripture, for of them onlie the iudgment of this triall must be knowne.

CHAMP.

Howe impertinent alwayes you are? you shoulde prooue that heretikes may be conuinced by scriptu­res onlie; and you bringe Tertullian to prooue that heretikes cannot prooue theire errouis out of scrip­tures; speakinge of one particular heresie against the resurrectio, which article of the resurrectiō being not to be prooued by naturall discourse, but out of scrip­ture onlie, therefore those heretickes that neglect to reade them were in daunger to continue in theire errour. But if you make anie esteeme of Tertullian his iudgment in this matter, see his wordes cited a li­tle before, and iudge your selfe whether he fauour your affirmatiue or my negatiue more.

PILK.

Athanasins writinge to Serapion against th [...] ­seEpist ad Scrap. heretikes that taught the holy ghost to be a creature, chargeth him to learne onlie these thin­ges that are in the scriptures. For the documents contayned therein aboute this pointe, are of thē ­selues sufficient and doe satisfie. S. Aug: Char­gethTom. 2. de vnitate cap. 16. the Donatists to prooue theire churche onlie by the canonicall scriptures, and remouinge all other thinges, to demonstrate theire churche, if they were able, not in the wordes and rumors of Affricanes, not in the councelles of the Bishops, not in the letters of anie disputers, not in signes and lyinge miracles, because we are forewarned & fore-armed against these thinges by the wor­de of God: but in the prescripte of the lawe, the predictions of the prophetts, in the songes of the psalmes, in the voyce of the Shephearde himselfe, in the Sermons and labours of the Euangelistes, that is in all the canonicall authorities of the [Page 53] holy booke. Innocent. i. bishoppe of Rome saith,Aug. epist. 193. that by the sole testimonie of holy scriptures the heresie of Pelagius might be refuted. The testi­monieTheod lib. 1. cap. 7. of the fathers are infinite in this kinde, which to auoyde prolixitie I passe ouer, and con­clude with that charge of Constantine to the fathers of the Nicene councell, where Arrianisi­ne receiued its deathes wounde (to satisfie the sheepishe obiection of seelie Legat) the bookes of the Euangelists and the Apostles, together with oracles of the auncient prophets doe plain­lie teach vs, what we are to thinke of diuine thinges; or as Bellarmine readeth it of the na­ture of God. Therefore layinge a side all con­tention, let vs out of the diuine inspired scriptu­res, take the resolution of these thinges that are in question.

CHAMP.

Manie wordes & nothinge to the purpose Which of all these testimonies (be they trulie related by you, which I list not examine, because they are nothinge to the purpose) or of those infinite others (which you more prudentlie omitte, then you haue related these) say that the heretikes may be so conuinced by onlie scripture, that they cannot delude them by anie false interpretation, which is our issue as you knowe? The charge of Constantine (as you ridiculouslie ter­me it) doth sufficientlie euict my cause against you, so wiselie you pleade for your selfe, and so solidelie you satisfie the obiection of seelie Legat (which you esteeminge sheepishe, shewe your selfe to be more then a sheepe in not soluinge it for which of all the testimonies out of the bookes of the Euangelists, and Apostles, or the oracles of the auncient prophets, did so conuince the Arriaus, that they had not some [Page 54] answere for it? not one surelie. Therefore all these wordes of yours containe nothinge but an argument of your wilfull obstinacie against an euident truth. And therefore to conclude my defence in this issue, I will aske you whether you are conuinced of the real persence by these wordes; hoc est corpus meum: or ofMatt. 26. 10. 20. 23. the power to remitt sinnes; by these: quorum remise­ritis [...]e [...]cata remittuntur e [...]s, or of the infallibilitie of the churche by these; quae est co [...]umna & firmamen­tum 1. Ti. 3. 15 veritatis; to omitte the rest: if you say you are not conuinced, as by your profession I coniecture you will say; then I will further aske you, what more cleare testimonies of scripture you canne bringe for anie one article of our faith? and because I knowe you cannot bringe anie more direct or pregnant, I therefore chalenge & coniure you, euen by the iudg­ment of your patron of Canterbury (whose arbitre­ment I doe not refuse in this cause) either to confes­se your selfe conuinced in these points of Catholicke doctrine, or to confesse that heretickes cannot be conuinced by onlie scriptures, and so shall I gaine mine issue against you. Which beinge euicted, the note of the Manual remaineth entire and vntouched, notwithstandinge all your tedious and prolixe wran­glinge against it.

MANVALL SECTIO 3.

Secondlie that thoughe the protestants may alleage texts of holy scripture for the proofe of some poinctes of theire doctrine, yett that alone is not sufficient to make it true; both because the same poinctes are prooued false by other places of scripture, and also for that all heretickes haue euer brought scripture for theire heresie; and none more apparant or frequent then the damned and blasphemous Arians. To say [Page 55] nothinge of the diuell his citinge of scrip­ture euen against our blessed Sauiour; by al which it is more then euident, that the sence of holy scripture, besides the wordes is necessarilie required to make sufficient proofe of true doctrine: For which reason I often bringe the incorrupte testimonie of some holy father for the sence of the place alleaged by me, who haueinge liued att least a thousande yeares before these con­trouersies began, cannott be esteemed par­tiall one our side.

PILK.

We adore the fulnes of scripture and prooue from thence not some, but euerie pointe of our doctrine (which you Iesuits neither canne doe, nor professe to doe, but the contrarie, charginge them with insufficiencie and imperfection) which howe manfullie you can desprooue by other texts will appeare in the discourse ensuinge.

CHAMP.

As you are more redoun [...] in wordes in this section then in the precedent. so are you more impertinent. Your flant out of Tertullian shall be answered in thepag. 45. controuersie of scripture where you repeat it againe. And for your vaine and windie brag to prooue eue­rie point of your doctrine out of holy scripture, I knowe alreadie howe it will be performed; to witt by fillinge your margents with quotations of scrip­ture, to delude the ignorant; which beinge examined and compared with the article to be prooued, haue as much resemblāce with it as an aple with an oyster. The ministers of Fraunce beinge of late detected of this fraude before the kinge himselfe and prouoked by his preacher to iustifie theire citations of scripture [Page 56] quoted in the margent of the confession of theire faith, thoughe they seemed to take haynouslie the accusation, yett till this day haue they not iustified theire quotations, nor euer will. Howe you will quitt your selfe in this point, we shall see when we come vnto itt.

PILK.

In the meane while it is vntrue that all here­tikes alleaged scriptures, which they loue as wel as dogges doe whippes: but iust as you papists Canus loc. com lib. 3. cap. 3. Text. de I. cap. 47. Idem de praescript. say there is more force in tradition then in the written worde, for they are owles that cannot abide the light of the scripture, they massacre them as Martian did, that they may builde vppe theire owne matters, they alleage Apostolicall traditions as Artemon did, who saide that all the auncients, yea the Apostells taught and saide like himselfe, and laide handes on the scriptures irreligiouslie, sayinge that he had reformed them.

CHAMP.

You affirme bouldlie but prooue nothinge, a fow­le faulte in a doctour. That all heretikes vniuersallie alleage scriptures, which you say is moste vntrue, heare the testimonie of one that is not partiall to either of vs, and of more iudgment in this matter then vs both. I meane Vincentius Lirinensis of equall standinge with S. Aug. who writeth thus. Some will Lirinensis contra propha. haeresum nouatio­nes. peraduenture demande here whether heretikes doe vse the testimonies of scripture? They do [...] trulie and that vehementlie For you shall see them runne thorough all the bookes of holy scripture: throughe the bookes of Moses of the kinges, of the psalmes, of the Apostles, Euangelists, and prophets. For whether they speake with theire owne fellowes or with other, whether pri­uatelie or publikelie, whether in Sermons or in bookes, whether in banquetts or in the streetes, they neuer vt­ter [Page 57] anie thinge of theire owne, but they will seeme to shaddowe it with the wordes of scripture. Reade the workes of Paulus Samosateuus, of Priscilian, of Eu­nomius. (of Luther, Caluin, Zuinglius) and of the rest of the plagues, thou shalt finde almost an infinite heape of examples, noe page that is not painted with the passages' of the newe testament. Nowe iudge your selfe, whether your sayinge or myne is the more vntrue.

Yea which is more, doe not (I pray you) the phā ­tasticall Swinkefildians a younger broode of your grande father Luther, alleage scripture for theire re­iectinge of all scripture, and adheringe to theire drea­mes and reuelations? yea and such scriptures as if you had the like for anie pointe of your misbeleefe, you would thinke it fullie prooued by them. You say that heretikes hate scriptures as dogges doe whippes; which is true when they are vnderstoode in the sen­ce of the churche, and not accordinge to theire owne interpretation, and after the same manner doe you loue them, and not otherwise. They affirme, say you, as papists do [...], more force to be in traditions then in scriptures. What papist can you name that euer affirmed this? name one at least or say you belie thē? and doe not inuert the question, but compare the receiued scripture, with an approoued tradition, for so are they to be compared to finde out whether of them hath the greater force: where I woulde haue you further to note, that the heretikes theire allea­ginge of traditions, doth prooue the authoritie of traditions euen with catholikes. For no man of com­mon sēce will alleage an authoritie which he know­eth to be not receiued of his aduersarie, or could pro­ue that it ought to be receiued. You say. Mar [...]ion did massacre the scriptures. But did he massacre the them more then your Maysters Luther and Caluin doe, who cutt out of them manie whole bookes; besides manie notable parcels of those bookes which they seeme to receiue? Artemon, you say, affirmed [Page 58] that all the auncients yea, the Apostles taught as he did and yett layde irreligious handes vppon the scrip­tures sayinge he had reformed them. And doe not (I pray you) your masters, say, and doe the verie same? where, for the loue of God were your witts when you wrote these thinges, that you sawe not all these sayinges of yours to be bloudie stripes to your selfe? lett vs see the rest.

PILK.

Yea Arrius himselfe began thus his booke Eusebius li. 5. c. 28. Athanas. [...]rat. cont. Arrianos. Thalia. After this manner haue I learned of the elect of God accordinge to faith, the knowers of him and the right walkers after him. And of his followers whom you esteeme to haue stoode so much vppon the scriptures, Athanasius reportes, that when they coulde not preuaile by them, they fledd to the Fathers, as theeues vsuallie pre­tende honest and modest men to be theire com­panions, like the wicked Iewes which claimed Abraham for theire Father, when they were con­uicted by the scriptures. Against all which as against your traditions, we oppose that worthie sayinge of Hierome. All thinges that they pre­tende Hiere. in c. 1. Aug. without authoritie and testimonie of scrip­tures, the worde of God thrust through.

CHAMP.

You goe still forewarde in your impertinences, hauinge either forgotten what you shoulde prooue, or wittinglie wandringe vpp and downe to dazell the eies of your lesse skilfull reader, and to wearie your aduersarie with followinge your idle stepps. What I pray you doth all this you haue sayde, make to prooue that heretickes alleage not scriptures, for theire errours which is that you vndertooke to proo­ue? nothinge att all. If you woulde prooue that Ar­rius [Page 59] and his sectaries alleaged not scriptures for theire heresie because in the first line of his booke Thalia (which seemeth to haue much semblance with the stile of your elected brotherhoode) he al­leageth none, you are too seelie a disputer to beare the name of a doctour. But S. Athanasius saith, they fledd to the fathers seinge they coulde not preuaile by the scriptures Be it that S. Athan: saith soe, it is euident thereby that they alleaged scriptures contra­rie to your assertion. S. Hierō whom you drawe in by the eares saith as little to your purpose, putt case you cite him truelie which I will not stande to examine. For he saith no such thinge as that heretikes alleage not scriptures; which you shoulde prooue; but be­cause you imagine his sayinge to make against tradi­tions, which if you had but one sparke of iudgment you would see howe vnseasonablie you impugne here) I will answere it by puttinge you in minde that catholickes pretend not traditions without the testi­monie of scriptures, butt accordinge to the expresse testimonie thereof, which you knowe and therefore is your impertinencie in alleaginge S. Hierome his wordes lesse excusable.

PILK.

What then? thoughe Satan the Father, and heretikes his sonnes abuse the letter of the scrip­ture, as you papists nowe doe, yett with noe other weapon did Christ conquer him and them, to teach vs that they onlie are the sworde of the spirit, wherewith the deuill and all his ad­herents must be putt to flight; but this you say is the sence and not the wordes onlie.

CHAMP.

Whether you or we abuse the scriptures as Satan did, is in controuersie betweene vs, and must neces­sarilie light vppon one side. In the meane tyme whilst it appeare whether you or we be the scholers of Sa­tan, [Page 60] hence it is clearlie manifest that it is not enoughe for the proofe of anie doctrine to cite scripture for it, which is my position, against which you haue hi­therto wilfullie wrangled. And if you will stande to that ignoraunt paradox of yours, that with no other weapon then the scriptures our Sauiour conquered the deuill and his children, and that to teach vs, that they onlie are the sworde of the spiritt, where with they are to be putt to flight; blott out of your Bibles the whole newe testament as you haue donne manie bookes of the ould; for no worde of the newe testa­ment was written diuers yeeres after our Sauiours Ascention into heauen, and triumphe ouer the deuill and hel. Woulde you haue me conclud this in forme of argument against you? Here take it. That scripture onlie is the sworde of the spirit which our Sauiour vsed. But he vsed noe other scripture then the oulde testament, ergo the ould testament oulie is the swor­de of the spirit. The maior is your owne, the minor is euident, the conclusion followeth directlie vpon the premisses. Whence clearlie followeth this conse­quence. Therefore the newe testament is not neces­sarie. So that you see howe well you argue for the authoritie and dignitie of holy scripture. But qui am­bulat in tenebris nescit quo vaait.

PILK.

Madd Orestes would sweare he were out ofHierom in cap. 1. ad Galas. Tert de praescript. his witts, that could imagine otherwise: For the the Gospell lyeth not in the wordes of the scrip­ture, but in the sence, not in the rinde, but in the pith, not in the leaues of speeches, but in the grounde of reason saith the same Father. Whe­rein it followeth that gods worde foolishlie vn­derstoode, is not his worde, which consisteth not in reading but in vnderstandinge, and that adulteratinge the sence, hurteth the truth as [Page 61] much as marringe the sentences of scriptures. The sence then is the Garlād we striue for; which whether it be with you or vs, you refer your sel­fe vnto the incorrupte testimonie of some holy Father, that liued a thousand yeres a goe, as if you meant to stand to the Fathers verdict▪ whome your good maysters as scornefullie con­temne, as if they were schoole boyes, when once they contradict the sence of the Roman church.

CHAMP.

I willinglie ioyne with you in this issue also; that the sence of the scripture is the garlande you ought to striue for. And if you dare, the Fathers shall be the iudge of our plea; but you dare as well eat hoat coales, as stande to theire verdict.

PILK.

When we prooue out of Tertullian that liued 200. yeeres after Christ, that Pope Zepherinus fauored the heresie of Montanus, contrarie to your newe Roman Sence, that Popes cannot erre, we must not at all beleeue Tertullian in this point saith Bellarmine. For he was a Montanist, yea an euill spiritt so carried him, that of euill being made worse, and worse, and most filthie, he spued out most horrible blasphemies saith Bar­ronius.

CHAMP.

What is this to the purpose of tryinge the true sence of the scriptures! haue you so quicklie forgot­ten the thinge in question? But to followe you in your extrauagances, least you should thinke your obiection not to be answered. Tell me I pray you in the small honestie of a minister, whether you ge­ue more creditt to Tertullian nowe a confessed here­tike, in a matter aduantageous to his errour, then to [Page 62] all antiquitie, testifyinge Zepherin Pope to haue been an holy Sainte and Martyr? Are you so maliuouslie bent against the Pope and sea of Rome, that to fix some fault vppon them you will put Saincts out of heauen, make martyrs heretikes, and that for the bare testimonie of a professed heretike? lett the iu­dicious reader iudge what spiritt you are guided by.

PILK.

When we vrge S. Aug. to prooue that in the Lib. de i [...]stificat. cap. vlt. state of corruption there is no free will in man to that which is good, contrarie to your sence, Sta­pleton saith he went beyond all good measure in his dispute against Pelagius, with like vsage doe they entertaine the rest when they crosse theire grosse errours.

CHAMP.

This obiection is as impertinent as the precedent. For be it that the Fathers haue some harde speeches which heretikes abuse to theire owne hurte, what maruell? sith the holy ghost testifieth the like of the2. Petr. 5. 16. holy scriptures themselues. Stapleton speaketh neuer a worde directlie of free will in that chapter, nor yett of S. Aug. opinion thereof. But hauinge shewed S. August: to haue taught that gentills and others not iustified doe not sinne in all theire workes, obiecteth to himselfe certaine places out of S, Aug. where dis­putinge against Iulian the Pelagian, he seemeth to incline to the contrarie opinion. Which hauinge ans­wered and explicated by other of his sayinges in the same places, he concludeth▪ Sed vt [...]unque in hac disputatione moaum for [...]asse excesserit Augustinus, vt propter aduersarij putuiantissiman impudentiam, etiam peccata esse diceret quae vere & perfecte bona non essent, tamen nusquan alibi id dixisse aut scripsisse legitur, vbi sine aduersario non agonostice, sed dogma­tice scripsit. Which are the wordes of Stapletō you carpe att, but why, if you consider them a little bet­ter [Page 63] you will not easilie shewe.

PILK.

For howesoeuer your councell of Trent make a semblance to decree that the scriptures must be interpreted accordinge to the sence which the churche holdeth, or the vnanimous consent of the fathers approoueth, yett it is plaine, that as when Caesar and Bibulus were consulls to­gether, whatsoeuer was decreed and donne, was ascribed to Caesar, Bibulus was a Cypher. So whatsoeuer interpretation the Romā churche, that is the Pope geueth, that must be intertayued, the fathers sett behinde the dore. This your Cardinall that was present at the counsell vn­der Pius the fowerth telleth vs. Whatsoeuer the Hosius de expresse Dei verbo. pa. 642. churche teacheth vs is the expresse worde of God, whatsoeuer is taught contrarie to the sen­ce and sentence of the churche, is the expresse worde of the diuell.

CHAMP.

I maruell whither you will wander at lenght▪ what is all this to the tryinge whether you or we haue the true sence of the scriptures? The councell of Trent decreeth expreslie that which you seeme to approoue, and yett you are not content with it, your example of Caesar and Bibulus in a grammer scholler had been tollerable, but in a D. of diuinitie it is too ridiculous. And if you dislike the doctrine which you ascribe to Cardinal Hosius, why doe you onlie mum­ble and grumble att it, with in your teeth, without disproouinge it either by scriptures or fathers? But your malice will not permitt you to imbrace the truth, nor your courage or strenght, serue you to im­pugne it.

PILK.

And another more auncient then he. It is no Cusanus ad Boh [...] ­mos epi. 7. maruelle if the practise of the churche at one tyme interprett the scriptures after this manner, and another after that: for the vnderstandinge runneth with the practice; for that sence which is concurrent with the practice is the quickinge spiritt, therefore the scriptures followe church, not conuertiblie. If then the sentence of the Fa­thers rūne not with the moderne Roman church, they are not the messengers of God, but in this manes opinion instruments of the diuell.

CHAMP.

You still wander out of the way, and stray from your purpose. But I will yett folowe you thoughe not without some patience. Cusanus speaketh ex­presslie of the vse or sece of scriptures so farr as they pertaine to the rite, order or manner of administring the Sacraments, and namelie of Communion vnder one or both kindes; which rites or Ceremonies be­cause they may be diuerse and changeable without anie preiudice either to the nature of the Sacraments or to the veritie of holy scripture (as indeede they are at this day different in the Greeke and Latin church, the one consecratinge the holy Eucharist in leauened bredd, the other in vnleauened, and yett neither of them contrarie to the scriptures) they may be alte­red and changed accordinge as the wisdome of gods churche seeth iust occasion, and yett accordinge to the sence and meaning of the holy scriptures, which to the churche is neuer vnknowne, and this is Cusa­nus his plaine doctrine, which you could not haue been ignorant of, if you had read him yourselfe. But it is your good nature, to make alwaies the worst sence of your authors to deceaue your reader thereby. For he speaketh not of scriptures so farr as [Page 65] they containe articles of faith, which euer are the same, but as they appertaine to matters of practice, which may be different accordinge to the diuersitie of circumstances occurringe. In settinge downe his wordes, you vse your accustomed arte and fraude. For his wordes where vppon you would make your cheefe aduantage are these. Therefore the scriptures followe the church which was before them and for which the scriptures are, not contrarie: That is, the churche is not for the scriptures. Whereas you lea­uing out some parte of his speache, make his wor­des to sound that the sence and meaninge of the scriptures, followe the vnderstandinge of the chur­che, and not the vnderstandinge of the churche the sence of scriptures, but might be contrarie vnto it: which neither he nor anie other catholick man euer dreamed of.

PILK.

And in verie deed thoughe the Pope hath de­uised a solemne oath whereunto your prosessours are sworne, that they shall admitte of the holy scriptures, accordinge to that sence which the holy mother the churche holdeth, and they shall not at anie tyme take or interprett them, but accordinge to the vnanimous consent of the fa­thers, yett it is manifest that they doe not onlie leaue the sence, which the fathers followe, but followe that which noe father within. 500. yeres after Christ did euer dreame of.

CHAMP.

Seinge the councell of Trent hath decreed as you say, and the Pope hath appointed an othe to binde men to followe the sence of the scriptures, deliuered by the church and consent of the fathers, you haue small reason to say it is manifest that catholikes doe leaue that sence, without some manifest proofe of [Page 66] your assertion, which I will expect and exact of you vnder paine to esteeme you a rashe and slaunderous impostour. In the meane tyme whilst you performe this taske, you may for your erudition vnderstand; that it is one thinge to giue an interpretation of a place of scripture, which the fathers haue not geuen befo­re, and another to interprete it contrarie to the vni­forme Consent of fathers. The churche of god bein­ge no lesse assisted nowe by the holie ghost which teacheth her all truth accordinge to the infalible promise of our auiour Christe, then was the chur­che within the first 500. yeeres, shee is no lesse able to interprete the scripture accordinge to the true meaninge thereof, then shee was then: yet shee neuer ga [...]e-saith the interpretation of the auncient chur­che, or of the vniforme consent of the holy fathers▪ but lett vs heare howe you prooue your sayinge.

PILK.

Your late diuines interpretinge that place: there shall be one flocke and one Shephearde, for­sake the fathers which vnderstande it of Christ, and cleaue to the sence of theire mother, who will haue it to be the Pope.

CHAMP.

Are you a master in Cambridge and knowe not that these two sences may be both true without anie contrarietie? neither moderne nor auntient diuines euer vnderstood this place otherwise then of our Sa­uiour Christ principallie and for himselfe, or per ex­cell [...]ntiam. But that it is not trulie vnderstood of him to whome he commended his flock which he redeemed as S. Chri [...]ostome saith) who therefore is his vicar and vicegerent here in earth, and also of his lauful successour in the same charge, secondari­lie and by participation, none but contentious here­tikes, who will see nothinge in the scriptures contra­tie to theire errour, doe, will, or canne denie.

PILK.

Doe this in remembrance of me, that is sacri­fice; this is nowe the sence of the Roman chur­che, shewe one father that tooke it soe, and you shall weare the garland.

CHAMP.

Stand to your worde, and the garlande will be mine by anie indifferent mans iudgment. Heare S. Ireneus who liued aboue. 1400. yeres agoe; [...]ū, qui Ireneus lib. 4. c. 3 [...] ex creatura panis est, accepit, & gratias egit dicens: Hoc est corpus meū, & calicē similiter; qui est ex crea­tura, quae est secundum nos, suum sanguinem confessus ect, & noui testamenti nouam docuit oblationcm, quam Ecclesia ab Apostoli [...] accipiēs in vniuerso mundo offer [...] Deo. When he tooke that which is of the creature bread, and gaue thankes sayinge. This is m [...] boddy: and likewise the chalice, which is of the creature which is with vs, hee confessed it to be his bloode, and taught a newe oblation' of the newe lawe, which the Church receauinge from the Apostles doth offer it to God, thorough the whole worlde: These are his wordes: you will peraduenture say that here is no mention of these wordes (doe this) the exposition whereof is nowe in question,. It is true that here is no expresse mention of them. But S. Ireneus epreslie sayinge that our Sauiour Christ when he sayde hoc est corpus meum, taught a newe oblation of the newe Testament, declareth plainlie in what wordes he taught this oblatiō. For it beinge clear in S. Ireneus his doctrine, that our Sauiour Chr. sacrificed his bodie and bloud at that tyme, it cannot be called into doubt, but he gaue to his Apostles by these wordes doe this, power and authoritie to doe the same.

PILK.

What father euer conceiued, drinke ye all of this, to be vnderstoode onlie of priests, and not of the people also, which nowe is the sence of [Page 68] your holy mother▪

CHAMP.

No man saith these wordes; drinke [...]ee all of this, so to haue been spoken to the Apostells and conse­quentlie to priests, that the laytie is by diuine precept excluded; but that they may if the churche (which all that will not be as publicans and heathens are bound to heare) thinke good, also drinke thereof, as they haue donne in some tymes and some places. But that these wordes are so spoken to the laytie, that they are commaunded to drinke of the Chalice, you cannot I thinke shewe anie one father that affir­meth it, much lesse the vniforme consent of the fa­thers. And therefore your obiection is altogether impertinent to prooue, that we leaue the interpreta­tion of the fathers.

PILK.

Againe psalme the. S. God putt all thinges Anton. in sum. part. 3. cap. 5. in initio. vnder his seete, that is of the Pope, beastes of the field, that is men liuinge vppon the earth: fishes of the sea, that is soules in purgato­rie: fowles of heauen, that is soules of the blessed, which by Canonization the Pope may propose to be adored: name anie father if you can, that so dalyed and played with godes sacred worde.

CHAMP.

Name you anie one chatholike Doctor that geueth this interpretation of this place for the literall sence thereof, or if you cannot, blush at your impertinen­cies; bringinge the morall or misticall interpretation of one author, to prooue that catholikes leaue the vniforme literall interpretation of the scriptures ge­uen by the fathers▪ yea though this were geuen for the literal sence of this place, yet would it not proo­ue that we leaue the fathers interpretation of the sa­me place: one passage of scripture, beinge capable of [Page 69] diuers literall interpretations: so that your imperti­nencie appeareth yett more grosse.

PILK.

As then the Iewes tyed themselues to theire Rabbines, that they must receiue whatsoeuer they teach, thoughe they say the right hande is the lefte: so haue you captiuated your self in such manner to the▪ sence of the Romane chur­che, that one of yours is not afrayde to teache, Hosius d [...] expresso Dei ver­bo. is anie man haue her interpretation of anie pla­ce of scripture, thoughe he neither knowe or vnderstande whether or howe it agree with the scriptures, yett he hath the worde of god.

CHAM.

We doe not imitate the Iewes in adheringe to the churches sence of the scripture, as you idlie imagine,Matt. 1 [...]. but we followe therein the expresse doctrine of our Sauiour Christ, who tell'eth vs that he that will not heare the churche is to be esteemed as a publican or heathen. whose doctrine if you did esteeme more then your owne fancie▪ you would not carpe at that sayinge of Hosius, which is true if the gospell itselfe which teacheth the like doctrine, be not false.

PILK.

As for the fathers we reade theire workes, and geue God thankes for theire labours, who haue cleared manie obscurities in the scriptures, desended the auntient doctrine of the church against the nouelties of heretikes, yett with their good leaues we passe by theire interpretations, when they are dissonant from the scriptures, and willinglie imbrace them when they are consonāt, tryinge theire expositions by them, not them by theire expositions; and in a worde euer deducing [Page 70] the sence of the scriptures from themselues.

CHAMP.

It is well you here acknowledge some obscuritiesObscuritie of scriptu­res ack­noledged. in the scriptures. Hereafter if I be not deceiued you will come to denie all such thinge as shall be noted when we come to the place if we goe so farr toge­ther. The honour you geue here to the fathers wor­kes, is no other then you geue to the damnedst he­retikes that euer wrote, so kinde you are vnto them. For that which anie heretike saith conformablie to holy scripture, you willinglie imbrace. And in one worde you deduce the sence of scriptures from your owne selfe-willed fancie, makinge it say what you list to belieue; and not belieuinge that which the scriptures say indeede.

PILK.

Not without cause is there an healthfull ec­clesiasticall Aug. cont. Cresc. li. 2. cap. 31. Tom. 7. Canon vigilantlie constituted, whe­reunto certayne bookes of the prophets and A­postels doe appertaine, which we doe not iudge att all, and accordinge to which we iudge freelie of other letters of the faithfull or of infidels, saith S. August. So that beinge vrged with Cy­prians authoritie, that these which were bapti­zed in heresie or schisme were to be rebaptized, he answereth we offer noe wronge to Cyprian when we putt a difference betweene his letters and the Canonicall authoritie of holy scriptures: for (as he goeth on in the next chapter) I doe not accompte of Cyprians letters as Canonicall, but I weigh them by the bookes that are Cano­nicall; and what is agreable in them to the au­thoritie of diuine scriptures, I with praise inter­tayne, and what is disagreeinge, with his leaue I refuse.

CHAMP.

We neither compare nor oppose the fathers wor­kes to the scriptures, and therefore these wordes of S, Aug. are as impertinentlie alleaged by you as all the rest you haue hitherto sayde. If anie one father teach anie thinge contrarie to the scriptures inter­preted by the rest of the fathers and the catho­licke churche, as S. Cyprian of humane errour, and not of willfull obstinacie did, we receiue not his doctrine in that pointe. As S. August: in the 32. cap. here quoted by you expresslie saith in these wordes. That which b [...]esse [...] cyprian thought of the baptizinge of heretikes and schismatikes I recei­ue not, because the churche doth not receiue it, for the which S. Cyprian shedd his blood. Followe you S. Aug: example in refusinge the fathers interpretation in this manner & no man will finde faulte with you.

PILK.

This freedome which S. Aug. sheweth, we Nehem. 8. 8. protestants freelie mantaine against the slauerie of your popish spiritts, knowinge what is due to men, and acknowledginge what is proper to gods holy worde, which we euer interprete out of it selfe, wherein we followe the direction of the aūtient priests and leuits that read the lawe vnto the people expoundinge the meaninge and gaue the vnderstandinge according to scriptures.

CHAMP.

I wish with all my hearte (thoughe you geue lit­tle occasion to hope it) that you woulde immitate S. Aug: aswell in this particular as in all other thin­ges: then woulde you with all humilitie and reue­rence receiue and acknowledge the authoritie of the churche in the interpretation of the scriptures, and not diabolicallie bragge of the brauenes of your spi­rits, that dare contemne the same. Hearken I pray you vnto S. Aug: wordes to Cresconius in the same [Page 72] chapter cited by you; which seeinge you take noe notice of, it is an euident argument you haue noe greate desire to learne anie thinge of him; but to see if you canne picke anie thinge out of him for your purpose, which is to impugne him and the rest of the fathers. His wordes are these which may as proper­lie be vsed to you, as he vsed them to Cresconius. Put your selfe (saith he) in the churche which it Conc. Cres. cap. 31. is manifest S. Cyprian defended, and then may you al­leage S. Cyprians authoritie for your doctrine. The same I say to you concerninge S. Aug: example, thoughe you came neerer the imitatinge thereof thē you doe.

You say you followe the direction of the priests and leuits in expoundinge scriptures. I finde nothing att all in the place quoted by you warrantinge your vsage of scriptures. But were it as you thinke, you must first prooue your selues to be priests or leuits, before you can take vppon you the charge of priests and leuits in expoundinge the scriptures. How would you answere that olde question put vnto such as you are well nighe. 1400. yeares a goe? Vnde vemtts? quid in meo [...]acitis non mei? or if you will take vppon you as priests and leuits to expounde the scriptures beinge noe such men, those that desire not to be de­ceaued, will reiect your expositions as false and per­nitious.

PILK.

And thus the fathers teache vs, as what­soeuerOrigenes Hom. 25. in Matt. circa me­dium. golde is without the temple is not sanc­tified, so whatsoeuer sence is without the scrip­tures, althoughe to some it seeme wounderfull, yet is not holy because it is not contained in the scriptures. The scripture expoundeth herHom. 13. in Gen. Lib. de Trin. p. 9. selfe, and suffereth not the hearers to erre, saith Chrisostome. He is the best reader, sayth Hyl­larie, that expecteth rather the vnderstandinge [Page 73] of the wordes from the wordes themselues, then imposeth it vppon them.

CHAMP.

The sence of the churche is neuer without the scriptures, as the sence of all heretikes is which im­pugne the churche, and if the scriptures permitt not the hearer to err (as you say) in vaine are your ex­positions: euerie hearer beinge aswell able to vnder­stande them as you ministers. You said not longe sin­ce that there are manie obscurities in the scriptures. and are they nowe so cleare that they permitte not the hearer to err? Doe you not see what absurdities you runne into, whilst you wrangle against the eui­dent truth? And who I pray you is more like to take the sence of the scriptures from the wordes themsel­ues, and not to impose it vppon them as you say out of S. Hillarie, then the catholicke churche assisted to that end by the holy ghost?

PILK.

To conclude this pointe, sith the fathers often Lib 3. d [...] verbo c. 3▪ roue att the sence of the scriptures, vnderstan­dinge that literallie which is meant spiritually, and contrariwise, as your owne Bellarmine may informe you, you shoulde haue donne well, to Distinc 37 cap. relat. haue followed the direction of your owne Canon lawe: you must not frō without scriptures seeke a forrayne and straunge sence, that so you may confirme it with authoritie of the text as you can, but of the scriptures themselues you must receiue the meaninge of the truth.

CHAMP.

If the fathers roue at the sence of the scriptures (which saucie and vnseemlie terme you falslie fa­ther vppon Bellarmine) what shall I thinke you will doe? Hitt the marke directlie? what sencelesnes would that be, to thinke that men impugninge vio­lentlie the church, which the scriptures testifie to be [Page 74] pillar of truth, should be true interpreters of scriptures? Knowe you therefore, that whilst fol­lowe the fathers interpretations of the scriptures which they either receiue from the churche, or is approoued and not approoued and not gainsayde by the churche, I seek [...] not the sence of the scriptures from without them, but in them, by them, and most conformablie to them, and so I followe punctuallie the direction of the Canon Lawe, as you aduise me, maruellinge not a little that you should geue so good counsell to ano­ther, and followe it so little your selfe.

And nowe (Iudicious reader) woulde I intreate thee to turne ouer a fewe leaues backwarde, and take re­uiewe of the short section of the manuall, sett dow­ne as it is in Mr. Pilkinton, and then passe hardlie thy censure of vs both as thou shalt finde cause and ground. And particular note I woulde haue thee to take howe pertinentlie, and directlie he impugneth that which h [...] affirms [...] and effectuallie prooueth that which I woulde haue thee obserue thoroughe ou [...] whole dispute.

MANVALL SECTIO 4.

Thirdlie that I expect and exact of him or them that shall goe aboute to answere this teatise, the same round, sincere and direct dealinge, which I haue here vsed; Remembringe before all thinges, that he sett downe his faith in direct positions, and proceed in like methode as I haue donne for the rest. To whom I willinglie graunt this large libertie aboue that which I haue vsed, that he tye not himselfe vnto the first. 500. yeres after Christ for the fathers interpretations, but that he take bouldlie. 1500. yeres, so that he bringe not condem­ned [Page 75] heretikes for his authors, and with all obserue the pointe followinge.

PILK.

You may bouldlie sound the Triumphe before the victorie, if you may prescribe your aduersa­ries howe and what they shall answere you, which if any of vs shoulde offer to your side, we should presentlie be vpbrayded with (fortissimi milites) that on noe other condition dare en­counter with our enemies, except we forbidde them what weapons they would vse, and take to our selues what we list. Neuerthelesse rather then you shoulde complaine that you are wron­ged, if your desire be not accomplished, who car­rie in your head Ticonius conceipt, quod volu­mus sanctum est, therefore I am content to fol­lowe your disorderlie order, and for the rest of this paragraph doe as Antonie the oratour did, who when he came to a troublesome pointe, lap­ped it vp in silence: so on the contrarie, for the easines of this to passe by itt, and proceede to that which is of greater moment.

CHAMP.

It is not onlie lawfull but verie laudable and wel­beseeminge for anie man to demande equall condi­tions of his aduersarie, which notwithstandinge I haue spared to doe; yeldinge vnto you the libertie of 1500. for onlie 500. yeeres, which is in anie indiffe­rent mens iudgment, ouer great aduantage. For the rest of this section I will imitate your example lettin­ge it passe in silence. For I will not be ashamed to followe you where you goe right.

MANVALL SECTION 5.

Fowerthlie that it shall not be to ani▪ [Page 76] purpose in way of answere, that anie aduer­sarie bringe another interpretation of some father vpon the places of scripture alleaged by me beside that which I haue brought. For it is not denyed that one and the same place of scripture, may be and is often diuer­slie vnderstoode, not onlie of diuerse fa­thers, but of one and the same father. But if he will say anie thinge to the purpose in this kinde, he must bringe an interpretation contradictinge that, which I haue brought: and withall labour rather to prooue his owne doctrine, then to impugne that of the catholickes. For seeinge it is (as all men knowe) a farr more easie thinge to impug­ne anie doctrine, thoughe neuer so true, then to prooue the same, (no truth espe­ciallie of faith, beinge so euidentlie cleare, but that somethinge with shewe of proba­bilitie may be obiected against it) it is not nowe expected that anie aduersarie should stand to answere those authorities of scrip­ture and fathers which I haue alleaged for proofe of the catholicke doctrine, or to im­pugne the same, but rather to bring others in proofe of his owne. That the iudicious reader may compare our groundes in scrip­ture both together, and by the viewe of his owne eie, try whether of them be more conformeable to gods sacred worde. And whē anie one shall haue produced his proo­fes for protestantisme, in like manner as I haue in the behalfe of the catholicke reli­gion [Page 77] (if he can so doe) yett shall he gaine no more thereby, but an euident demon­stration against the cheefest groundes of the protestants doctrine, that eitherto the true and full decision of controuersies in matter of faith, is necessarilie required some other iudgment or tryall, then the onlie wordes of holie scripture, or else, that there is no meanes at all to end matters of con­trouersies of faith, which latter neuerthe­lesse to affirme, is no lesse iniurious to gods wisdome, goodnes and power then to say that he hath prouided no sufficient meanes for men to knowe the way to saue their soules. For both parties bringinge scriptu­res for themselues, who shall finallie deter­mine whether of them doth applie the sayd scriptures more sincerelie, and according to theire true meaninge?

PILK.

Your demaundes doe so crosse one another, as if your thoughts had been at warres together. First you prescribe your aduersarie howe he shall answere you, not by bringing another sence of anie father vppon the place of scripture alleaged by you, but a cōtradictorie. And thē you forbidde him to answere either scripture or father vrged by you, but to fortifie & prooue his owne doctri­ne. But you must be cōtēt whether you wil or noe to suffer your aduersary to vnmaske your fraude, and to open the vayle of your cunninge dealing, both in your doubtfull positions and impertinent [Page 78] allegations, by sheweinge the natiue sence of the scriptures euen from the fathers, to haue no concurrence with your imaginations, but to contradict them: and then he will be content to acquainte you with the groundes of his doctrine (which either ignorantlie you mistake, or pur­poselie peruert) which beinge paralleld with yours, the reader may iudge on which side the truth standeth.

CHAMP.

Your head is so full of crochets that you imagine my wordes to crosse one another; or else you say so onlie to make your lesse heedfull reader to thinke so vppon your creditt. I neither prescribe to mine aduersarie how hee should answere mee, neither doe I forbidd him to answere either scripture or Fathers alleaged by me as you are pleased to faigne out of your owne braine▪ which notwithstandinge if I hadd donne, yett hadd there been no crossinge betwixte those thinges as euerie man may easilie see) but I tel him what manner of answere wil be to the purpose, and what will not▪ and further I require he should first sett downe his owne beleefe with the proofe thereof out of the scriptures; which two thinges doe not crosse one another in anie mans iudgment but yours, & besides, the reasō which I geue both for the one and the other is clearlie good and true. For your vnmaskinge of my fraude▪ spare it not in gods name; and I promise you that if you discouer but one quar­ter of those blotttes and blemishes in my face, that I haue alreadie donne in yours, I will hide it for euer that it neuer appeare in publike more. But nowe I will hearken howe you wil performe the greate thinges you here promise.

PILK.

But this is no parte of your meaninge at all, [Page 79] that your reader shoulde trye by the scriptures as the Bereans did, and so rest himselfe sa­tisfied.

CHAMP.

My meaninge (good Sr.) is that the reader should searche the scriptures alleaged by me in proofe of the catholicke saith, and tr [...]e whether he finde them not so as I haue cited them; which the Bereans did. Whereby he shall finde the chatholicke doctrine to be trulie grounded vppon the holy scriptures and consormeable vnto them, as the Bereans did finde S Paules doctrine to be: thoughe they were bound [...] to beleeue his preachinge without that research.

PILK.

But your drifte is, after you haue sett the scriptures togeather by the eares, to thrust vp­pon him the authoritie of the Pope, who must finallie determine on which side the sence of the scripture bendeth, and then I doubte not but you shall winne the day.

CHAMP.

My drifte is to make the reader see that the catho­like faith hath true grounde in the holy scriptures▪ and if you or anie other will shewe the same for your newe doctrine, the reader must necessarilie see that he must finde somes meanes to knowe to whether side the true sence of the scriptures doth trulie agree: And if he finde that the Pope who is cheife & head of all those to whom our Sauiour sayde, he that heareth you, heareth me▪ geueth sentence for the alle­gations on the catholicke side (as you confesse, there is no doubte but he will) If he haue anie true care of his soule, he will beleeue and followe that parte.

PILK.

For thus you carrie the matter, when both parties haue brought scriptures for them­selues [Page 82] [...]out the letter of the scriptures, not opposinge the letter to the sence as you falselie say I meane; but seekinge and takinge the sence from the letter onlie? Is not this your doctrine, in this verie section? you cannot denie it vnlesse you haue a face to say and vn­say at euerie turne. Cast vp therefore once more your owne cardes, and see what other Iudge you make of controuersies besides the onlie wordes of scripture. Therefore either blushe your selfe, or if your face be so brasen that you cannot, bidd some other blush for you, that you either vnderstande not your owne doctrine, or are ashamed to acknowe­ledge and maintaine it. I knowe to what end is all this florishe of wordes; to raise vppe a little smoake before your readers eies, that you may steale away and leaue the difficultie (which you knowe presseth you harde) vutouched; you shall not scape so I wisse.

PILK.

If then there appeare a [...]arre in the scriptures that some of them are opposed to others, as it fell out betweene the auncient Bishoppes and the Arrians, betweene the Catholikes and Dona­tists, betweene Pelagians and godlie teachers, and nowe betweene you and vs, that on both si­des they are produced, a iudge must be sought for to reconcile them. Who is that? not a Chri­stian, for he is partie on the one side or the other, not a pagan, he knoweth not the misteries of Christianitie, not a Iewe for he is an enemie to Christian Baptisme: on Earth there can be foun­deOptatus l. 5 c [...]ntr. Parm. noe iudgment, saith Optatus. But why doe we knocke at heauen when we haue in the Gospell his testament? for here earthlie thinges may be compared to heauenlie. See howe we may come to the true sence, not by seekinge vnto the Pope, [Page 83] not by restinge vppon determinations of councels, not by settinge on Traditions, but by flyinge vnto the Testament. For as the same Optatus goeth on, Christ hath dealt with vs as an earthlie Fa­ther, who hauinge manie children ruleth them all so longe as he liueth, noe testament so longe is necessarie: euen so Christ so longe as he was present vppon earth (althoughe nowe he be not wantinge) gaue in charge vnto the Apostles, whatsoeuer for the tyme was necessarie. But as an earthlie father feelinge himselfe in the con­sines of death, fearinge after his decease; his children will contend [...] and breake peace, calleth witnesses and from his dyinge breast draweth his will into lastinge tables; and if there fall out anie contention amonge the brethren, they goe not to his tombe, but seeke his testament, and so he that quietly resteth in his tombe, spea­keth still from the tables as if he were aliue. He whose testament we haue is in heauen, therefore lett his will be sought for in his gospell as in a testament, for these thinges which presentlie ye [...] doe, he foresawe that yee would doe.

CHAMP.

Because these sayinges of Optatus, haue the same meaninge with that of S. Aug which imediatlie followeth, it shall there appeare howe litle they ser­ue your turne. Here are onlie to be noted these wor­des of his. On earth there is founde noe iudge: By which wordes he excludeth not all iudgment vppon earth, for so should he exclude the testament also it selfe, but he excludeth all earthlie or humane iudg­ment as vnfitt and vnable to decide differencies of faith, of which sorte the iudgment of the churche is [Page 84] not. For shee is the piller and ground of truth perpe­tuallieI [...]. 16. 13. assisted by the holy Ghost, which teacheth and suggesteth to her all truth.

PILK.

S. August: runneth the verie same course & In Psal. 21. expo. 2 prope finē. almost vseth the same wordes as if he had taken them out of Optatus? we are brethren (saith he) why doe we striue, our father died not inte­state, he hath made a testament, and so died; men doe striue aboute the goods of the dead, till the testament be brought foorth, when that is brought, they yeeld to haue it opened, and read; the iudge doth hearken, the counsellours be si­lent, the crier biddeth peace, all the people are attentiue that the wordes of the dead man may be read and heard, he lyeth voide of life and fee­linge in his graue, and his wordes preuaile. Christe doth sitt in heauen, and is his testament gainsayde? open it, lett vs reade it, we are bre­thren, why doe we striue? let our mindes be pacified, our father hath not lefte vs without a testament, he that made the testament is liuinge for euer, he doth heare our wordes, he doth knowe his owne worde, why doe we striue?

CHAMP.

S. Aug: by these plaine wordes of the spalme▪ Reminis [...]entur & conuertentur ad Dominum omnes fi­nes terrae. Et adorabunt in conspect [...] eius vniuersae familiae genti [...]: as by the confessed testament of the father, prooueth that the Donatists haue noe right to the inheritance of the churche (which they contrarie to the testament of God expressed in the psalme) say was onlie in a corner of the world amongst them. Who notwithstandinge were not [Page 85] come to that degree of sēclesnes, as to say the church was inuisible as the protestants doe. Iustlie therefore did S. Aug: prouoke the Donatists in this pointe to the tryall of the testament; as also the catholikes doe the protestantes in the pointe of the reall presence, and diuers others. Which tryall notwithstandinge is not sufficient where either scripture is opposed to scripture, or it is not agreed vppon which is the scripture it selfe, as it happeneth betweene the ca­tholikes and protestants, as shall [...]ore amplie appea­re by and by.

PILK.

And S. Ambrose more auncient then both, to Ambr. de fide ad Gratia. l. 1. cap. 4. Gratian the Emperour; Beleeue not Emperour our Argument, and our disputation, let vs aske the Scriptures, let vs aske the Apostles, let vs aske the Prophets, let vs aske Christ, what shoulde I adde more, let vs aske the Father, of whose honour they say they are Iealous.

CHAMP.

Sr. you alwaies speake besides the purpose. The question betweene you and me, is not whether the scriptures vnderstoode in the sence of the church are not sufficient to decide anie controuersie in faith; and namelie that whereof S. Amb. disputeth, which is not denyed vnto you: but whether the scriptures lefte vnto the interpretation of either party conten­dinge, are a sufficient iudge to end all controuersies in faith. In which question I defende the negatiue, and you the affirmatiue if you will yett contend anie more. These testimonies therefore of the fathers aswell of S. Ambrose as those that went before and also that followe, are alleaged beside the question, and altogether impertinentlie as all the rest of your sayinges for the moste parte are.

PILK.

A Gentile cometh and saith I woulde be a [Page 86] Christian, but I knowe not which side to cleaueChris. 33. in acta prope finē. vnto, manie dissentions are amonge you, and I cannot tell which opinion to holde, euerie one saith, I speake the truth, and the scriptures on both sides are pretended, so that I knowe not whom to beleeue. To this Chrisostome replyeth; trulie this maketh much for vs, for well might you be troubled if we should say we rely vppon reason, but seeinge we take the scriptures which are so true and playne, it will be an easie matter for you to iudge; if anie consent vnto them, he is a Christian, if anie goe against them, he is farr from this rule.

CHAMP.

This allegation of S. Chrisost. is not onlie imper­tinent as all the rest are, but fraudulent and procee­dinge of a minde not willinge to finde out the truth, but to deceiue the reader For the wordes imediatlie followinge and lefte out by you (Mr. Pilkinton) propose directlie the question which nowe is in hande, and the answere thereof followeth also con­sequentlie. Quid igitur (saith S. Chrisost.) What therefore if he say, that the scripture hath in this sort: and thou sayest another thinge, explicatinge the scrip­tures otherwise, and drawinge theire sence to fauour thee? Loe here the question in controuersie bet­weene Mr. Pilkinton and me. Howe doth S. Chri­sostome answere it? doth he send vs to the scriptu­res for decidinge thereof? no such thinge, but he geueth diuerse rules or markes whereby he that is in doubte whether parte to followe, may iudge who hath the true sence and meaninge of the scriptures. And after one or two rules he addeth this: Vt au­tem manifestius dicam: But that I may speake more plainlie; they (to witt heretikes) haue certayne men of whom they are named▪ for the sect is named of the [Page 87] author, but wee (to witt the catholikes) haue not our name of anie man And a little after answeringe to the same question more fullie he addeth. What? are we cutt off from the church? haue we Archehe­retickes? are we surnamed of anie man? haue we a captayne (anie particular man) as these haue Mar­cion, these Manicheus, a thirde Arrius, and other he­resies haue theire sect masters. (As Lutherans haue Luther, Caluinists haue Caluin and the like). And though we haue the name of anie one, [...]et is is not of the father of anie heresie, but of those who are our pa­stours and doe gouuerne the churche. We haue not Maisters vppon Earth (as all heretikes haue) God forbidde, we haue one in heauen. Thou wilte say that they pretende the same. But they haue a name that ac­cuseth them, and giueth them theire names. Thus farr S. Chrisostome, whereby it appeareth not onlie how impertinent or fraudulent Mr. Pilkinton is in his al­legations; but also of what moment the auncient fa­thers esteemed the argument taken from the surna­mes of sects, for the discouerie of theire heresies and false doctrines.

PILK.

Loe in these cases wherein scriptures were produced on both sides the fathers fledd for reso­lution vnto other scriptures, where it appea­reth your inferrence to be without coherence, that if there be not a iudge without the scriptu­res, God hath not prouided sufficient meanes to saue mens soules, seeinge that composinge of con­trouersies, reconcilinge of differencies, clearinge of doubtes, manifestation of truth, is not from without to be fetched, but in the testament it selfe to be learned, that we may knowe scriptu­res, and them onlie to be the supreme iudge from whence decision of doubtes in matters of faith is [Page 88] to be deriued.

CHAMP.

Marke iudicious reader whether this be anie other thinge, then that which I sayde in this section. One chie [...]e ground of the prosestants doctrine to be, that the wordes of the scripture are the iudge of all controuer­sies. For the which Mr. Pilk: hotly reprehendeth me of fraude and falsehodde. See his wordes a little be­fore at this marke † in the margent, and maruell at his witt, iudgment and memorie: Nowe to the pur­pose. Noe one of all the testimonies alleaged by you doth say, that where scriptures are produced by both partes, they are sufficient to decide the controuersie. Thoughe I doe not denie, but for the moste part the inequallity is so greate in the catholike partie (as it also falleth out in the cause betweene the protestāts and catholikes at this day) that anie man of indiffe­rent witt, iudgment and desire to find out the truth, may see on whether side the scripture standeth. But that they are not absolutelie sufficient where there is obstinacie on anie side, I shall make your selfe to cō ­fesse (thoughe peruerse enoughe) or else I shall much marueill; & that by the verie example vsed by S. Optatus and S. Aug: and approoued here by your selfe. Put therefore the case, that the children of a deceased father contend aboute the inheritance, eue­rie one of them challenginge it as appertayninge to himselfe, & in proofe or confirmation of his clayme alleageth the testament and will of his father, which he protesteth to be cleare for him, and against his competitours, beinge rightlie vnderstoode, persisting most stifly in his opinion and in deffence of his right clayme, as he is perswaded. The case beinge putt thus (which is the verie same with ours in the con­trouersy of religion) will you say in the sinceritie of your hearte, that the sole will or testament of the fa­ther is a sufficient iudge to decide this difference and to bringe the parties to an accorde? And that there needeth not anie other iudge or arbiter to deter­mine [Page 89] vppon the true sence and meaninge of the fa­thers will, whereby they all pretende to make theire clayme, and to grounde theire title? you will not I thinke say, yea, to this question. And well I wote that were the case your owne betwixte your selfe & your bretheren concerninge a temporall inheritance, experience (which though shee be the mistres of fooles, is not for all that a foolish mistres) woulde teach you that it is a meere Paradoxe to maintayne that the sole testament of your deceased father, could in this case decide the controuersie amongst you his disagreeinge children. So that the example brought by your selfe out of the fathers, is prooued to make manifestlie against you.

Which will yet be much more cleare, if the case be putt as it is indeede with vs, that these brethren doe not only contend aboute the true sence and mea­ninge of theire fathers testament, but also aboute the testament it selfe; the one contestinge the whole writinge contayned in the booke vnder the title of his will to be his true testament, another not recei­uinge the whole, contendeth diuers partes and par­cells not to belonge therunto. And another yett re­iectinge more; as it falleth out betweene vs and the protestants, Caluin castinge out of the testament of God, fiue whole bookes besides some large partes of other bookes, which the catholikes belieue to appertayn to his true testament. Luther reiectinge besides these, diuerse other whole bookes. The case therefore beinge thus, howe is it possible that the sole written testament of God shoulde decide the controuersie betweene these competitors, and bring them to an accorde? who doe not agree so much as in what bookes or writinges the testament is con­tayned, so farre are they from beinge at accorde of the true sence and meaninge thereof.

It is therefore no other thinge to say in this case, that the scriptures must iudge all controuersies, then to say that the controuersie it selfe, must be iudge of [Page 90] the controuersie, which is more then madnes to thinke. For the controuersie beinge not onlie what the scripture saith, or meaneth, but also what is scrip­ture, it is all one to say, that scriptures must iudge and decide all controuersies, and to say the contro­uersies themselues must decide all controuersies. Againe seeinge you Mr. Pilkinton, seeme to geue so much to holy scripture as to be able and sufficient to decide all doubtes and determine all differences in matter of faith, Why doe you not hearken vnto them when they send you to the churche and to the pastours, and doctours thereof, as to liuelie iudges, hauinge the keyes of knowledge to vnderstande the scriptures? But you desiringe nothinge lesse then to come to a iust and competent tryall of your cause, holde your selues close to that principle, by which the most detestable, vile, and contemptible heretike that euer was may maintaine his heresie, without beinge conuinced thereof; as I toulde you before of Legat, which instance you can neuer answere not satisfy, and which onlie is sufficient if you were not obstinatly peruerse) to make you ashamed to main­taine so senceles a Paradox, and so euidentlie con­tradicted by perpetuall experience in all ages.

Your last shifte or euasiō of interpretinge scripture by scripture, vnles there be some agreement, or cer­taintie of the scripture interpretinge, more then of the scripture interpreted, which abstractinge from the iudgmēt of the churche cannot be had, is a meere mockerie, and like as if a man would measure one peece of veluett the measure whereof is as vncertai­ne as that of the former.

And to conclude this section, it beinge in question betweene the catholikes and protestants who is to be iudge of controuersies in faith (yea the roote and key of all controuersies, which beinge ended or de­cided all the rest would haue easie decision) you af­firminge the scriptures to be this iudge and pretend to prooue this by scripture, as al other thinges to be [Page 91] beleeued, you are bounde by your owne doctrine, to shewe it out of scripture, which when you shall doe, we will yeelde vnto you in all the rest of the tontrouersies betweene vs. But seeinge you can ne­uer doe this, why doe you not yeelde to vs, shewin­ge you out of manifest scripture the authoritie of the churche to decide controuersies? You say the church is a partie and therefore no competent iudge. But this hauinge been the cauill of all condemned here­tikes, and as truly alleaged by them as by you, this plea is no more receiueable in you then in them. And tell me I pray you, the kinge is he not partie in all pleas of felonie or treason that are brought into his courtes? yes verilie. And yett none euer yet thought of anie such plea, as to appeale from the iudgment geuen in his name, and by his soueraigne authoritie in such cases: Albeit the iudgments geuen in his courtes are farr frō beinge so assuredly iuste & equi­table as are the iudgments of the church, which hath the infallible promise of the holy ghostes assistance in her decisions and determinations. You are there­fore fast taken which way soeuer you turne your sel­fe; and this inference of myne: That if there be no other iudge of controuersies besides the scriptures, God hath not prouided sufficient meanes to sa [...]e mens soules, which you say is without coherence, doth nessarilie followe vppon that supposition, that heretikes and namelie protestants, doe produce scriptures, in proofe of theire false doctrine, as catholikes doe for theire orthodoxe beliefe, if there be no other iudge to deci­de the controuersie but only the scripture, which in­ference you haue laboured (but all in vaine) to ouer­throwe as the indifferent reader will easilie iudge.

MANVLL SECTION 6.

Fiftlie that whereas before I can prooue anie point of Christian beleife by scriptu­res, I should first by good order prooue that there is an holy scripture, and secondlie in [Page 92] what bookes of the Bible it is contayned: yet because neither of these two canne be prooued by scriptures, vnlesse we beleeue some scripture without proofe, therfore that I may prooue these pointes of faith wherein the Romane Catholicke churche doth differ from the protestants, by holy scriptures (which our aduersaries vrge me vnto) I must necessarily to satisfy theire dis­orderlie desire, proceede disorderlie, and suppose that for truth without proofe, which requireth most to be prooued. I say without proofe, if no proofe be good but that which is made out of scripture.

PILK.

All questions are not to be disputed of, saith Aristotle, but only those whereof man desireth a reason, that is not worthie of punishment or lacketh sence. For if anie demaunde whether God is to be worshipped, or our parents to be loued, he deserueth stripes, or whether snowe be white, he lacketh sence. This question of yours, whether the scripture be gods worde, ten­deth to Atheisme and deserueth punishment, rather then answere.

CHAMP.

In the precedent question, to auoyde the authority of the churches iudgment expreslie testified in the scriptures, you laboured to maintaine this paradox, that notwithstandinge scriptures were produced for either partie of anie controuersie, yett the controuer­sie might be fullie ended and decided by the scrip­tures alone, without anie other iudge decidinge or determininge whether partie vsed the true sence and [Page 93] meaninge of the same scriptures. Nowe in this sec­tion to auoyde the Authoritie of Traditiōs expreslie also taught in the scriptures, you goe aboute to maintaine another paradox no lesse improbable, to witt, that it is so clearlie manifest not only that there is a written worde of God, or holie scripture, but also in what booke it is contayned, that to moue que­stion in either tendeth to Atheisme, and deserueth punishment rather then answere, lett vs see howe you make good this your paradox.

PILK.

But least you shoulde triumphe before the victorie, I answere, that as in all humane artes there be certain principles, which are knowne of thēselues, without anie farther demōstration: So the verties that are contained in the Cannon of the Bible, are the principles & foundations of di­uinitie, and receiue not authoritie by other thin­ges In 1. S [...]ns. q. 1. art. 3. whereby they may be demonstrated, saith Cameracensis.

CHAMP.

Ignorance in the rudimēts of Philosophie maketh you abuse your tearmes egregiouslie. For what prin­ciples of artes or sciences (I pray you) are those that are beleeued for themselues? none certainlie. For the principles of all naturall knowledge, are either euidentlie knowne by the light of nature, and not beleeued, or they are beleeued for the authoritie of a higher knowledge, and not beleeued for them­selues. The verities contayned in the Bible are be­leeued, not for themselues but for the authoritie of God reueilinge them, who onlie is truth it selfe, and beleeued for himselfe, of whome and from whome they receiue authoritie, and haue it not of themsel­ues as you falselie affirme. But you say they cannot be demonstrated by other principles. It is true for [...]e but the phreneticall or phanaticall Manicheis [Page 94] did desire or expecte demonstration in matter of faith. Which as S. August. saith, is grounded vpponDe vtili­tate cre­dendi. authoritie, as knowledge is vppon reason, we de­maunde therefore of you some authoritie whereby we may reasonablie beleeue the verities contayned in the Bible to haue been reueiled by God, with­out which authoritie we cannot securelie beleeue them to be gods worde.

PILK.

Then if the scriptures be principles, as it is confessed on both sides, it followeth that they are immediate & indemonstrable, as al other princi­ples are in theire sciēces, where of they are prin­ciples, but these more thē others, because they are primae veritatis. And as the first good for it selfe is to be loued, so the first truth for it selfeProlog. in magist. q 3. art. 2. Aug 6. confess. cap. 5. is to be beleeued saith Aquinas. And therefore it is so farr from beinge requisit to prooue the scriptures, that S. Aug. saith they are not to be hearde, who shoulde say, howe doost thou knowe these bookes to be ministred vnto man­kinde by the spiritie of the onlie and most true God, for this thinge is especiallie to be belee­ued? Whereupon in another place speakinge ofCont. epist. Funda. cap. 14. the faith wherewith we beleeue the scriptures, he willeth vs to followe those, who inuite vs first to beleeue that which we are not able to conceiue, that beinge made more strōge in faith, we may attaine to vnderstande that which we beleeue, God himselfe confirminge and inward­lie inligthenninge our mindes and not men. This is sufficient to shewe that neither arte nor or­der requireth at your handes to prooue the scriptures, as you disorderlie imagine.

CHAMP.

The scriptures or verities conteyned in them are confessed to be principles in respect of all Theologi­call conclusions deduced from them, and therefore in respect of them they neede no farther proofe to anie christian diuine that beleeueth them to be the worde of God. But they are not principles in respect of the articles of our faith in generall, but are them­selues to be beleeued for the same authoritie of God reueylinge, as all other articles of faith are.

And that they are not necessarie principles of the articles of our [...]aith, it is manifest by that, before the scriptures were written, the churche of God belee­ued manie of the same articles which nowe it belee­ueth. Therfore when you say the scriptures or veri­ties contained in them, are primae veritatis, if igno­rance (thoughe grosse and not to be excused in a doctour of diuinitie) doth not excuse you, you will make the scriptures not onlie to be gods worde, but also to be God himselfe. For besides him there is no prima veritas which is to be beleeued for it selfe, as vppon better consideration (I thinke) you will not dare to denie.

Seeinge therefore the scriptures are not primae veritatis or first truthe, but the testimonies wor­des or verities reueiled by the first truthe, they are not, euen by your owne grounde to be beleeued for themselues, but for the truthe and authoritie of the first veritie God himselfe, of whose reuelation we must haue sufficient grounde before we canne securelie and prudentlie beleeue the scriptures to be his worde. That which you bringe out of S. Tho­mas, maketh euidentlie against you (so iudicious are you in your allegations.) For the scriptures beinge not God, they are not the first truth, and therefore not to be beleeued for themselues. S. Aug. in the first place maketh also against you, sayinge that the scriptures are to be beleeued to bee of gods spiritt and not to be knowne. For to beleeue this he recur­reth [Page 96] not to the scriptures themselues, but to the au­thoritie which they had obtayned throughe the whole worlde. The second authoritie of S. Aug. is wholie impertinent to your purpose, as the reader thoughe but of meane iudgmēt will easilie discerne. Hee sayinge nothinge that soundeth as if the scrip­tures were to be beleeued for themselues, or with­out other authoritie. And therfore thus farr haue you saide nothinge that may satisfie this assertion of the Manuall, that in the orderlie proceedinge in this present poincte, the scriptures shoulde first be proo­ued: but you will peraduenture satisfie better hereafter.

PILK.

Yett further to satisfy you I answere, that the scriptures doe sufficientlie prooue thēselues, and these and these bookes to be the scripture, both by that inwarde light that is contained in them, and that outwarde operation that they haue in vs. For first they are a lanterne to our feete, and a light to our path, a candle that shineth in a darke place. And as a light dothPsal. 119. 105. 2. [...] Pet. 1. 19. Tract. 35. in Ioan. discouer those thinges that are in darkenes and demonstrateth also it selfe vnto the eies (saith Aug.) so doth the holy scriptures by that conna­tur all light that is in them, manifest themselues vnto those, whose vnderstandinge is enlighte­ned to behoulde them. Which if you cannot per­ceiue, desire God to remoue the scales from your eies, as he did from Paules; for this is a case so cleare that Stapleton graunteth it, credenti, scriptura seipsam probat & commendat.

CHAMP.

All this proueth noe other thinge, then that to christians and catholikes who belieue the scriptures [Page 97] to be the worde of God and vnderstand it in the sen­ce of the churche, they haue all these properties of light, lampe, and lanterne, and this is it which Sta­pleton expreslie saith, if hou had taken but verie or­dinarie heede to his wordes.

But to say that either to a Pagan who beleeueth not the scriptures to be Gods worde; or to an here­tike, who vnderstandeth them not in the sence of the churche but accordinge to his owne fancie, they are such as doe manifest themselues to be the worde of God, is a most sencelesse Paradox contradicted by manifest experience, not onlie in Martin Luther and all his disciples, who as you knowe reiect diuerse bookes receiued by Caluin, and his followers: but also of the auncient and holy fathers, who did not vniuersallie receiue as Canonicall Scripture, all such bookes of the newe testament as nowe are receiued by you. And yett none of all these I suppose you will say, wanted light to see that which is manifest of it selfe.

PILK.

Againe they are knowne by theire operation in vs, for the worde of the Lorde is pure, and conuerts the soule, a two edged sworde Heb. 4. 12. a verie fierie worde psal. 119. 14. which pu­rifieth the soules, inflameth the affections, enligh­teneth the vnderstandinge, and so softeneth the heart of the hearer, that it frameth it sitt to all goodnes. Which noe other worde or worke de­uised by the witt of men or Angells canne doe. Where vppō Lactātius speakinge of the differē ­ce betweene the doctrine of the gentills & of the churche, saith, that the wisdome of the Philo­sophers doth not roote out vice, but hide it: whe­reas a fewe precepts of God, so change the whole [Page 98] man, and mould him a newe by castinge away the ould, that one would not thinke him to be the same. Geue me a man that is wrathfull, euill tougued, vnbridled, by a fewe wordes of God I will make him meeke as a lambe. Geue me a couetous, auaritious and tenacious man, I will restore him liberall, and distributinge his money with his owne handes. Geue me a man fearfull of sorrowe and death, he shall contemne crosses, fires, dangers, bulls &c. By one lauer shall all malice be expelled, such is the force of diuine wisdome that beinge powered into the brest of man, it expelleth folly att one blowe that is the mother of all vices. What man then that hath his hearte thus mollified, his will rectified, his vnderstandinge cleared, and his whole course suddenlie altered, can deliberatelie doubte of the scriptures, seinge Christe himselfe teacheth vs thus to knowe them. Is anie will performe theIo. 7. 17. will of his father, he shall knowe of the doctrine whether it be good or noe.

CHAMP.

In whome I pray you doth the scripture worke these effects you haue here so industriously numbred vp? in those that beleeue them not to be true, or to be the worde of God? you will not say so I suppose. Why doe you therefore bring these arguments to prooue the scriptures to be easily knowne to be god▪ worde, that they are manifest of themselues, and neede not to be prooued? Because you will euer be impertinent not knowinge what you say, nor what you shoulde prooue, and yet are you so full of bable that you will still be be talkinge. If one shoulde aske your aduise, howe he might knowe good Phisicke [Page 99] and you shoulde say vnto him, it is an easie thinge to knowe that. For that phisike which cōforteth na­ture, expelleth disseases, and restoreth health is cer­tainlie good phisicke; doe you thinke he shoulde be much wiser for your aduise? whatsoeuer you thinke. I knowe he shoulde be as wise as he was before. Such is your directions to knowe the scripture, vnto such as doe not alreadie knowe or beleeue them. And seeinge our Sauiour himselfe prescribeth as a necessarie rule to knowe the scriptures, the perfor­mance of his fathers will, before his doctrine canne be vnderstoode (as you well note but stil against your selfe) it is euident that they are not so cleare of thē ­selues nor yett so easie to be knowne, as you pretend. For that doctrine which must first be practised by humble obedience, before it can be vnderstoode or knowne to be of God as our Sauiour saith of the scripture, noe man that is not deuoyde of all iudg­ment wil say, is easie to be knowne euen by it selfe.

PILK.

I might add all those arguments which both the fathers and schoolemen produce out of the scriptures themselues to prooue them the of­springe of God, which if they be stronge against gentiles, I knowe not howe they should be weake against you, vid. the maiestie of the doc­trine, the simplicitie and puritie of the stile, an­tiquitie of the bookes, truth of oracles and pre­dictions that manie ages after held their com­plement, with sundrie other to the like purpose, but I passe by them and shutt vppe this pointe with that speeche of your Stewchus.

CHAMP.

You were well aduised to passe by all such argu­ments of the fathers and schoolemen as woulde no­thinge serue your purpose, I woulde you had been [Page 100] so aduised from the begininge, for soe shoulde I not haue hadd the labour and paynes to transcribe so manie impertinencies of yours as I haue been forced to doe hitherto. The arguments which you here mention taken by themselues, are farr from makinge anie sufficient grounde to builde our faith vppon, thoughe they are probable and prudent considera­tions and ioyned with the authoritie of the churche and tradition, wherby [...]e receiue the scriptures, they are not without some force to persuade the bookes of the holy Bible, to be gods worde, and to be written by his inspiration. But take you expe­rience of them in your selfe, and see whether they are sufficient to persuade that the bookes of Wis­dome, Ecclesiastious and the rest receiued generallie by the whole churche, and namelie by the fathers and schoolemen whose authoritie here you seeme to vrge) for canonicall, are trulie gods worde and written by his holy spiritt. And if you finde them not sufficient groundes for these, why woulde you intrude them vppon vs as sufficient for the rest▪ But lett vs heare what you bringe out of our Stewchus.

PILK.

They which thinke the authoritie of holyStewchus [...]mopera in princip. scriptures, whereunto all the worlde nowe as­senteth, to depende vppon the readers faith, and not to bringe with them certaine diuine and most potent reasons, that drawe vnto them the iudgements of greate mindes, are therefore de­ceiued, because they are not of theire number, whose mindes both by naturall goodnes and continuall exercitation of wisdome, doe pru­dentlie apprehend the highest and truest thinges: whereas if anie haue that wisedome geuen him to esteeme the greatnes of thinges as they de­serue, [Page 101] he shall feele the weight of diuine ora­cies to be so greate, that the pronunciation of them onlie would suffice to begett a most firme and suddaine faith.

CHAMP.

The whole space of a thousand and fiue hundred yeeres geuen you to take your testimonies out of, might haue sufficed without alleaginge of moderne writers, and those o [...] small note and lesse authoritie. Stewchus is an author not wholly receiued, and the booke cited by you is put in the index of bookes to be amended or corrected: and therefore the testimo­nie thereof thoughe it were otherwise most formall (as it is not) is of noe authority against vs. And truelie I wounder you are not ashamed to bring such stuffe for the proofe of your faith and doctrine. And that in such sorte as you haue lett passe all other and made choyce of this as of moste strength and force. Lett the iudicious reader nowe iudge by that which hath been sayde both by you and me, whether the scriptures are so clearelie knowne by themselues and by theire owne light, that they neede no other proofe to be gods worde and written by his spiritt. And whether it he a needles or disorderlie thinge for him that pretendeth to prooue all the points of his faith by holy scripture, to prooue first that there is a holie scripture, and then to prooue in what bookes it is contayned. And lastlie whether because you (re­fusinge traditions and the churches authoritie, by which onlie the holy scriptures are knowne cannot prooue the scriptures to be such, and therefore re­ceiuinge them vpon the credit of your owne fancie, which consequentlie must be the fundamentall rule of your whole Faith, doe not recurre to that shifte, to say that the scriptures are so euident of themsel­ues, that they neede noe other proofe or testimonie but themselues.

MANVALL SECTION 7.

And here occur by the way two thinges worthy of note. The one that the scripture cannot be an vniuersall rule of our faith, seeinge somethinges are to be beleeued without proofe of scripture, as are (for example) that there is an holy scripture, contayninge gods worde and reuelation, and that these & these bookes be such, the­refore of necessitie must there be some other rule of our faith more vniuersall then the scriptures, and consequentlie before the scriptures. And this cannot be but the authoritie of gods churche, which is clea­rely S. August: doctrine, who was not a frayde to say: I woulde not beleeue the Gospell, but that the authoritie of the church doth moue me. Seeinge therefore the authoritie of the churche is a sufficient motiue for vs to be­leeue what is scripture, why shoulde it not haue the like authoritie with vs in other points of faith? which is also S. Aug: argu­ment in the same place: but I will notwith­standinge satisfie our aduersaries in theire owne humour.

PILK.

Your former grounde beinge a bedd of sande, that scriptures cannott be prooued by scriptures, these conclusions that you doe builde vppon it, doe of themselues fall to the grounde.

CHAMP.

When you shall, followinge your principles, proue out of the scripture, either that there is a scrip­ture [Page 103] or in what bookes it is contayned, without sup­posinge some scripture without proofe, then may you terme my grounde, to be a bedd of sande, and I will also beleeue it so to be. But till then, I will esteeme it a rock that breaketh all your batteries like as if they were balls of sande caste against a brasen wall. And therefore the conclusions built vppon it, will neither of themselues, nor yett by all your for­ces, fall to the grounde but will stande firme and stronge.

PILK.

First that the scriptures are not the vniuer­sall rule of faith, a position so derogatorie to theDeut. 4. 2. Re [...]e 22. 18. 19. testament of Christ, and so contrarie to the doc­trine of the auncient churche, that I wounder howe you durst venture vppon it; For the rule whereunto nothinge must be added, nothingeAqui. in 1. Tim. 6. lect. 1. detracted, is an vniuersall and persecte rule, such is the scripture, which is Aquinas collection. [...]. Tim. 6. For if anie addition or detraction might be made in the scriptures, they could not be the rule att all. As in a rule saith Photicus if yee adde or diminishe any thinge, yee corrupte the whole. And a rule saith Theophilact neither hath augmentation nor diminution, soe is it in the scriptures, which Chrisostome termeth the most experte rule, Canon, and Gnomon that can be, if it admitte anie supplie, it coulde not be the rule at all. And if we must not be wise in matters diuine aboue that which is written, then that which is written is the rule of our wisdome and faith: But S. Paule forbiddeth1. Cor. 4. 6 that ranknes of witt to enquire further then that which is written. This S. Aug. collecteth [Page 104] out of this place; The holy scripture doth prefixeDe bono vi [...]luitatis cap. 1. vnto vs the rule of our faith, least we shoulde presume to be more wise then behoueth, but as he saith let vs be wise vnto sobrietie as God hath diuided vnto euerie one the measure of faith. Finallie if our faith doth lastlie resolue it selfe into the scriptures onlie, then they alone are the rule, and nothinge can be founde more vniuer­sall, but this is graunted by your best diuines.

CHAMP.

Till it be prooued by expresse scripture, that the scriptures are the vniuersall rule of our saith, or that nothinge is to be beleeued but that which is proo­ued by scripture. you cannot trulie say that my posi­tion is derogatorie to the Testament of Christ. And because it can neuer be prooued by scripture, that nothinge is to be beleeued but that which is proo­ued by expresse scripture, your position is hereticall, the contrarie thereof beinge clearelie testified by the scripture, as shall appeare in the first and seconde controuersie; vnto which places I will referr you for answere to your arguments, (which you there re­peate) as the more proper place. Onlie I will not omitte to tell you here, that you loose your creditt. with al men by vtteringe such knowne vntruthes as, that the best of our diuines doe graunte the [...]ast resolu­tion of our faith to [...]ee into the scriptures onlie You shoulde haue named some one author att least, to haue geuen creditt to your assertion.

PILK.

What then is the rule that is more vniuer­sall? The authoritie of the churche say you; Traditions saith Bellarmine, the faith of theBellar. de verbo lib. 4. cap 12. churche that is written in the heartes of the faithfull saith Stapleton: soe friendlie doe the [Page 105] patrons of this errour accorde, as if that curseStaplet. l. 7. princ. cap. 1. wherewith God threatned the Egiptiās had fallē vpon them. I wil sett Egiptians against Egiptiās, they shal fight euerie one against his neighbour. For if the authoritie of the churche doth make vppe the rule, traditiōs doe not beinge two thin­ges, as different as the fountaine & the streame, the fruite and the tree. For traditions flowe from the authoritie of the churche, saith Sta­pleton; Authoritie of the churche is the churches testimonie, tradition is doctrine not a testimonie onlie. This therefore is neither a more vniuer­sall rule, nor yet before it, which is your seconde conclusion, and which if it were true, the chur­che shoulde be summa & prima veritas: for that for which we must beleeue the Ghospell, and it for it selfe, is the highest and first truth, but you papists, say so of the churche: there­fore you haue dei [...]yed and changed it into the deitie, and so made it of Beth [...] and house of God, to be Bethanan, the house of iniquitie.

CHAMP.

There is as much diuersitie or discorde betweene all these sayinges of ours, as a goode Logician would finde betweene viuens, [...]en [...]ns, [...] in [...]e [...] [...]ns, which being [...]ubalterna, are not in anie mans brayne dispara [...]a or opposita vnles in yours, which is often contrarie to it selfe. Both tradtions therefore and the authority of the churche, are more vniuersal rules thē the scriptures; And thoughe the one of them is more vniuersall and before the other, yet neither of them is summa or prima veritas, as you most ignorantlie affirme in the precedent section, of the scriptures, for the which intollerable ignorance you are iustlie [Page 106] reprehended there) nor either of them is beleeued for it selfe, but for the testimonie of God reuelinge theire veritie who onlie is beleeued for himselfe, and his owne essentiall truth and veritie. And therefore your childishe inference of changinge Bethell into Bethanan, is a ridiculous conclusion of your owne ignorant premisses, or a dreame of your owne idle and emptie braine. But you will bringe more solid stuffe hereafter, lett vs heare the rest.

PILK.

Besides, if it be demaunded from whence the churche hath an [...]e such authoritie, it is answe­red from the scriptures, for which are produced sundrie testimonies; He that heareth you heareth me, Goe teach all nations. If then the life of this authoritie be maintayned and supported by the scriptures, they are the rule and measure of her, and so before her, and not reciprocalli [...] mea­sured by her.

CHAMP.

When it is demanded by such as pretend to belee­ue the scriptures (as you make shewe to doe and yett deny the churches Authoritie, as you heretically doe, what proofe there is of the churches authority, the scriptures are rightlie produced, for the proofe thereof, not that thee hath her authoritie from the scriptures (as you either ignorantlie or negligentlie say) for her authoritie she hath from God. The au­thour of all power and authoritie; but that this au­thoritie i [...] testified by the scripture. And maruell it is to me, that you your selfe findinge and feelinge such testimonie of holy scripture for the churches autho­ritie as you cite in this place, doe not yett cease to impugne it. But the truth is, you beleeue and follow the scriptures, so farr as your selfe list onlie, and noe farther. On the other side when it is demaunded by such as belieue neither scriptures nor the churche, [Page 107] but yett seeke some groundes of christian beliefe, it woulde be a ridiculous thinge to prooue the church by the scriptures seinge they are written, taught, and preached, by the ministrie of mē, whereof the church consisteth, and did consist many hundreds of yeeres before there were anie scriptures att all. In this case therefor it is cleare, that the church hath other proofe then from the scriptures, and before the scriptures, which in that case must be prooued by the churche. But what this proofe is and whence it is taken, per­tayneth not to this place to say. Yet whatsoeuer it be it is manifest that in this case, the proofe & knowledg of the church, must goe before the proofe and know­ledge of the scriptures, as beinge before it, and lea­dinge vnto it, and not the contrarie.

PILK.

This is yett more cleare by the verie propo­sition graunted by Papists, that the scripture is the rule, whereof the sence is, that the sence and doctrine, not the letters and characters are this rule. Nowe lett our aduersaries iudge whe­ther is more auncient, the doctrine of the church which is the seede of the churche, or the church which is begotten of it.

CHAMP.

You either ignorantlie mistake, or wilfullie inuert the question, which is not whether the holy scriptu­res be a rule of faith, which noe christian denieth, but whether it be the first and most vniuersall rule thereof. And this none but heretikes that denie the authoritie of the churche and veritie of traditions (both which notwithstandinge are expresselie te­stified by holy scripture▪ did euer affirme. And whe­ther the church be more aunciēt then the scriptures, if you doubte, as you seeme to doe, yea and to affirme the contrarie, I shall esteeme you either very sen­celes, or verie wilfull and pe [...]uers; the scriptures ha­uinge [Page 108] been written by the churche, vnles peraduen­ture by the scriptures, or doctrine of the scriptures, you vnderstande the worde of God written in the hearts of men, by the immediate reuelation of the holy Ghost, and by them deliuered by worde of mouth the one to the other, vntill Moises, who was the first that euer committed anie thinge to wri­tinge. If you take the scriptures in this sence, that which you meane is true; and if further you acknow­ledge the authoritie of the churche and veritie of Tradition, in deliueringe this doctrine and teachinge it one to another by worde of mouth before it was written, our controuersie is at an end. The authori­tie of the churche and traditions being euidentlie prooued to goe before the scriptures, and conse­quentlie to be a more vniuersall rule of faith then the scriptures.

PILK.

So that as your first conclusion is a manifest vntruth, that there is a more vniuersall rule of faith then the scriptures; So the second is a dull and heauie conceipt, that the churche shoulde be more auncient and before them.

CHAMP.

If either my first conclusion (as you tearme it) be a manifest vntruth, or my second a dull cōceipt, why doe you doombelie denie it, without anie proofe or reason att all? Especiallie seinge I prooued the first by cleare instance, as you may see, and the seconde is but a sequell or necessarie deduction of the first? If it be enough for you to say that your aduersaries conclusions thoughe prooued by manifest instance, are manifest vntruthes, you may well hope to carrie away the bucklers from a farr greater clerke then euer I shall pretende to be. For you knowe that Ari­stotles asse is able to denie more, then his mayster is able to prooue.

PILK.

Peruse the fathers in whose workes you seeme to be conuersant, and nominate one that hath taught, either that the authoritie of the churche is a more vniuersall rule, or that she was be­fore theire doctrine; which are the two cheefest stoopes of your religion, whereas in them I finde that the scriptures is the rule, and they nomi­nate nothinge else.

CHAMP.

If you had weighed S. Aug: testimonie which the manuall setteth downe in this place (and which you vainlie strugle to auoyde) with equall iudgment, you woulde not haue putte me to further search of the fathers for proofe of that which I say. You shall either deliuer your selfe better from S. Aug: autho­ritie then here you haue donne, or else you shall be forced to swallowe it downe as a bitter, but a whol­some pill against your heresie. Neither will I take the taxe at your hande to searche further the fathers for this purpose, till I see this one better satisfied. And you fight against your owne shaddowe when you labour to prooue by the fathers, that the scriptures are a rule of our faith, your aduersaries denyinge it not, as I toulde you before. But you loue to shewe your strength when none resisteth you. And that the fathers nominate no other rule, is as true as the rest of your sayinges. For seeinge they auouch so plainlie and frequentlie traditions, and the churches autho­ritie as you knowe they doe, howe canne you say that they name noe other rule?

PILK.

The Ecclesiasticall rule, is the consent and Lib. 6. Sto. conspiration of the old and newe testament saith Clemens. The holy scripture doth prefixe vnto vs the rule of our faith saith S. Aug. Aug. supr.

CHAMP.

I knowe not whether I shoulde attribute the ci­tinge of this authoritie out of Clemens, to your ig­noraunce or to your fraude and desire to deceiue by it your reader, it is so impertinent to your purpose. He sayinge onlie that it is the Ecclesiasticall rule of interpretinge scriptures to make the prophetts and lawe to accorde with the testament of our Sauiour Christ. Which what it maketh to prooue the scrip­tures to be the sole rule of faith I cannot conceiue. S. Aug. you cite so at large that I knowe not where to look for the place by you alleaged, to see whether it be not as pertinentlie alleaged as the other is. And seinge the scriptures doe send vs to our pastours to learne our faith, and to the churche commandinge vs to heare it, it may well be sayde to prefixe vnto vs the rule of our faith, and yett exclude not the churches authoritie, for the which we nowe con­tende. So that this place is as fitt for your purpose as the other.

PILK.

The churche goeth not out of her boundes, Vincent. cap. 41. that is the holy scriptures saith Ierome. And least you might thinke it is the rule, but not the onlie rule; Vincentius addeth the sole rule of the scriptures is sufficient to all thinges.

CHAMP.

The churche followinge the authoritie of tradi­tion, and the iudgment of the churche in all matters of saith and manners which the scriptures doe ex­presslie geue testimonie and warrant vnto, doth not goe out of the boundes of the scriptures. In citinge Vincentius you vse your accustomed fraude, leauinge out the wordes goinge before. Which are so ex­presslie against your purpose, that had you sett them downe, they had been sufficient to confute your errours in this pointe, they are these. We haue sayde before, ha [...] this alwayes hath been, and is also [Page 111] at this day the custome of Catholikes, to prooue the truth of fayth by these two meanes. First by the au­thoritie of diuine Canon; then by tradition of the Ca­tholike churche, not because the Canon alone is not sufficient of it selfe to all thinges; but &c. Now lett the iudicious reader iudge whether this holy father make the scriptures the sole rule of faith or noe. When he saith, the sacred Canon is sufficient to all thinges, he meaneth that it is sufficient to al thinges that is necessarie to euerie mans saluation, or to eue­rie man to beleeue. For these thinges are not many and sufficientlie expressed in the holy scripture. Or it is sufficient beinge lefte in the hands of the church to expound and interprete it; but it is not sufficient for euerie one to picke his faith and beleefe out of. And consequentlie another rule, to witt the chur­ches authoritie in vnderstandinge and interpretinge the scriptures is necessarie, as the same father tea­cheth in these expresse wordes. Some man may per­aduenture In the booke be­fore c [...]ed. aske, for asmuch as the Canon of the scrip­tures is persect and in all pointes verie sufficient in it selfe, what neede is there to ioyne thereunto the au­thoritie of the Ecclesiasticall vnderstandinge, for this cause surelie, for that all take not the holy scriptures in the same sence, because of the deepnes thereof: but the sayinges thereof some interprete one way, and some another, so that there may almoste as manie sences be picked out of it, as there be men. For Nouatian doth expounde it one way, and Sabellius another way, otherwise Arrius, Eunomius, Macedonius, other­wayes Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillianus, other­wayes Iouinian, Pelagius, Celestus, lastlie otherwayes Victorius. Thus farr he who as you see expresselie admitteth as necessarie the rule of Ecclesiasticall au­thoritie, besides the scriptures which is that we con­tend aboute.

PILK.

This clearelie is S. Aug. doctrine, and the [Page 112] rest of the fathers & not your crooked inference, that the authority of the churche is a more vni­uersall and more auncient rule then the scriptu­res, for where hath he anie word to this purpose? I woulde not haue beleeued the gospel, except the authoritie of the churche had moued me, are too weake to inserr any such like conclusion, thoughe we admitte them in your corrupt tran­slation. For it is plaine, he speaketh not these wordes of the present tyme, when he was a Bishoppe as you reade them, but of the tyme past when he was a Manichy. Beinge a Catho­licke & a Bishoppe when he writte that booke, he had farr other motiues to beleeue the Gospell then the authority of the church which here he alone nameth. Take one place for a thousande, I take my conscience to witnes (Honoratus) and God that dwelleth in pure myndes, that I thinke nothinge more wise, chaste, religious, then all these scriptures, which the catholicke churche retayneth vnder the name of the olde and new testament, I knowe thou wounderest, but I can­not d [...]ssemble; I was otherwise persuaded. How­soeuer then beinge an hereticke, he thought of the scriptures, yett nowe become a catholicke he beleeued them, for that prudence chastitie pietie which he founde in them.

CHAMP.

Nowe lett vs see howe you will quitte your selfe of the authority of S. Aug: sett downe in the Ma­nuall; you say it is too weake to serue our turne, be­cause he spake not of the present tyme when he was Byshoppe and wrote that booke, but when he was a [Page 113] Manichie (A poore and silie shifte God wotte) lett his owne wordes witnes what his meaning is. Ego Euāgelio non crederem, nisi me Ecclesi [...]s cō ­moueret I woulde not beleeue the Gospell, but that the churches authority did moue me; He saith not nō credidissem nisi commo [...]isset I had not beleeued had not the authoritie moued me, as you corruptlie trans­late, or if I doe produce your coppie, for myne hath crederem & commoueret which if you will translate had beleeued and had moued, you shall be putt to your Accidence againe.

But beit that he spake of himselfe as being a Mani­chie, (which is as true as that he was a Manichie when he wrote this) this is so far from fauoringe your cause, that it maketh it much worse. For if the churches authoritie had force to moue an hereticke to beleeue the gospell, what man not depriued of common sence will denie, but it hath at least the like force with a catholike? But you say that S. Aug: beinge a catholike, had other motiues to beleeue the scriptures then the authoritie of the churche beit so, what will you inferre thereof for your purpose, or against me? nothinge att all, yea the testimonie allea­ged by you out of him, doth sufficiently witnes that the authority of the church did still moue him to be­leeue the scriptures, seeing he restraineth himselfe to those scriptures which the catholike churche recei­ueth and retayneth.

PILK.

Againe if by the churche you meane the pre­sent Bell. li. [...] de Sacra. cap. 25. church, and by the present church her rulers and guides as your consorts vsuallie doe, then is it most absurde to thinke that S. August: and the rest of the Bishoppes of his tyme beleeued the gos­pell for the authoritie of the churche, for that had been for theire owne authoritie, and so they had beleeued the gospell for themselues.

CHAMP.

If you hadd but one dramme of good Logicke, you could not but haue seene your argument to haue been most idle, and not beseeminge a doctor of diuinitie. For no nouice in logicke but knoweth, that an argument taken from all the partes together, or collectiue to euerie one in seuerall or particular, con­cludeth nothinge affirmatiuelie. Such an one is yours beinge this is substance. S. Aug. and the rest of the bishoppes beleeue the Gospell for the autho­ritie of the present churche; but S. Aug. and the rest of the Bishoppes are the present churche, ergo they beleeue the Gospell for themselues. Or if you doe not yett see your owne seelines in this argument, compare it with this and peraduenture you will es­pie it. Richarde Pilkinton and the rest of the mini­sters of the churche of Englande beleeue the 39. ar­ticles to be good and lawfull for the authoritie of the churche of Englande. But Richarde Pilkinton and the rest of the ministers are the churche of En­glande, ergo they beleeue the 39. articles for them­selues.

PILK.

But if diuers papists be not deceiued S. Aug. meaneth not the present churche, but the chur­che which was in the Apostles tyme, that sawe Christs miracles, and heard his preachinge, and so this speach of S. August helpeth you nothinge, excepte you canne prooue that the present chur­che, hath the same authoritie with the Apostles, Driedo l. 4. c. 4. de dogm. Aug. con. Faust. lib. 2. cap. 5 Hieron. in Psal. 86. which your owne Driedo flathe denieth. Eccle­sia primitiua propter collegium Apostolo­rum, ad tradendam nouam nostrae fidei Doctrinam, maioris erat gratiae, maioris (que) authoritatis quam Ecclesia quae nunc est. Accordinge to the Doctrine of S. August. and Hierome.

CHAMP.

Thoughe S. Aug. shoulde meane the churche in the Apostles tyme excludinge the present churche (which is false) yett woulde this ouerthrowe your cause. For whence coulde he receiue the testimonie of that churche, but by authoritie of the churches present and precedent? And yett this serueth suffi­cientlie my turne to prooue some other rule of be­leefe besides and before the scriptures, which is our controuersie here. That which you alleage out of our Driedo doth not prooue the present churche to be lesse infallible in her iudgmēt in matters of faith, then the churche in the Apostles tyme, neither doth anie catholicke say so. For seinge it is gouerned by the same spirit of truth which was promised shoulde remaine with her for euer, shee cannot be more subiect to errour nowe, then shee was at that tyme. Therfore that which Driedo saith is, that the primatiue churche by reason of the colledge of the Apostles. had power to deliuer newe doctrine of faith which the succedinge church hath not; but hath infallible authoritie to teache that faith which shee receaued of the Apostles. And this you might easilie haue seene to haue been Driedoes Doctrine, if you had taken but anie ordinarie heede to his wordes.

PILK.

Neuertheles to passe by this & to graunte that S. Augustin, a Catholicke and a Bis­hoppe, woulde not beleeue the Gospell, but that the authoritie of the churche moued him; is euerie motiue to beleeue, a rule of faith? No­thinge lesse. For the rule is that whereunto faith is lastlie resolued, which is not into the autho­ritie of the churche, as your best diuines teach, but into the scriptures.

CHAMP.

You might well haue past by all this indeede, and also that which followeth, had you not rather cho­sen to fil your paper with your impertinencies, to the publishinge of your owne small iudgement. If you take the rule of [...]aith so strictlie as it contayneth on­lie that whereunto faith is lastlie resolued, you will make onlie God reuelinge his verities to be the rule of faith, and then you must exclude not onlie the churche but the scriptures also. But if you take it for a true ground of beleefe, then that testimonie which so moueth to faith as it ingendreth faith in vs, may trulie be sayde to be a rule of faith, & such a motiue S. Aug: saith the churche is.

PILK.

And there vppon Cameracensis speakinge of In 1. Sent. q. 1. art. 3. this place of S. Aug: saith, that it proueth not that he beleeued the gospell thoroughe the chur­ches authoritie, as by a Theologicall principle, whereby the gospell might be prooued true, but onlie as by a cause mouinge him to creditt it, as if he shoulde say, I woulde not beleeue the gos­pell vnles the holynes of the churche or Christes miracles did moue me. In which sayinge thoughe some cause of his beleeuinge be assigned, yet no former principle is touched whose creditt might be the cause why the gospell shoulde be beleeued.

CHAMP.

It appeareth well you vnderstande not what Ca­meracensis saith, or else that you care not what you say, so that you say somethinge. He saith the scriptu­res are not prooued by the authority of the churche as by a Theologicall principle or argument ab intrin­seco but as a motiue from authority or ab extrinseco, which is that all men say, and which I only desire to prooue by S. Augustines testimonie. For if the church [Page 117] be a motiue, to beleeue the scriptures, it must neces­sarilie be before the scriptures, and consequentlie be a more vniuersall rule, cause or motiue of faith and beleefe then the scriptures.

PILK.

Bellarmine saith, that S. Aug. speaketh these wordes of the authoritie of the churche, as of a cause propoundinge what is to be beleeued, and not of the foundation of faith. But the proposi­tion of the churche is not the rule and resolu­tion In 2. 2. q. 1. art. 1. [...] of faith, but onlie a condition requisite of beleeuinge as Valent. teacheth in 22. tom. 3. de obiecto fidei.

CHAMP.

It is a most irkesome and importunate thinge to haue to doe with with an ignorant aduersarie, that knoweth not what he shoulde either prooue or de­nie. Such an one you shewe your selfe to be. For if you take from the scripture which you trulie teache to be a rule of our faith, the authoritie to propose, manifest, and testify articles of beleefe, see howe you will make it a rule of faith. Seeinge therefore you geue to the churche these thinges without which the scriptures are not a rule of faith, why should you deny it to be also a rule of faith? But the churche (you say) is not the foundation or resolu­tion of faith (I speake in your owne phrase thoughe improperlie that you may vnderstande) and therfore is it not anie rule thereof. If this argument conclude anie thinge, it will also prooue the scriptures to be noe rule of faith. For it is neither foundation, nor resolution of faith, if you vnderstande the first and chiefe foundation, or last resolution (as I tould you before) vnles you will make it to be God himselfe. But if you take foundation for that which doth grounde our faith in a certaine and sure kinde of in­fallible testimonie, in which sence al men speake, [Page 118] that knowe what they speake, thē are both the scrip­tures and the churche also foundations and groundes of our faith.

PILK.

And surelie if. S. Aug, had meant that the authoritie of the churche had beene this rule which is your inference, he had excluded all other rules. For he that saith, I would not be­leeue excepte the authoritie of the churche moued me, establisheth one cause, remoueth the rest. But this none of you dare accorde vnto, & is as farr from S. Aug. meaninge as your next wordes are from truth. If therefore the authori­tie of the churche be a sufficient motiue, for a motiue it is, which none of vs euer denyed, but that it is a sufficient motiue, neither canne you prooue, nor yett S. August. anie where auoucheth.

CHAMP.

S. Aug. wordes (which are to be beleeued before your bare negation are most cleare, that without the testimonie or authoritie of the churche he hadd not beleeued the Gospell, and consequentlie that the churche was cause, rule, and motiue of his beleefe, not in that degree that God is the rule or foundation of our faith; for so we shoulde make S Aug. as sen­celesse as Mr. Pilkinton, but in the like kinde or de­gree that the scriptures are, but yett before the scriptures, because he beleeued them for the chur­ches authoritie. And therefore you see S. Aug. to say that which the Manuall saith; that there is some other rule of faith before and more vniuersall then the scriptures, seeinge that for it, and by it the scrip­tures are beleeued.

MANVALL SECTIO 8.

The second thinge to be noted is, that they which beleeue nothinge but that which is prooued by scripture, are euiden­tlie conuinced to beleeue nothinge at all. For they that cannott beleeue that there is an holy scripture, or what bookes be holy scripture, cannott beleeue anie thinge, be­cause it is prooued by scripture: for it is eui­dent that before they beleeue anie thinge, because it is prooued by scripture, they must first beleeue that there is a holy scrip­ture, and what bookes are scripture. But they that beleeue not anie thinge but that which is prooued by scripture, cannot be­leeue that there is a scripture, nor what bookes are holy scripture. For neither of these two canne be prooued by holy scrip­ture. Therefore they that beleeue not anie thinge but that which is prooued by scrip­ture, cannott beleeue anie thinge att all. This argument is a playne demonstration and compelleth the protestants either to confesse that they haue noe faith att all, or to acknowledge this their position to witt, that nothinge ought or can rightlie be be­leeued, but that which may be prooued by scripture, to acknowledge I say this po­sition, to be false: which notwithstandin­ge is one mayne grounde of all theire re­ligion.

PILK.

When a souldier that killed Marius came to cutt of his head, he drewe out his sworde and told him (hie est gladius quem ipse fecisti) for Marius formerlie had been a cutter. The groundes that you haue layde, cutt the throate of your faith; but raseth not the skinne of the protestants. For I haue shewed before that scrip­tures doe sufficiently prooue themselues to be the worde of God, and these and these bookes to be such, whereon it followeth your conuincinge demonstration that protestants beleeue nothinge att all, to be a windy friuoulous discourse, whe­reas such conclusions may be drawne from your principles, as will prooue (vulnera in capite canis) you will not easilie licke them hole.

CHAMP.

Remoue the sworde first from your owne throate whi [...]h [...] presseth to harde, and after may you attēpt to pietie your aduersarie with it. You haue hitherto made a [...]able shewe of anie proofe, but of your owne in re [...]lible ignorance and impertinencie, ioy­ned with wilfull stande to de [...]e [...]e your reader. If you defend your pro [...]esta [...]s no better then hitherto you [...]ue, they will be euidentlie concluded to be­lieue nothinge att all by the argument proposed, which [...]e you cannott tell where to begin to solue o [...] an [...]we [...]e, you make a Thrasonicall and glo­rious sh [...]we of contempt of it, as manie of yours [...], and [...]elie your grand maister Calluine when [...]most prest and hath least to say for himselfe. Are you n [...] ashamed to lett myne argument stand as a [...]phey against you & your heresie without saying one worde in answere of it, idlie supposinge that you haue sayde somethinge to it before? But seeinge you dare not sett vppon mine argument to satisfi it, [Page 121] which you should first haue donne, lett vs see what incurable woundes you geue vnto me out of myne owne principles.

PILK.

For they that relie theire faith vppon humane testimonies originallie, are conuinced to haue no faith att all: for faith commeth by hearinge, and hearinge by the worde of God: But you papists re­lie your faith vppon humane testimonies origi­nallie, when you ground it on the authoritie of the churche, which you say is a more vniuersall rule and more auncient then the scriptures. Now then make the conclusion as pleaseth you.

CHAMP.

I graunte your proposition or maior, and deny your minor. For where learned you to terme the au­thoritie of the churche, humane testimonie, seeinge the holy ghost stileth the churche the house of God, 1. ad Ti. [...]. the piller and grounde of truth? your conclusion the­refore is blowne away like a fether. So that the wounde which you thought woulde prooue so grie­uous, is not so much as the blowe of a litle childe. Spitt therefore vppon your handes, take better hold, and strike more manfullie or else geue your bill to another. But so hoodewinkt you are either with ig­norance or malice, that strikinge at your aduersarie, you hitt your selfe. For whilst you say with S. Paule, that faith commeth by hearinge & hearinge by the worde of God; you prooue that the scripture or the word written, which is not hearde but reade; is not the first meanes of our saith; but the worde of God preached (as S. Paule sayth in the same place) which was before the scriptures.

PILK.

From hence commeth all this warr that we will not grounde our faith vppon the totteringe [Page 122] wall of humane authoritie as you doe, but cleaue fast to the sacred scriptures beleeuinge nothinge (as Paule taught) but that which was written in Moises and the prophetts, which we reioyce to haue made the meane & grounde of our religion.

CHAMP.

A stoute Champion I wisse, that after the first blowe. and that a verie weake one, casteth downe his armes, and thinkinge to ouerthrowe his aduer­sarie with wordes, falleth to raylinge, as if he hoped to gaine the victorie, rather by his stinkinge breath, then by strength of hande stroakes. You hauing been att the schoole of the father of all falsehoode, haue learned to call the churche of God and the infallible authoritie thereof, the totteringe wall of humane authoritie, which the holy ghoste by the mouth of this Apostle, stileth the piller and ground of truth; wherby as by manie other passages you shewe what honour and respect you beare vnto the holy scriptu­res, seeinge you dare so disdainfullie debase the house of God, which they so highelie prise and extoll. You farther glorie in that you beleeue no­thinge but which is written in Moises and the pro­phettes, whereby you prooue your selfe to be a Iewe and no Christian. Either retract this Iewishe propo­sition of yours, or blotte, out of your Bibles the whole newe testament, that you may be knowne to be noe Christian, and that you may fill vppe the measure of your grande mayster Martin Luther who hath longe since cast out diuers bookes out of the newe testament, besides those he hath reiected out of the oulde. You seeme to father this your fowle doctrine vppon S. Paule (thoughe you dayne him not the honour of S. Paule) but why doe you not poynte att the place where he teacheth it! If S. Paule had been of this minde that you woulde seeme to make him of, in vayne did he write his Epistells, & in vayne did the rest of the Apostles and Euangelists [Page 123] write theire workes. Againe suppose S. Paule had written anie such thinge in his letters or Epistles, howe woulde you make anie man beleeue that Epistle to be his, and therefore to be canonicall scriptures, vnlesse you will vse the authoritie of tra­dition and the churches testimonie? All the witt and cunning you haue, yea thoughe you borrowed all that of the rest of the ministers in the worlde, will not shape a sufficient answere to this question.

PILK.

And which if we coulde not prooue, yett canne we not be conuinced to haue noe faith, because they are principles against which none dare open his mouth, that anie way woulde haue himselfe to be counted a Christian, as S. Tract. 2. in Epist. 10. Aug. spake. For as other artes and sciences are sufficientlie knowne & credited without proofe of theire principles, so matters diuine are per­fectlie and demonstratiuelie persuaded vnto vs Stroma. lib. 7. from this indemonstrable principle of the holy scriptures, saith Clemens, and are not prooued by iudgment but comprehended by faith.

CHAMP.

Why doe you say, (which i [...] we coulde not proo­ue) as thoughe you had some meane to prooue it without traditions and the churches authoritie? But they are principle, (you say and therefore not to be prooued. The scriptures are principles of faith in deede in a certayne degree; but they are not prime principles which onlie are to be beleeued for them­selues without anie further proofe, vnles (as I toulde you before you will make them to be God, who onlie is to be beleeued for his owne proper veritie and all other verities for him. And when you say out of S. Aug. that none dare open their mouth against them that will be counted a christian, I woulde a [...]ke [Page 120] [...] [Page 121] [...] [Page 122] [...] [Page 123] [...] [Page 124] you what you esteeme of your father in reformation Martin Luther, whome some of his disciples as you knowe stile the seconde Elias, the fifte Euangelist, the second or thirde person in heauen after Christe, who with a greate troope of his schollers, doth not onlie open his mouth to call into question diuers of the Apostles writinges, but absolutelie casteth them out of the Canon? will you censure him to be noe christian? if you doe you shall be a cursed childe of a more cursed father. Yea what will you thinke of your selfe and all the rest of your crewe, who cast out of the Canon so manie of those bookes which S. Aug. whose authoritie you cite, alwayes estee­med to be canonicall scripture? See whether you haue not pronounced sentence with your owne mouth against your selfe, and condemned your selfe to be noe Christian? If you shoulde eate noe bread till you quitt your selfe of this indictment, I dare vndertake to finde you bread for sixe pence so longe as you liue. Howsoeuer, hereby at least it is cleare that the scriptures are not such principles of our faith as beinge not prooued to be written by the holy Ghost, may be doubted of, and therefore necessari­lie require to be sufficientlie prooued before they can be groundes of other articles of our faith. Whē you or anie for you shall solue this argument, I shall esteeme you not vnworthy of a doctours cap.

S. Aug. hath good reason to say that no Christian dare to open his mouth against the scriptures recei­ued by the catholicke churche. For so shoulde he be worthyly esteemed as a publican and heathen by theMatt. 18. testimonie of our Sauiour Christ himselfe. And ther­fore is Luther and Caluine with theire viperous ge­neration worthilie censured as heretikes, thoughe they had no other errours but that of reiectinge with obstinacie the canonicall scriptures.

That which you bringe out of Clemens (were it as you sett it downe) is nothinge to your purpose. For we knowe the scriptures to be indemonstrable [Page 125] by reason, but yett to be prooued by authoritie, as all other articles of fayth are. And nowe looke ouer once more your cardes and weigh well with your selfe, whether this proposition admitted for true, which is one of your principles; That nothinge is to be beleeued that is not prooued by scriptures, whe­ther (I say) the Manuall doth not directlie conuince the protestants (who professe that they cannot prooue the scriptures to be scriptures) to beleeue no­thinge at all.

MANVALL SECTION 9.

But nowe hauinge shewed the absurdi­tie of theire doctrine in this point, I will ioyne with them in the scriptures, as they themselues doe desire, obseruinge this me­thode. First I sett downe the Catholicke Romane beleefe in direct and plaine posi­tions: then I bringe in proofe of it one two or more places of holy scriptures, citinge the auncient vulgar translation and often tymes I add the testimonie of some aunciēt father of the first fiue hundreth yeeres, vn­derstandinge such scriptures as I cite in the same sence and meaninge that I cite them for. Furthermore those fewe places of scrip­ture, which seeme to sounde directlie a­gainst the catholicke faith, I shewe in breefe howe they are to be vnderstoode. And last of all I putt downe the position contradic­torie to the Catholicke doctrine: to the end that the indifferent reader (be he catholicke or otherwise) may more easily iudge whe­ther doctrine hath better grounde in holy scriptures. And further that he that will [Page 126] impugne this treatise may see what he hath to prooue, if he will prooue anie thinge to purpose.

PILK.

Zebull iudged men to be shadowes of moun­taines; and you Christian verities nouell absur­dities. But as Nicomachus the painter answe­red a skilfull felowe, that iudged the picture of Helen drawne by Zeuxes not to be beautifull; take myne eyes saith he, & thou wilt th [...]nke her to be a goddesse: So if you looke with spiritual eies, you woulde easilie conceiue them to be diuine verities, which you imagine to be palbable absur­dities. For lacke whereof you proceede to beate your aduersaries with theire owne weapons of holy scriptures, and you tell them howe you will marshall your forces.

CHAMP.

Zebull (if you say true) imagined men to be shad­dowes, and you contrariwise imagine shaddowes to be men: I doubt not but if I shoulde take your eies to looke vppon your worke, I shoulde thinke as you doe, a [...]rogge to be as faire as Diana. You say I pro­ceede to beate my aduersaries with their owne wea­pons. But the scriptures are not mine aduersaries weapons, but as they steale them to impugne the truth with: as theeues doe true mens weapons.

PILK.

First you will sett downe your saith in direct positions. and that you haue donne as streight as a Rams horne.

CHAMP.

Marke you the crookednes and discouerit, that others may see it besides your selfe.

PILK.

Secondly you will prooue it by holy scriptures which you cite to as good purpose as the deuill did against Christ.

CHAMP.

Note you the impertinencies when they occurre, and discouer them that other men may see them as well as your selfe.

PILK.

Thirdlie you will produce them in the aun­cientBibl. com­plut. in prefat. vulgar translation: no maruell, for that hangeth betweene the greeke and the Hebrue, as Christ did betweene the two theeues in your friendes opinion: whereas it hath been the Ca­meryne that hath vented from it manie of your errours. Hence you haue marriage to be a Sacrament, because your translation readeth, magnum hoc Sacramentū, and in greeke it is Mysterion. Hence almes to be meritorious because huiusmodi sacrificijs promeritur Deus, and in the greeke it is [...]. Hence definitions of councels to proceede frō the holy ghost, because in this corrupte false version it is read, the holy spiritt shall suggest vnto you all thinges, that I will say, whereas it is in the originall that I haue sayde. Infinite almost are the additions, detractions, deprauations, wherewith this sweet translation of yours hath corrupted the fountay­nes. That Isodore Clarius woundered at the ne­gligence of learned men that haue not purged it from these inumerable errours, wherewith it swarmeth and wherein himselfe had obserued and rectified eight thousande places, and yett [Page 128] this is the apparrell wherein you will sett before vs the holy scriptures.

CHAMP.

Take you here the counsell the painter gaue to the vnskilfull censurer of Zeuxis worke, which you spake of not farr before, and looke vppon the vulgar translation with S. Ambrose. S. Aug. S, Hie­rome and S. Gregories eyes, with the rest of all the Latine fathers, who liued a thousande yeeres before your heresie was hatched, whose iudgments are of more authoritie then manie Clarius, and you will finde it to be intire, perfect and good. Your excep­tions against it with manie moe are alreadie answe­red by Bellarmine, which answeres shall stande for good till you confute them. This is all your learning, to repeate olde ouerworne obiections, and to con­ceale their answeres; a greate peece of witt I wisse.

PILK.

Fowerthlie you will adde the testimonie of some auncient father, whome neuerthelesse you regarde no further, then you canne make them speake your language, which if they doe not, you canne shaue theire lockes, and scrape theire tounges, and make them pronounce Siboleth for Shiboleth as your purginge indexes doe pro­clayme vnto the worlde.

CHAMP.

This arte of shauinge and scrapinge I leaue to you and yours, who are so accustomed thereunto that they cannot deale otherwise. Your industrie in this kinde hath been sufficientlie shewed in the fewe pre­cedent pages. Our Indexes doe not corrupt the fa­thers wordes and sentences, as you foolishlie or ma­liciouslie insinuate, but they note plainlie the faults of later writers; which plaine and open dealinge if you would vse, no fault would be found with you.

PILK.

Fiftlie you will answere, these scriptures which seeme to contradict your faith. Then if the same right belōge to Accius that is to Titius, you will afforde your aduersarie the like libertie.

CHAMP.

You are not prohibited to vse it to your best and moste aduantage.

PILK.

Sixtlie you will sett downe the contradictory positions, that the reader may iudge, and the answerer finde what he hath to prooue, if he will prooue anie thinge to the purpose. But some of these positions you haue deuised out of your owne brayne, which noe protestant euer allowed, and so you fight with your owne shadowe, and then triumph as Tereus the poet. Vicimus ex­clamat, mecum mea vota feruntur.

CHAMP.

You haue your answere to this in the refutation of your rolle of forged positions. Looke backe thi­ther and see whether you or I may be sayde to be de­uisers or forgers of false positions.

MANVALL SECTION 10.

Who is to vnderstande, that though the protestants doe maintayne the negatiue parte in almost all the positions contiouer­ted betweene them and the catholikes, yet is he not for all that not to be excused from the proofe of those points, vnlesse he will withall confesse that in thē the protestants haue no faith at all, but onlie a meere de­nyall of faith. For faith beinge not a simple denyinge, or not beleeuinge, but a positiue [Page 130] assent, and beleefe of such articles, as are re­uealed vnto vs by God, it hath positiue groundes, whereby it may and ought to be prooued, euen in those points which are negatiue. And therefore as catholikes doe prooue theire faith in these negatiue pointes; that onlie faith doth not iustifie; that we are not certaine of our iustification or saluation, and the like: So likewise are the protestants to prooue theire faith in these: that there is no purgatorie: no reall presence: no sacrifice of the Masse, and the rest; vnles as is sayde before they will cō ­fesse, that they haue no fayth in these points, but onlie a meere deniall of faith.

For it is a farre different thinge, not to be­leeue purgatorie to be, for example; and to beleeue purgatory not to be. The first being a mee [...]e negatiue or deniall of anie act of faith; the secōd beinge a positiue act of faith of a negatiue obiect. Hauinge thus aduerti­sed the good reader of these fewe thinges, I leaue thee to peruse the treatise it selfe, desiringe thee to expect onlie the bare posi­tions prooued with the selfe text of holy scripture, and some fewe fathers, without anie flourishe of wordes att all. The worke beinge such as it doth rather resemble the bones of a great bodie tyed together, with dryed sinewes, then a body througlie fur­nished with fleshe and other habiliments of friendlie nature. For which cause thou­ghe [Page 131] to such as rather respect fashion then substance, it may happe to appeare hideous, yett to others of contrarie appetite, (for whose contentment it is speciallie inten­ded) it will not peraduenture be iudged al­together without forme.

PILK.

If non credimus quia non legimus, beaHier. cont. Heluid. cap. 9. sufficient argument, as both the scriptures and the fathers teach vs, we shall with noe great dif­ficultie prooue our faith, as well in the negatiue as in the affirmatiue.

CHAMP.

Non credimus quia non legimus is not a sufficient argument of faith, but in such points only as are prooued neither by tradition nor by scripture, of which sorte was the heresie of Heluidius; denyinge the perpetuall virginitie of the blessed virgin; which falsitie beinge contrarie to the receiued tradition of the whole church & not prooued by holy scripture, was sufficientlie refuted by S. Hierome sayinge; non credimus quia non legimus. Which saying is not any argument for the deniall of such articles of faith as are proued either by scripture or traditions, & much lesse for them that are proued by bothe.

PILK.

For S. Paule proouinge Christe to be aboue the angells in regarde of his originall, that he is the sonne of God. Heb. 1. 5. and in regarde of his maiestie, that he sitteth at his right hande verse 13. taketh his argument from the scriptures negatiuelie. To none of the Angells he sayde &c.

CHAMP.

S. Paule taketh not his negatiue argument from [Page 132] the scriptures onlie, but absolutly from all diuine testimonie sayinge. Cui Angeloru [...] d [...] Or if you will haue S. Paule to argue out of the scriptures only, tell me out of what scripture he concludeth this. Nonne omnes suns administratoris spiritus in ministe­rium missi propter eo [...]. oui hereditatem ca [...]iun [...] salutis? vnles you will suppose that for graunted vnto you, which is in controuersie, to wit that there i [...] no other diuine testimonie but that which is written, this in­stance of S. Paules argument serueth you for no­thinge.

PILK.

S. August. often chargeth the Donatists toCap. 12. prooue theire churche out of the scripture, and he will beleeue, if not he will reiect them, spe­ciallie in his booke de vnitate Ecclesiae, if they cannott (saith he) reade these thinges in the scripture but persuade them by their contentiōs, I will beleeue those thinges that are written inDe carne Christi cap. 7. Orig hom. 1. in lere. cir mediū. De vocat gent cap. 3 libr. 4. Mat. c. 23. the scriptures: I beleeue not those thinges that are spoken by vaine heretikes; I receiue not that which from without the scripture (saith Ter­tullian) thou producest of thyne owne; without the scriptures our sences or expositions haue no creditt saith Origen. Who will speake when the holy scriptures speake not? saith Ambrose. Many saith Hierome thinke Zacharie to be the Fa­ther of Iohn and that he was slayne because he preached the comminge of Christe. This thinge because it hath no authoritie from scripture, is with like facilitie contemned, as it is prooued.

CHAMP.

All these sayinges of the fathers howe trulie soe­uer cited (which I will not stande heere to examine) doe prooue (if they prooue anie thinge, that you are [Page 133] bound to produce positiue testimonies out of the scriptures for your negatiue faith, if you will be thought to haue anie faith att all in them, and not a meere denyall or negation of faith. For you must vnderstande, that it is one thinge to beleeue that there is noe purgatorie, for example, and another thinge not to beleeue that there is a purgatorie. The first beinge a positiue act of faith, requiringe also a positiue testimonie and reuelation of God, thoughe of a negatiue article; the other is a mere denyall or negation of faith of a positiue article, and is as well in horses or asses as in men; onlie with this differen­ce, that men are capable and may haue the contra­rie positiue act; but horses and asses cannot. If your faith therefore of the negatiue articles which you houlde, be of the first kinde, you are bounde to proo­ue it by positiue testimonie of holy scripture If it be onlie of the second kinde, then haue you no more faith in these articles then haue horses, asses or other brute beastes. Nowe to the fathers testimonies so farr as they may seeme to make anie thinge against the catholicke doctrine of traditions or the churches au­thoritie, I answere (supposinge they sounde as you sett them downe, which I will not stande to exa­mineLib 1. con. Crescon. cap. 33. Epist. 1. ad Sympron. here) that whatsoeuer is prooued by traditions or the churches iudgment, is warranted by the scrip­ture, which geueth testimonie to the churche and traditions. Which answere is S. August. lib. 1. cont. Crescon. cap. 33.

PILK.

Therefore concerninge the profe of our faith in the negatiue points of purgatorie, Reall pre­sence, Sacrifice of the Masse; sith there is noe foo­tinge for them in the worde of God, we ans­were with Basill, that it is not faith, but a manifest defection from faith to denie that which is written, or to bringe in anie thinge [Page 134] that is not written, where as Christ IESVS our Lorde saith, my sheepe heare my voice.

CHAMP.

The iudicious reader shalbe iudge whether these catholike articles haue not much faster footinge in the holy scriptures, then your contiarie negatiues. Neither doth S. Basill anie wayes fauour you. For he confirminge his sayinge with these wordes of our Sauiour, my sheepe heare my voyce; excludeth not that worde of our Sauiour which is more properlie his worde then the scripture. For he sayth not my scriptures, but my sheepe heare my voyce; therfore he speaketh of the voyce as it is deliuered by worde, and not as it is written.

PILK.

And yett to satisfy you, we shall finde suffi­cient weapons out of the scriptures to lay these Anekims on the grounde. Nowe as the Roman Emperour that meant to subdue Germanie, brought out his armie, and put them in aray vppon the sea shoore, and presentlie charged them to gather shelles, tellinge them that they were spoyles of the Ocean, due to the capitoll: So you hauinge marshalled your forces and putt them in order, tell your reader, that the whole body of them is but a Scheleton, bare bones, tyed together with drye Sinewes, and then without question you will attaine a glorious victorie, and bringe spoyles fitt for the vaticane. Yet you doubt not but your treatise will please some mens appetite, and I am of your minde, for like lippes like lettuce. Thus from your prolu­sion I come to your mayne battaille, which thus you beginne.

CHAMP.

What sharpe weapons you wil finde in the scrip­tures, for▪ your negatiue faith, or no beleefe, I will with patience expect, and hauinge with all indiffe­rencie pondered them, I will tell you with all since­ritie, what weight they are of, in my iudgment. In the meane tyme I must tel you, that your conclusion seemeth to me as litle wittie, as all the rest of your discourse is learned, and therfore findinge by the litle experience I haue of you, that such lettuce sute well with your lippes, I leaue them wholy to your selfe.

Manuall. The first controuersie.

It is knowne that the catholike Roman churche doth admitte more bookes and parcelles of holy Bible for scripture then the protestants doe, and cons [...]quently ac­knowledge a larger Canon then they, and yett notwithstandinge shee teacheth.

PILK.

The Grecians are euer children, rightlie fitteth you Romanists that still lispe like littell chil­dren, and excellentlie speake without sence For to say the catholike Romane church, is as good sence as the vniuersall particular churche.

CHAMP.

It is your dull vnderstandinge, and not our lisping language that maketh these wordes the Catholicke Roman [...]hur [...]h without sence to you. For the attri­bute Romane doth not restraine anie whit the am­plitude of the signification of that worde catholicke or vniuersall either in re [...]pect of tyme or place as you ignorantlie imagine; but doth onlie distinguish it from all such sects as falselie and presumptuously ter­me themselues catholike, but dare not call themsel­ues Romās or Roman Catholickes. As in former ages [Page 136] the worde catholike was added to the name chri­stian for the same purpose as auncient Pacianus sig­nifieth Therefore when we say a Roman Catholike we woulde say no more but a true, and not a falsely termed catholike. And because you are a member of one of those sects which are discried by this worde Romane, you hate it as theeues hate the light, whe­reby they are discouered.

PILK.

For who can conceiue the catholike churche to be Roman, which was in the worlde before Rome it selfe was, for it is the generall assembly of the Saints Heb. 12. [...]3. from Abell the first iust, vnto the last that shall beleeue in Christe, as S. Aug: speaketh. Moreouer all the nations in the worlde, not the Romans were promised to Christ psal. 2. Aske of me and I will geue thee the gentiles for thine inheritance, and the vtter­most partes of the earth for thy possession, and so S. Aug: writeth, that God promised to the seede of Abraham, not the Romans, but all the gentils, and sealed it with an oathe, by which promise it came to passe, that manie nations not contayned vnder the Roman iurisdiction receiued the Gospell, and were ioyned vnto the churche.

CHAMP.Reede Pacianus of the a [...]di­tiō of this name to the churche in the epistle ci­ted. Matt. 16.

There is no greater difficultie to conceiue howe the catholike churche may be called Roman, then howe the christian churche (which denomination began first at Antioch is called Catholike. And if you would knowe he reason why it is denominated of Rome rather then of Antioche or Hierusalem, it is because S. Peeter, who was Bishoppe of Rome receiued promise of our Sauiour Christ, that his churche shoulde be builte vppon him, as vppon a [Page 137] firme rocke, and that hell gates shoulde neuer pre­uaile against it. Which promise our Sauiour Christ hauinge performed, it is come to passe that the chur­che of Christe which was first called christian, then Catholike, is nowe called Roman, and thus much for the name Romā. Nowe I woulde haue you mar­ke, that whatsoeuer you say in proofe of this attri­bute catholike, you say in condemnation of your owne protestanticall assemblies, which were neuer hearde of before Martin Luther, no more then the Arrians were before Arrius, and the rest of the sects and heresies before theire maisters and authours. Which one argument had you but anie indifferen­cie, ioyned with anie meane iudgment, woulde be sufficient to make you detest the felloweshippe of such newe maisters.

PILK.

Besides the moderne Romane churche hath made a defection from that which the primatiue Roman church maintayned, in so much that S. Paules Epistles written to the auncient Romās, may iustlie be called an antilogie of that Reli­gion which nowe is professed in the cittie of Rome.

CHAMP.

Some substantiall proofe of this your assertion, woulde assuredlie gett you the victorie in all the rest you contende aboute, without all further dispute. But the manifest falsitie of your affirmation, doth not only make your cause desperate, but also deepe­lie woundeth your creditt, hauinge no care to affir­me so apparant vntruthes without the slenderest shewe of proofe or probabilitie att all.

PILK.

Besides we doe not finde in anie auncient creede either that of the Apostles or of Nice, or in anie other of the auncient counsells, that the [Page 138] churche was stiled the cathol [...]cke Roman. Fi­nallie howe canne a parte be the whole? Nowe the Roman churche (thoughe shee were pure) in her farthest extent, is but a parte of the vni­uersall churche.

CHAMP.

Haue you not yett learned howe vaine a thinge it is to argue ab authorita [...] ne [...]a ua? Produce you some aun ient creede, where the churche is called the christian churche, which thoughe you cannot doe; yett I hope you will not denie the catholicke churche to be rightlie so called. Neither is the Ro­man church taken for a parte of the catholike chur­che, as you either falselie or foolishlie surmise, but for the whole: as the kinge of England is not taken onlie to be kinge of Englande but of the rest of his kingdomes also, the whole takinge name of one parte, as is ordinarie euen in common speach which you cannot be ignorant of.

PILK.

Yett you say this vniuersall particular chur­che admitteth a larger Canon then the protes­tants, you meane the Apocripha. And so it stan­deth her in hand, otherwise shee might bid a dieu to diuerse profitable points that helpe her to vphoulde her Monarchie. But the churche of God before Christ receiued them not, but the same which the protestants doe embrace. Neither read we that Christe or anie of his Apostles did cite anie testimonie out of them, to confirme any doctr [...]ne by them, which they did out of all the canonicall bookes. Besides if we followe S.August. de consen. Euang c. 1 August. iudgment, whereby we may discerne suspitious writinge from canonicall, then these [Page 139] wil easilie appeare to be conterfaites. First saith he they are not such as the churche credited, & received into canonicall authoritie. Secondlie there be manie thinges imbarked in them which Apostolicall rule of faith and sound doctrine doth contradict, both these are verified of, the Apocripha. For neither the churche of God be­fore Christ receiued them, to whom were com­mitted the oracles of God. Rom. 3. 2. (which Christe woulde haue reprooued them for, if they had without iust cause reiected them, as well as he did reprehend them for the misinterpretinge of the canonicall bookes) neither yett longe af­ter Christe, did the Christian churche imbrace them. And besides in the bookes them selues: there are certaine brandes, whereby they may be discerned from the canonicall. First the ad­ditionHest. 12. 5 vnto the booke of Hester saith, that Mar­docheus had receiued rewardes for the detection of the conspiracie of the kinges Chamberlaynes; the true Hester sayth he receiued none. The sup­positiusHest. 6. 3. Hester saith, that Haman intended the the destruction of Mardocheus for detectinge the Eunuches. Hest. 12. 6. The true Hester saith forHest. 5. 2. Hest. 15. 7. Bar. 1. 2. Ier. 52. 12. 2. Reg. 25. denyinge him worshippe Hester. 3. 5. The true Hester the kinge looked gratiouslie vppon her: the conterfeit, he looked angerlie. The booke of Baruch saith that the cittie of Hierusalem was taken and burnt at the same tyme: Ieremie tea­cheth the contrarie & the bookes of the kinges. The additions vnto Daniell say that when Da­nyell deliuered Susanna he was a childe: the true [Page 140] Daniell saith that he with two others made byca. 13. 45. cap. 2. 48. the kinge were chiefe ouer 120. princes, that they might take all the accompts of the king­dome, and the kinge might not be troubled. But children vse not to be sett ouer such affaires. Commentitiues Daniell saith in the storie of Bell, that he was fed by Abacucke. 14. 36. whereas Abacucke prophesied longe before the captiuitie 1. 6. In the booke of Tobie cap. 12. 15: the Angell calleth himselfe Raphaell the Angell of the Lorde; but chapter the 5. 12. he is of the kinred of Ananias and Azarias the greate, if he be the Angell of the Lorde, he cannot be the sonne of a man. As true is that medecine wher­with the deuill is driuen away: but corporall creatures vse not to make anie impression into a substance simply intellectuall as deuills be. In Iu­dith the cruell murther committed by Symeon and Leui is propounded to be imitated cap. 8. 23. which Genesis the 49. is reprehended and ac­cursed. The booke of wisdome is falselie inti­tuled, as it had been composed by Salomon, whereas the author of it was Philo the Iewe. Ecclesiasticus craueth pardon if he come shorte in some wordes, which the penmen of the holy Ghost vsed not to doe. In the bookes of the Mac­cabies a parricide is commended that layde han­des on himselfe, which is forbidden by the lawe. So your longe Canon hath but certayn inches that are true and perfect; the rest are but lea­den and crooked; yet for all this you say.

CHAMP.

That the catholike Romane churche admitteth a larger Canon, that is (as the Manuall saith) moe bookes and parcells of the Bible for holy scripture, then the protestants doe, is so manifest that you dare not denie it. Nowe whether these bookes, and par­cells of bookes be apocripha or noe, is in contro­uersie, you affirminge them so to be, and we deny­inge it. Which question cannot here be disputed or discussed for confoundinge of matters. Onlie this I say by the way to your obiections made against them; that if you doe stand to S. Aug iudgment in this pointe (to whome you make shewe to appeale) the cause is lost on your parte, and if you will notSee what is noted of this be­fore in my answere to your secōd Antithesis beleeue me, reade his seconde booke de Doctrina Christiana cap 5. & 6. and be your owne iudge. Againe your exceptions against the bookes in con­trouersie are such, as if they were admitted for suf­ficient to prooue them Apocripha, I dare vndertake to prooue all or the most parte of the bookes in the Bible to be Apocripha. And this I will make good whensoeuer you dare vppon equall conditions to chalenge me therunto. See therfore I pray what a friende you are to the holy scripture, that open such and so wide a gappe, to take quite away all scrip­ture. And this shall suffice for answere to all your tedious discourse in this section.

Manuall Catholike position the first.

That all such articles as by her (the Ca­tholike Roman churche) and the protes­tants, are beleeued and holden for articles of faith, are not so expressely contayned in the holy scriptures, as out of them onlie full proofe may be made thereof.

PILK.

This position is so doubtfullie sett downe as [Page 142] if of purpose you would walke in a cloude, that your reader might not perceiue you. For if by ex­presselie, you meane wordes and sillables; then it is true that all articles of faith are not con­tayned in holy scriptures in so manie wordes: but if you meane the sence and substance, and that which may be deduced by necessarie conse­quence, then it is false that full proofe cannot be made of all articles of faith out of scripture. In the former sence, there is not anie protestant, that hath taught that the scriptures expresselie contayne all articles of faith, and this you pa­pists knowe. For Eckius reprooueth the Luthe­rans, for that they will haue nothinge beleeued, but which is expresse scripture, or can be prooued out of scriptures. So that your owne side per­ceiue we beleeue thinges that are not expresselie sett downe in scriptures, but nothinge which hath not a iust proofe out of it.

CHAMP.

The cloude is in your owne brayne, and not in my position, which is neither darke not doubtfull but to you; who perceiuinge it to presse and pinch, woulde gladlie finde some doubtefullnes therein. For if you had not been either blinde or blinde foul­ded, you would haue seen that the position denyeth full proofe of all articles of faith out of scriptures, in the same sence and meaninge that you professe to mayntaine the affirmatiue; and not onlie the ex­presse contayninge them in so manie wordes or sillabels.

Manuall, proofe of the Catholike position.

The articles which protestants beleeue to be of faith as well as Catholikes, and [Page 143] yett are not contayned expresselie in holy scripture, are manie, but we will geue in­stance but onlie in a fewe. First that there are three distinct persons and one only sub­stance or essence in God. Secondlie that the second and thirde persons are of the same substance, and of equall glorie with the first. Thirdelie that the thirde person pro­ceedeth from the second and from the first. Fowerthly that there are two distinct and compleat natures in our Sauiour Christ, and but one onlie person. Fiftlie that there are in him two willes and two operations, to witt of God and man, aboute all which haue been diuerse heresies as is wel known to the learned. And thoughe all these ar­ticles haue most true grounde and proofe in holy scriptures, yett are they not so ex­pressely contayned therein, as they may be fullie prooued by them alone. One exam­ple shall serue for al; to prooue the sonne of God to be consubstantial or of one sub­stance with the father, the catholikes doe alleage (and trulie) this testimonie (I andIo. 10. 30. the father are one) yett because there are moe means of being one, thē in substāce, as namelie, to be of one wil, desire, & affectiō, of which sorte of vnitie speciallie the Arrians did expound this place, alleaginge for themselues that testimonie (I pray thatIo. 17. [...]. they al may be one as thou father in me, and I in thee, that they also in vs may be [Page 144] one) Which cannot be vnderstoode of vni­tie in substance. Therefore this testimonie without the interpretation of the churche (which is the piller of truth) doth not ful­lie prooue the father and the sonne to be one in substance. The like may be sayd of the other articles here mentioned.

PILK.

What a gap you opē to Gentilisme, Iudaisme and Heresie, when you deny the maine groundes of christianitie to haue a full proofe from the scriptures, but require the helpe of tradition and authoritie of the churche, as if the authoritie of the church woulde preuaile with them, with whom the scriptures will not.

CHAMP.

Are you a doctor in diuinitie, and thinke a greate gappe to be opened to Gentilisme and Iudai [...]me by denyinge the mistery of the blessed Trinitie, to be fullie and clearlie prooued out of the scriptures only? would you if you had to doe with them goe aboute to prooue that mysterie, either out of the newe te­stament to the Iewes, or out of the whole Bible to the Gentiles? It would well become your iudgment indeede, and suteth well with the rest of your lear­ned discourses. But whatsoeuer you would doe in that case, I knowe that noe man indued with one dramme of witt, would thinke that kinde of proofe to haue anie force with them that receiue not the scriptures, thoughe they were as cleare and expresse as you coulde desire them to be. And a for the gap opened hereby to heresie: Lett the worlde that seeth so manie sects of heresies spronge out of one Luther, iudge whether your paradoxe of the sufficiencie of onlie scripture, without respecte to the churches au­thoritie and iudgment, hath not brought them forth [Page 145] and begotten them. Lett the example of Legatt te­stifie whether your position or myne open the gap wider to heresie. Finallie lett all the heresies in the worlde witnes, whether the contemninge of the churches authoritie in expoundinge of holy scriptu­res, hath not been the mother of them all. Take away therefore your paradoxe of the fulnes of scriptures, and put my position of the necessitie of the churches iudgment in declaringe the true sence and meaninge of the scriptures in practise, and the gap to all heresie will quicklie be so fast shutt, that shee will neuer more appeare in the worlde.

PILK.

But in defence of that royall and holy faith, we are verie confident that all these articles ex­pressed by you, haue both a true and full proofe from them. The trinitie of persons in the vnitie of one essence is plainlie taught: otherwise what man or Angell durst prie into that maiestie lest he were oppressed of glorie. There be three that1. Io. 3. 8. beare witnes in heauen, Father, worde & holy ghost and these three are one saith S. Iohn: And Mathewe 28. Baptise them in the name of theMatt. 28. Father, the sonne, and the holy Ghost. Which places as they prooue the vnitie of the essence in trinitie of persons, so likewise doe they, theire comon glorie, because to be, and to be glorious in the God heade, is all one as S. Aug. argueth. The procession of the holy ghost from the father and the sonne is fullie taught. Io. 15. 26. where he is termed the, Spiritt of truth that proceedeth frō the father, which verie worde S. Ioh. vseth of the to w-edged sworde, proceedinge out of the mouth of Christe, which is nothinge but the [Page 142] [...] [Page 143] [...] [Page 144] [...] [Page 145] [...] [Page 146] spiritt of his lippes, wherwith he shall striks the wicked, as Esay prophesieth. cap. 11. 4. And with the breath of his lippes he shall slay the wicked. And to shewe his procession, as well from the sonne as from the father, Christe brea­thed vppon his disciples and sayde. Receiue the holie ghost, and for that he is called the spiritt of the sonne. Gal. 4. 6. And because yee are sonnes, God hath sent forth the spirit of his son­ne into your hearts which crieth Abba father. That there be two destinct natures in Christ & one onlie person Esay prophesied, cap. 1. 14. Behoulde the Virgin shall conceiue and beare a sonne and shee shall call his name Immanuell. And like Ierc. cap. 23. 6. In his dayes Iuda shall be saued, and Israell shall will safelie, and this is the name whereby they shall cal him, the lorde our righteousnes: which S. Iohn fulfilled. Io. 1. 14. And the worde was made flesh and dwelte amonge vs, and we sawe the glorie thereof, as the glorie of the onlie begotten of the father, full of grace and truth, of which two distinct natu­res there be two wills and two operations as S. Luke sheweth, not my will but thy will be dōne;Loc 22. For he that hath two perfect natures must needes haue theire natural properties & operations, but to wil & worke are natural proprieties & ope­rations, followinge both natures in Christ: ther­fore he had two willes and two operations. All which places are vrged by the auncient Fa­thers and late writers protestants and papists to confirme these seuerall points, in so much that you are forced to graunt that they haue a [Page 147] true proofe from the holy scriptures. And then I may say as S. August. saith to Maximian the Arrian. Si vox ista vera est quaestio illa finita est. But you papists haue nimbler witts then the fathers, for you are not content with truth but you must haue full proofe, as thoughe that proofe which to a man is true, were not full. For there can be noe fuller proofe, then that which doth conuince and satisfie, the vnderstan­dinge, but a true proofe doth so: For what is truth but adaequatio rei & intellectus. And yett if there be anie difference betweene true & full, these articles are fullie concluded out of the scripture. For beinge articles of the Aposto­licke creede, they are plainlie sett downe as Bel­larmine confesseth out of S. Aug. And some of them questioned by the Arrians, as the consub­stantialitie of the sonne (which in the next place you except against) he saith that of these que­stions which then were moued, clarissima ex­tabant in scripturis testimonia, quae sine dubio antep̄onenda sunt omnibus conci­liorum testimonijs. These thinges then that haue most cleare testimonies out of scriptures, and to be preferred before all testimonies of councells, haue a full proofe from them, but such are some of these articles, yett you procee­de to fight against scriptures, and wringe from Christians, one of the strongest Bulwarkes they haue against Arrians. I and the consubstantia­litie of the sonne, because the Arrians inter­preted it of vnitie of concorde and will. But if [Page 148] the mist of poperie had not blinded your eyes, you might easily haue seen vnanswerable argu­ments out of the text to prooue the sonne con­substantiall to the father, and so to be vnder­stoode of the vnitie of substance. For the Iewes require him to tell them plainely whether he be that Christ, he answereth directlie he is, there fore the naturall and consubstantiall sonne of God, as he prooueth. Matt. 22. 45. out of the Psalme. 100. If then Dauid called him Lorde, howe is he then his sonne?

Secondlie he that geueth eternall life to his sheepe, so that none can take them out of his hande, is of the same power, and consequentlie of the same nature with God; For what is it to be God, but to be of the highest and greatest power, then which none greater? but the sonne doth soe; ver. 28. & 29. And I geue vnto them eternall life, and they shall neuer perish, neither shall anie plucke them out of myne hande. Thirdlie the Iewes tooke vppe stones to stone him, as a blasphemer as one that made himselfe God, this cause they sett downe in plaine ter­mes. verse 33. Because thou makest thy selfe God, beinge man; but it is no blasphemie to be of the like will, desire and affection with God: playne therefore it is by Christs argument, that he did preache God so to be his Father, as the Iewes vnderstoode he would haue himselfe the naturall sonne of God. See nowe excepte you be blinder thē the Iewes, how plentifullie this scrip­ture prooueth the consubstātialitie of the sonne, [Page 149] and as for the place of Io. 17. it helpeth not the Arrians at all, as S. Aug. sheweth to Pascen­tiusEpist. 174 the Arrian. For that wheresoeuer the scrip­ture speaketh of two that are one, as in this place, they are euer of one substance. And ther­fore he chargeth both Maximianus theire Bis­hoppe, and Pascentius a noble man of theire opi­nion, to trauers the scriptures, if anie where they coulde shew two, sayde to be one that are not one in substance; But lett this be graunted that (I and the Father are one) prooueth onlie vnitie of will, not of substance, is there not an armie of scriptures besides this to prooue the sonne of the same substance, that we neede not call in the authoritie of the churche?

CHAMP.

You haue bestowed all this labour moste idlie, goinge aboute to prooue to me, that these articles are true, and to haue true grounde in the scriptures, which no catholicke euer doubted of. That which you shoulde haue laboured in (if you woulde haue spoken to the purpose) is, that these articles haue so full proofe out of scriptures onlie, that an heretike might be conuinced thereby without iudgment and interpretation of the churche vppon the same places. Which is euidently prooued to be false by the many and diuerse heresies which haue been maintayned against all these articles. For the authors thereof, he­reticallie refusinge the vnderstandinge of the church vppon those places of scriptures, and diuers others, as you also doe in the places condemninge your he­resies, and followinge wilfullie theire owne iudg­ment therein as you in like manner doe▪ coulde not be conuinced of theire errours▪ but interpreted these places and all others brought against them, in such sorte as they made not against them att all.

[Page 150]And as for the particuler authorities proouing di­uers of these articles, consulte with your Grand Mai­ster Caluin, and see what weight he put [...]eth in them for the proofe of the sayde misteries. Or if you like not to turne his bookes, read the litle booke written by Egidius Hunnius a professed protestant intituled Caluinus Iudaizans, and you shall see whether he was conuinced in these articles by all the passages of holy scripture alleaged for that purpose. Yett would I not haue you to thinke that I approoue his wicked doctrine herein (which I detest as most hereticall) but onlie produce him as an irreprooueable instance of my position. Therefore all the longe, lose and im­perfect discourse which you haue made in this para­graffe (wherein are manie paralogismes and imper­tinencies) so farr as it prooueth anie thinge, proo­ueth Caluin to haue been a wicked miscreant, but prooueth nothinge against my position; which de­nieth not these verities, to haue most true ground in holy scripture, according to the true sence and mea­ninge thereof, but not in such sorte as the euidence thereof cannot be auoyded by an heretike. And you your selfe that wrangle so much heere against all ex­perience, as well of the present as all precedent ages, will not acknowledge the catholike positions nowe in controuersie, prooued by more, or at least by as plaine and expresse scripture as these are, to be suffi­cientlie prooued. So that I neede seeke no further confirmation of my position, then the experience of your owne peruersitie.

PILK.

Yea to stoppe your mouth, I add that S. Aug. doth euidentlie except against the authoritie of the church, in his polemicall bookes against the Arrian Bishopp in two seuerall councells, the one of Nice, the other of Arriminum, the for­mer of which had ratified the consubstantialitie [Page 151] of the sonne, and the other reuoked it, and tyeth both himselfe and the Arrian onlie to the scrip­tures, as knowinge this pointe of faith fullie to be prooued of them.

CHAMP.

Your mouth meriteth well the stopinge that doth so farr and fowlie ouerflowe, as to say that S. Aug▪ doth euidentlie except against the authoritie of the churche. What, haue you so soone forgott that he protested he would not beleeue the go pell but that the authoritie of the churche moued him? you haue be like some as euident and expresse wordes of his exception against the churche, authoritie as this is for it, or else your assertion is moste shameles: let vs here I pray you what he saith.

PILK.

Neither ought I (saith S. Aug.) to vrge the Libr. [...]. cont. Ma­xim. c. 14. councell of Nice, nor thou that of Arriminum, I am not tyed to the authoritie of the one, nor thou of the other, but out of the scriptures that are not parties, but common witnesses vnto vs both; lett matter to matter, cause to cause, rea­son to reason be indifferentlie opposed.

CHAMP.

Howe willinglie you deceiue your selfe and wil­fullie labour to deceiue others? I must needes thinke that it is malice or peruersitie, & not ignorance that maketh you abuse this place of S, Aug: who hauing sayde that the worde [...]omo [...]sion. beinge by the ca­tholike fathers in the councell of Nice by the autho­ritie of truth, and truth of authoritie established▪ was after in the councell of Arriminum vnder the hereticall Emperour Constantius by the fraude of a fewe disliked, but afterwardes acknowledged, he cometh to say. But nowe neither I ought to vse the authoritie of the councell of Nice, nor thou of the [Page 152] counsell▪ of Arriminum, but such testimonie of scrip­ture as are common to both. Where S. Aug. is as farr from exceptinge against the authoritie of the church in the councell of Nice, as I am nowe from excep­tinge against the authoritie of the councell of Trent, in that I doe not vse it against you, but am content to deale with you by the scriptures, which beinge re­ceiued by vs both, are irreproueable witnesses.

In this therefore & noe other sorte doth S. August: omitte to vrge the authoritie of the councell of Nice against his aduersarie Maximian the Arrian, and tye himselfe to the scriptures, then I doe nowe tye my selfe to the scriptures omitting to vrge the authoritie of the councell of Trent against you a protestant. And tell me I pray you, did S. Aug: (thinke you) esteemeHis maie­stie estse­meth him­selfe Ca­tholicke because he receiueth the fower first gene­rall coun­cells. lesse of the Nicen councel then you doe? you wil not say it I suppose. And doe not you geue vnto it that authority to define matters of faith against heretikes? and admitte of the doctrine thereof as orthodoxe and catholike, and which ought to be receiued of all christians? you will not deny it. Why therefore doe you say S. August euidentlie excepteth against the authoritie of the churche, because he woulde not tye his aduersarie in that dispute to the authoritie of the Nicene councell, which he professeth to haue been decreed by the authoritie of truth and truth of au­thoritie? But you delight not onlie to err your selfe, but also to drawe others into errour with you.

PILK.

Where then is your inference, that this scrip­ture without the interpretation of the churche doth not fullie prooue the Father and the sonne to be one in substance, as if the scriptures be­fore the churches interpretation prooue onlie probable; after her interpretation fullie. This I gather to be your meaninge, because Bellar­mineLib. 4. de verbo c. 7. affirmeth (from whose haruest you haue [Page 153] gathered these gleaninges) that the scriptures expressed by a councell, doe firmelie and certain­lie prooue that, which before they did not firme­lie prooue. And of S. August. he saith, that he bringeth certaine coniectures out of scriptures, which after the definition of a councell and triall of written traditions, haue some force to confirme truth, which of themselues ar not sufficient.

CHAMP.

My inference standeth good, nor is it anie way im­peached by S. Aug: euen in this place by you allea­ged as alreadie appeareth. Besides in his booke de vera religione cap. 1. he hath these expresse wordes▪ who is not starke madd and easilie vnderstandeth not, that the exposition of scriptures, is to be sought from them who professe themselues teachers of the same? He meaneth the pastours and doctours of the churche. And concerninge this place. Ego & pater vnum su­mus, read S. Athanasius his Epistle ad Episcopos Ar­rianos, and see howe they were conuinced with it, or if you will not looke so farr, make a litle inquirie of Legats answere vnto it. That which you say of the scriptures before and after the churches interpre­tation, and likwise of S. Aug: out of Bellarmine (though I find noe such thinge in the place of Bellar. by you cited) in the catholicke sence is true. That is,Mr. Pil­kinton woulde turne the state of the question. the scriptures before the iudgment of the church of the true sence and meaninge thereof, make noe full proofe vnto vs of the articles of our faith. Not be­cause they receiue anie truthe or force in respect of themselues from the churche, they being the infalli­ble worde of God, but because they beinge capable of diuerse sences and subiect to be vnderstoode di­uerslie, as you your selfe will not denie of these fewe and plaine wordes hoc est corpus meum, without some authoritie to interprete them, the true sence [Page 154] and meaninge of them cannot assuredlie be knowne vnto vs. And therefore hath God placed in his church pastours and doctors to deliuer vnto his people, the true meaning of his worde, and hath promised to be with them alwayes, & that to heare them is to hea­reMatt. 28. himselfe.

PILK.

Lett this be marked. For when we say that the scriptures doe prooue fullie articles of faith, we take not away subordinate meanes whereby we may see and learne the fulnes of the scrip­tures: but we exclude all outwarde and aduenti­tious authoritie, to supplie the supposed weaknes in them, and to adde strength and firmenes vnto them.

CHAMP.

Necessitie and the verie euidence of truth forceth you to confesse some meanes to learne the true ence and meaninge of the scriptures; but your owne per­uersitie and obstinacy will not permitte you to speak plainlie. What doe you I play vnderstande by subor­dinate meanes which you say you exclude not? and what doe you meane by aduentitious authoritie? doe you meane the authoritie of the churche? so your wordes followinge doe insinuate. But shewe you as clearly out of the scripture the authoritie of the churche to be excluded as strange and aduentitious, as we will shewe you that it is ratyfied, established, and commended vnto vs as an vnfallible guide and teacher of truth, and then we will geue some creditt to your wordes; but till then which will be neuer, knowe yee that yee are prooued to contemne scrip­ture, and all other authoritie saue onlie your owne foolishe fancie, which you make to be iudge of the holy scripture it selfe.

PILK.

Which strength the papists say, they haue not [Page 155] of themselues, but receiue from the interpretation of the churche, and traditions; which is an im­pious and blasphemous assertion. For the inter­pretation of a Sinode, is but a glosse, the scripture is the text; the interpretation may err, the text cannott erre; the interpretation is the worde of man, the scriptures the voyce of God: to conclude this point, whereas the position of the former Roman church was, that diuinitie reasoneth from the scriptures necessarilie, from other au­thors and learninge probablie; the wheele nowe is turned, and men reason from the scriptures coniecturallie, but from the interpretation of the churche and tradition, firmelie and sullie.

CHAMP.

Howe often haue you been tould of your wittin­ge belying your aduersaries? you knowe well if you knowe anie thinge, that the catholikes whom you call papists, doe teach the scriptures to be the worde of the holy Ghost, and to haue theire veritie from him independentlie of the churche: And therefore that the churche addeth no strength or veritie to them, no more then the witnes or notarie addeth truth or veritie to the will & testament of the testa­tour. Neuertheles the authoritie & testimonie of the churche, is as necessarie for the acceptance and ack­nowledgment, as well of the letter and texte it selfe, as of the sence and meaninge of the scriptures, as the witnes or notaries hande is to the acknowledg­ment and proofe of the will and testament, or as the sentence of the iudge is necessarie for the true sence and meaninge of the will, if at anie tyme it come to be in doubte or in question. Neither is the interpretation of the churche vppon the scripture, the interpretation or worde of man, as you hereti­callie tearme it, but of the holy Ghost as (besides [Page 156] other places) you may learne of that. Visum est Spi­tui Sancto & nobis. But it auaileth, like as to teache a wilfull mynde wisdome. Your conclusion is yett more childishe, ignorant, and impertinent. For from the scriptures vnderstoode in the sence of the chur­che which is infalliblie true, we say the argument is necessarie and infallible, whereas from all humane authours taken seuerallie, be they neuer so learned, the argument is not certayne but probable. But whē we speake of humane authors, we vnderstande not the churche nor yett her receiued traditions. And thus you see your strongest arguments against the position of the manuall, are nothinge but froathie calumnies, paralogismes and impertinencies, disper­sed and blowne away with euerie small blast of winde.

Manuall. Catholike position. 2.

All such articles as are of faith and so hol­den by the protestants themselues, are not contayned so much as indirectlie or impli­citlie in the holy scriptures: but onlie so farr as the scriptures contayne and testifie the authority of the churche & traditions.

Proofe.

Take all the bookes of the bible and eue­rie parte thereof, which are acknowledged for canonicall scripture ioyntlie of catholi­kes and protestants, be such indeede. That the moste blessed mother of our Sauiour Christe, continued perpetuallie a virgin. That it is lawfull for christians to eat stran­gled thinges, and blood (which were ex­pressely forbidden them Acts 15. 20.) are not so much as indirectly contained in holy [Page 157] scriptures, otherwise then is mentioned in our position. But this being more amply proued in that which followeth of tradi­tions, this which we haue sayd alreadie shal suffice for the present.

PILK.

The sunne needeth to borrowe no light of o­ther starres, nor the scriptures of the churche, or of tradition; For without helpe of either, they sufficientlie prooue all articles of faith.

CHAMP.

It is an vsuall tricke of all deceiptfull and verball disputers, to inuert & change the question in hande; that when they can say nothinge to the true questiō, they may finde somethinge to say to the question framed by themselues. The controuersie here is not whether the scriptures doe sufficientlie prooue all other articles of faith, for that was disputed in the precedent position, and the negatiue parte there prooued against you; but whether they sufficientlie prooue themselues to be the holy scriptures or noe, which▪ was▪ the first proofe of this position: lett vs heare howe you answere it.

PILK.

But here you trifle in idle Homonomie of ar­ticles of faith. For strictlie those thinges are cal­led articles of faith, which are prescribed in the old and newe testament to be beleeued, and are summarilie comprised in the Apostles creed; whereby they are both distinguished from the precepts of the lawe that prescribe good wor­kes, and from the principles of diuintie, from which as from conclusions they are deriued.

CHAMP.

I knowe not what you call trifelinge in homono­mie; [Page 158] but I knowe that you bable in obscuritie. It is be like no article of faith with you, that God is to be adored, his name not to be prophaned or blasphe­med, that our parents are to be honoured, with the rest of gods commaundements, because they be precepts commaundinge good workes. I maruell where you learned this good diuinitie. But lett this passe, yett it serueth not your turne; For the scrip­tures whereof the question is nowe, are not precepts as you knowe. You haue therefore another as good a shifte. That is, that articles of faith are distinguished not onlie from precepts, but also [...]ro [...] princeples of diuinitie. from which as conclusions they are deriued; these are your owne wordes, but what you meane by them I cannot conceiue. They seeme to sounde, that the articles of faith as conclusions, are deriued from the principles of diuinitie. Then which you coulde haue sayd nothinge more contrarie to truthe. For all men knowe that the conclusions of diuinitie are deriued from the articles of our faith, as from theire principles & not the contrarie as you dreame. It had been good you had taken one yeere more to haue reuewed your writinges, that you might haue made better sence of your ayinges.

PILK.

Of which sorte of principles these are; That the holy scriptures are diuine, inspired from heauen, immutabely true.

CHAMP.

By what other reason I pray you are these thinges here named by you, rather to be called principles of diuinitie, then articles of faith, more then for your owne bare and ignorant assertion? you should haue geuen some reason for your distinction, that your reader might haue seene it had not been meerely forged onlie to delude the argument. Againe why are these thinges to be tearmed principles, and not articles of faith; God is one; God is omnipotent; God [Page 159] is truth it selfe and the first truth that reuealeth mis­teries of faith? you dare not denie these to be princi­ples of the other principles, and yett are they most properlie articles of faith as you dare not denie, ex­pressed in the creede it selfe. You see therefore your distinctions of articles and principles of faith to be vaine, foolishe and friuolous, inuented onlie to de­lude your lesse carefull reader.

PILK.

Improperlie articles of faith are called what­soeuer is written as the principles themselues, preceptes of the lawe, sermons of the prophets, histories of both testaments, because faith, as­senteth to euerie thinge deliuered in the worde.

CHAMP.

That is properlie an article of faith, that is belee­ued for diuine authoritie, whether it be written or noe, as were all these thinges the fathers beleeued before the lawe written. And because we beleeue the bookes of Genesis for example, and the rest of the holy Byble, to be written by Gods reuelation, therefore doe we beleeue them to be holy scripture, and to containe gods worde. Which therefore is properlie, an article of faith no lesse then the miste­rie of the blessed trinitie, beleeued for the same au­thoritie.

PILK.

Vppon this grounde I answere, first in gene­rall, that none of these points are articles of faith.

CHAMP.

Vppon such a false grounde you are like to builde a good answere. Is it no article of faith with you that the booke of Genesis is written by gods reuela­tion? Tell me I pray you vnto what kinde of know­ledge or assent you will reduce it? I will confesse you a maister in diuinitie if you can make it well appeare, [Page 160] by what other act of knowledge or vnderstandinge we assent vnto this veritie, besides the act of faith. Which if you cannot performe, as assuredlie you cannott, you must needes see this your first answere to be noe answere att all, but a meere supposall of a manifest falsitie.

PILK.

Secondlie I answere to euerie one in particu­lar. I answere to the the first. That all cano­nicall bookes and euerie parcell thereof be such, is prooued out of themselues. For besides that the ould testament prooueth the newe, and the newe the old (for whatsoeuer we read in the ould testament, the same is founde in the gos­pell, and whatsoeuer is founde in the gospell that is deduced from the authoritie of the ould testament, as Hierome speaketh) so in speciallAd Da­masum. euerie booke prooueth it selfe, both by its owne light as formerlie was shewed, and by the te­stimonie of Christ of the Prophets, and Apostles, that were the secretaries of the holy ghost. The testimonie of our Sauiour Christ. Luc. 24. 44. These are the wordes which I spake vnto you while I was with you, that all must needes be fulfilled which were written of me in the lawe of Moyses, and in the prophetts and in the psal­mes. Of S. Paule. 2. Tim. 3. 16. All scripture is geuen by the inspiration of God, and is profita­ble to doctrine, to reproofe, to correction, to ins­truction which is in righteousnes. Of S. Peter the 2. epist. 1. 21. The prophecie came not in olde tyme by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moued by the holy Ghost, [Page 161] doe abundantlie prooue the bookes of the olde testament, to be canonicall, besides that there is not anie of them, out of which some testimonie is not in the newe testament extant.

CHAMP.

Your second answere is as much to the purpose, as your first. Neither the old testament proouing the newe, nor contrariwise; vnles the one be beleeued before. Yea you make your selfe ridiculous to all men by such a naturall or circulare proofe, vnles you sup­pose the assured beleefe of some parte before. For example if one shoulde demaunde of you how you knowe, or why you doe beleeue those wordes of our Sauiour which you cite out of the 24: of S. Luke either to haue been spoken by him, or written by S. Luke; would you say that they euidentlie prooue themselues so to be? surely this you must say, both accordinge to your doctrine here, and accordinge to the necessitie you putt your selfe into by denyinge the authority of tradition and of the churches testi­monie. And yett in sayinge that, you shall euidently prooue your selfe to be senceles. For there is noe such euidence of the thinge, but anie man that is not mo­ued with the authoritie of gods churche, and tradi­tion would esteeme it verie vncertaine and most doubtfull. For vnles these wordes, (and that which I say of them, I say of the rest of the scripture) were God himselfe, and spake to vs as imediatlie as he did to Moises, and the rest of his prophetts, they cannot be sayde to be knowne by theire owne light, nor be­leeued for theire owne truth.

Againe suppose you had certayne knoweledge of this by what meanes soeuer, howe could you be cer­tayne that he speaketh of those bookes of Moises, psalmes, and prophetts, which we haue vnder those names? This certainlie would be impossible for you to prooue, seinge you reiect the authoritie of tradi­tion and the churches iudgment, by which onlie it is [Page 162] assuredlie prooued. Furthermore you knowe, that our Sauiour speakinge in his owne person, required not to be beleeued but by the testimonie of his wor­kes,Ioh. 15. sayinge: Nisi opera in eis fecissem [...] nemo a­lius fecit peccatum non haberent Much lesse there­fore doth he require that we shoulde beleeue a writ­ten booke to be his worde, without other proofe then the selfe light of the booke, which is not so greate as that of his owne liuelie worde [...]. The say­inge of S Hierome is nothinge to the purpose. For he speaketh onlie of the mutuall consent and con­cord of the two testaments, which to christians that alreadie beleeue them both to be the worde of God, is no small confirmation of the veritie of the doc­trine they both contayne.

PILK.

The Gospells of the Euangelists the Acts, and Epistles of the Apostles, the reuelation of S. Iohn, prooue themselues out of themselues, to be theires whose titles they beare. And if we cre­ditt the bookes of historians and Philosophers, Beware howe you attribute anie thin­ge to the defluxion of tyme least you fall vppon tradition. auncient and moderne, diuine and humane, to be theires whose names they carrie, in theire fore­heads; what madnes were it to thinke the di­uine scriptures not to be written by them, who are said to be theire penmen, after the defluxion of so manie ages, wherein neuer anie good chri­stian called them in question besides wicked Iesuits, impure Manichees, Cerdonians, Mar­cionists, and Ebionites.

CHAMP.

None of all these bookes say, they were written by such and such, as is manifest. And thoughe they did, yett were not this sufficient to prooue them theirs, vnles it were certaine this were theire testi­monie, and that they were infallible in their testimo­nie. [Page 163] As for the titles they beare, there is the same dif­ficultie. For it is not otherwise knowne to be theirs then by faith and beleefe, of which we seeke the grounde. And if titles were sufficient proofes of the true gospells, we should haue manie moe gospells then we haue, as you cannot be ignorant. Againe the Epistle to the Hebrues beareth not the name of anie of the Apostles, and howe longe it was thought by diuerse not to be S. Paules you knowe, vnles you be verie ignorant. For the workes of other humane authors why doe you beleeue them to be theirs, if it be not for the testimonie of all succeedinge ages brought vnto vs by tradition? Giue some other suffi­cient grounde of your beleefe in this poynte, if you can, and if you cannot, say you are senceles to reiect ecclesiasticall tradition in receiuinge the bookes of the Bible, or else that your iudgment is foolishe and idle. Moreouer were it certainly knowne vnto vs that S. Mathewe wrote the gospell we haue vnder his owne name, as it is nowe by tradition and the chur­ches authoritie; yett vnles it were further certaine that he wrote by diuine inspiration (which without some diuine testimonie we knowe not) it could not be certaine to vs that his gospell is the word of God. Nowe if you had lefte out of the number of those that haue called the scriptures into questiō (Iesuites) and putt in theire place, Lutherans or Protestants, your wordes might haue passed for currant. But tell me in the small honestie of a protestant minister, did you euer knowe that anie Iesuite called anie booke of scripture into question or doubte? you cannot, thoughe you burst your selfe, giue an instance. Whe­reas you doe not onlie call manie bookes of the holy Byble into doubt, but absolutlie reiect them as Apo­cripha, and your Grand father Luther with his truer disciples, doth manie moe, euen of those which you say is madnes to call into question. Hath malice so blinded you, and wilfull rage against the truth made you so madd, that you feele not the deadly woundes [Page 164] which you geue your selfe, whilst you strike, or at least thinke to strike your aduersarie.

PILK.

But what iuglinge is this? we beleeue these bookes to be theirs whose names they carrie, for the authoritie of the churche, that is the Pope, who is S. Peeters successour, and holdeth all his authoritie from him, and yett we cannot beleeue S. Peeter himselfe, that this Epistle is his, but because the present Pope hath so deter­mined it.

CHAMP.

I cannot say that you iugle here you are so grossely impertinent, and hoodle vppe so manie apparant ab­surdities in these fewe wordes. Where learned you I pray you that the Pope is the churche? or that he holdeth all his authoritie from S. Peter and not from Christ himselfe? Againe where doth S Peter testifie that this is his Epistle? haue you or anie of your re­formed bretheren heard him say it? no such thinge. Seeing therefore neither you nor anie man nowe a liue euer heard him testifie anie such thinge, what great iuglinge is it I pray you, to beleeue a liuely and liuinge witnes, assisted by the spiritt of truth, and taught by those who lineallie descended from S. Pe­ter testifiinge that these are S. Peters writinges, ra­ther then to beleeue a doombe paper or parchment▪ which might be written by some other as well as other thinges, that went a broade vnder the same Apostles name? And by that which hath beē hitherto sayde on both sides, you may see (if you will not shut your eies that you may not see) that it is cleare▪ (not­withstandinge all your childishe ianglinge) that all articles of faith are not contayned in scriptues, other­wise then is mentioned in the position of the Ma­nuall: nowe lett vs see your answere to the other proofes of the same position.

PILK.

To your second instance, we say with Saint August. that we are not willinge to moue anie questions aboute the Mother of God, for the ho­nour we beare vnto her sonne. Yett sith you stirre the coales, we answere that it is an highe pointe of our faith, and sufficientlie prooued in the scriptures, that Christe was borne of an intemerat Virgin: but whether after his birth shee were knowne of Ioseph, thoughe the ne­gatiue Homil de Natiuit. Domini. be a seemelie and reuerend truth; yett we say with Basill, that it toucheth not our faith.

CHAMP.

You woulde seeme to be religiouslie affected to­wardes the blessed Virgin, but notwithstandinge you minse S. Aug: wordes least you shoulde doe her too much honour, his wordes are these. De Ma­ria propter honorem Saluatoris nullam cum de [...]ecca­tis agitur habere volo quaestionem. And in the end you are content rather to incline towardes the old heretike Heluidius, then to beleeue with the holy catholike churche concerninge the perpetuall virgi­nitie of the blessed Virgin. Where is nowe I pray you your rule of faith before mentioned, non credi­mus Looke be­fore▪ Sect. 10. quia non legimus? I coniure you vppon forfei­ture of your honestie and integritie, either to reiect that rule as noe sufficient grounde of faith, in anie article, or else to beleeue that the blessed Virgin was neuer knowne of anie man. Take whether parte you please & you shall geue sentence for me against your selfe.

PILK.

Your thirde instance is no article of faith but [...] Canon of manners, so in the number not of [Page 166] thinges to be beleeued but to be donne. Wherein thoughe to the Apostles for the auoydinge of scandall, for the eatinge of thinges strangled, and blood, yett when the offence was remoued the eatinge was allowed. Rom. 14. 14. 1. Tim. 4. 4. and Saint August. prooueth it out of S.Cent. Fab. [...]. 32. c. 13. Mathewe cap. 15. 17. 18.

CHAMP.

Are you so blockishe that you doe not, or so per­uerse that you will not, see the difference betweene the practise of anie thinge, and the doctrine of the lawfulnes of the same practise? Whereby you might be taught, that thoughe the first be not an article of faith, yett the second may be. For example thoughe it be not an article of faith for two single persons to marrie together, but a matter of practise, yett is it a matter of faith that they may lawfullie marrie to­gether, as I hope you will not denie, and so in fiue hundreth more thinges. That the Apostles did make that prohibition for a tyme onlie and not to conti­nue euer, where is it written▪ or whence haue you it, but by the churches authoritie & interpretation? The places of scriptures by▪ you cited (were they to the purpose as they are not) woulde be sufficient ar­guments to make some of the bookes doubtfull as cōtradictinge the one the other, were there not a iud­ge to reconcile them, and bringe them to attone­ment togeather. And thus you see all the three ins­tances brought in proofe of the catholike position in the Manuall, to remaine firme and solide, and your euasions to be childishe wranglings without truth or substance.

PILK.

Thus you see you fight against God, when you warre against the perfection of holy worde. Which that you may more plainlie perceiue in [Page 167] the last place I will sett downe the protestants doctrine, not in such double tearmes as you deuised, but theire owne wordes as they haue positiuelie deliuered with the seuerall autho­rities of holy scriptures, whereby they con­firme it, and testimonies of fathers, whereby they shewe the consanguinitie of it with the purest Christians. For the positions sett downe by you, are not by them acknowledged.

CHAMP.

If you deny my positions to be true as (hauinge hitherto disputed against them) you seeme to doe, then must you of necessitie acknowledge the contra­dictorie to be true, and maintaine them as yours, vn­les you will haue both contradictories to be false, which no man yett euer hearde of. But why doe you not put downe the positions which I call the prote­stants positions, that the reader might see how iustlie you denie them to be yours? I will supply your de­fect, that the indifferent reader may iudge whether the positions sett downe in the Manuall vnder the title of protestants positions, be not truly theirs.

Manuall, protestant positions.

All articles of faith are so expresselie con­tained in scriptures as out of them onlie full proofe may be made thereof.

All articles of faith are at least so contai­ned in holy scriptures, as without any testi­monie or authoritie of the churche, or tra­ditions they may thence be plainly and di­stinctlie deduced.

These are the positions in the Manuall in this first controuersie vnder the title of protestant positions, which you say are not acknowledged by them. And [Page 168] yett if I vnderstande your wordes you admitte them, neither can you iu [...]l [...]e denie them as I sayde before: but lett vs heare what you say for your selfe.

PILK.

They say not that all articles of faith, are ex­presselie sett downe in holy scriptures, but either expressely or analogicallie, and so they haue a full proofe out of them.

CHAMP.

Compare this position with that sett downe by me in the first place, and see wherein they differ. Only you make the first parte of your position absolute, as if it had been so set downe by me, but this is your owne fraude and deceipte. For I made it not abso­lute but modall or comparatiue, as appeareth by the thinge it selfe. The position therefore sett downe by me is yours, and therefore to be prooued out of the scriptures▪ as the position it selfe requireth? [...]herein if you fasle, your position will be conuinced to be false, and your faith accordinglie.

PILK.

Secondlie they admitte of the testimonie of the churche both concerninge articles of faith, and the scriptures themselues; First to discerne true from false; Secondlie publiklie to preache them; Thirdlie to interpret and expounde them, but euer accordinge to the scriptures themselues, without anie addition of her owne, either of suf­ficiencie or perfection vnto them.

CHAMP.

That is in good speach: they admitt the testimony of the churche so farr as it contradicteth not theire errours Or they admitte of it not to be iudged by it, for so all disputes woulde quicklie haue an end; but to iudge it themselues, for so they knowe they may wrangle eternallie.

PILK.

Here then is the difference, that the papists say the churche addeth sufficiencie to the scriptures and fulnes. The protestants say shee addeth none, but sheweth that which is in it. The papists say shee brought light vnto them. The protestants say shee bringeth none, but declareth and ma­nifestesh that which it hath in it selfe. This then is theire doctrine.

CHAMP.

The catholikes doe teache and beleeue that the churche of God hath infallible authoritie to declare what bookes are holy scripture, and also to deliuer the true sence and meaninge thereof▪ neither of which the scriptures do performe by themselues; and yett are they both necessarie if not to euerie Christiā in particular, yett to the whole churche in generall. They doe not teach or beleeue that the churche ad­deth anie truth or verity to the scriptures, which they immediately haue from God himselfe, whose word and reuelation they containe, but shee declareth vn­to vs infalliblie what are the verities contayned in them. To which beleefe and doctrine you seeme to come verie neere in your last wordes, if you were constant therein. But you say and vnsay at euerie turne. Nowe lett vs heare the positions which you say the protestants acknowledge in this con­trouersie.

PILK. ANTITHESIS.

All truth concerninge faith and good wor­kes necessarie vnto saluation, is sufficientlie and fullie deliuered vnto vs in the holy scrip­tures.

CHAMP.

Seinge you voluntarilie enter combate, why doe you not obserue the conditions prescribed? It was [Page 170] required, that in case you woulde impugne the ca­tholike position sett downe and prooued in the Ma­nuall (as hitherto you haue laboured to doe) you should prooue by expresse scriptures the contra­dictorie, which in that case must necessarilie be yours, and not to frame vnto your selfe another, which may stand with that you impugned, beinge like a shooe that fitteth euerie foote.

This I say, because the position sett downe here by you vnderstoode with these two restrictons, is not denyed of anie catholike. The first is, that it include not the scriptures themselues, but suppose them as beleeued. The second that it speake onlie of truthes or articles necessary to euerie mans saluation. For these are fewe and sufficientlie expressed in holy scripture. Your position vnderstoode in this mannet hath noe aduersarie, and therefore needeth not your feeble and weake proofes. Neuertheles because your proofes seeme to suppose a further meaninge in your position; to witt that all thinges whatsoeuer without exception or restriction, are to be beleeued either by euerie man in perticular, or all men in generall, are fullie sett downe in holy scripture, which is opposite to the catholike position of the Manuall, I will exa­mine your proofes and try what weight they beare.

PILK. Proofe of the protestants position.

Deuteronomie 4. 2. yee shall not adde vnto the worde which I commaunde you, neither shall yee detracte from it, that yee may keepe the com­maundements of the Lorde your God which I cō ­maunde you. Argument. That whereunto nothing must be added, nothinge detracted, contayneth a perfect and full doctrine of faith and manners, such is the scripture: ergo.

CHAMP.

What will you vnderstand▪ by the (word) which God heere commaundeth? onlie the fiue bookes of [Page 171] Moises which then were onlie extant? If you vnder­stande it so (as trulie you cannott otherwise) what will you say to all the reste of the bookes, both of the ould & newe testament written since, were they added against gods commandement? you will feare to say so. What then will this place serue you for? to make a poore shewe of some proofe out of scripture to deceaue your lesse skilfull reader, and for noe other purpose. But peraduenture you will contend that it ought to be vnderstoode of all that which God shoulde speake, aswell after as before, and so to comprehend the whole scripture. This sence (though not verie probable) I am content to accept of, that you may see I doe not deale niggardlie with you. To your argument therefore I say, you iugle some­thinge in itt, but not cunninglie. If you woulde con­clude anie thinge out of this place of scripture, you must say in your minor, but such is the word of God. And then the conclusion will be directlie against your selfe, who detracteth from gods worde both written: denyinge manie and sundrie bookes of holy scripture, and also vnwritten, reiectinge all traditiōs▪ which the scriptures themselues commaunde vs to receiue. And so haue you concluded your selfe a ma­nifest transgressour of gods lawe and commaunde­ment. When you shall answere sufficientlie this ar­gument, I will pay you a fee worthe your doctors Cappe.

PILK. Proofe 2.

Prou: 30. 5. 6. Euerie worde of God is pure, he is a shielde to them that put theire trust in him, adde you nothinge vnto his worde, least he reprooue thee, and thou be founde a lyar.

CHAMP.

Therefore what? Therefore all articles of faith are fullie deliuered in scripture? make this conclusion by lawfull argument but of this place, and I shall estee­me you a Maister Logician. But it is enough for you [Page 172] to quote a place of scripture thoughe as fitly for your purpose as Pruritanus doth manie in your behalfe.

PILK. Proofe 3.

Reuelations [...]2. 18. 19. I testify vnto euerie man that heareth the wordes of the prophecie of this booke, if anie shall adde vnto these thin­ges, God shall adde vnto him the plagues that are written in this booke, and if anie shall take away from the wordes of the booke of this prophecie, God shall take away his parte out of the booke of life, and out of the holy cittie, and from the thinges that are written in this booke.

CHAMP.

What if I should say with your Grand Father Luther that this booke is apocriphall, and therefore your proofe of no worth? But God forbidd I should be so prophane as to vse such an aunswere. I say therefore that to conclude anie thinge out of this testimonie against me, you must conclude not onlie your selfe but S. Paule also, and all the rest of the writers of holy scripture to be subiect to this curse here mentioned, seeinge they haue all added manie thinges to this booke; that is they haue taught and written manie thinges to be beleeued and obserued not contayned in this booke, which is the sence and force of your argument and which you are bounde to solue. So blinde hath heresie made you, that you see not what is with you, what against you.

PILK. Proofe 4.

Gal. 1. 8. 9. Though we or an angell from heauen preach vnto you besides that we haue preached, lett him be accursed. 1. Cor. 4. 6. That yee might learne in vs not to be wise aboue that which is written. If neither an Apostle nor An­gell [Page 173] from heauen may preach anie thinge besi­des that which is written, nor be wise aboue it, then that which is written contayneth a full doctrine both of faith and manners.

CHAMP.

This argument is like the rest, and as trulie de­ducted from the places quoted. In the first place the Apostle faith not [...] that which is written (as you fraudulentlie soist in) but besides that which we haue preached. That your argument therefore may conclude, you must shewe out of scripture that the Apostle had not preached anie thinge more then at that tyme he had written; which will bee a taske impossible for you euer to performe, especially2. Thes. [...]. 15. seeinge the Apostle himselfe testifieth the contrarie commaundinge his disciples. To holde the traditiōs which they had learned, whether by worde or Epistle. Againe when he saith besides that we haue preached, he meaneth contrarie to that we haue prea­chedTract. 98. in Ioh. as S. Aug: expoundeth him, 1200. yeeres before your heresie was hatched.

In the second testimonie the vulgar translation, which was receiued for authenticall in S. Hieromes tymes, hath not these wordes not to be wi [...]. But to doe you a fauour I will admitte of your text; and I answere that your argument is foolish. For he that is wise with the churche, teachinge or beleeuinge with the churche, which the scriptures testifie to be the piller and ground of truth, is not wise aboue that which is written, but conformeablie to that which is written. And thus you see your position, thoughe positiue or affirmatiue to be so farr from being proo­ued by expresse scripture, that it hath not the least ground therein.

Whereas the positions of the Manuall, thoughe onlie negatiue haue expresse instāces out of the holy scripture. Lett therefore the indifferent and iudicious reader iudge whether of them hath greater argu­ments [Page 174] of truth. And if we should followe you rule, non cre [...]imus quia [...]o [...] ie imus, howe woulde you perswade vs to beleeue, that all truth pertayninge to [...]aith and manners necessarie to saluation is fu [...]lie deli­uered in holy sceipture Seeinge you cannot shewe vs it written in anie place? whereby you see your selfe either driuen to disauowe your rule of beleefe or to confesse this your position not to be beleeued. But peraduenture you will make your proofes stron­ger out of the fathers. Lett vs see what you bringe out of them. But marke I pray you whether they be expositions of the places of scripture cited in your fauour, or sayinges vttered vppon other occasions. If they be of the first sorte, they will be more forcible for you; but if they be of the other kinde (as they are they will be of lesse moment for your purpose. Well these they are.

PILK. Proofe 5.

All thinges that our lorde did are not writ­ten, Cyril. A­lex. li. 12. in [...]o. c. 68 but these thinges which the writers thought sufficient for faith and manners, that shininge both in truth of [...]aith and vertuous workes we might come to the kingdome of heauen.

CHAMP.

The scriptures testifyinge the authoritie of the churche, and of the pastours thereof, with the obli­gation that euerie one hath to heare and obay them, are trulie sayd by S. Cyrill to contayne those thinges which are sufficient for faith and manners. For the thinges that are not directlie expressed in them, are learned by the pastours of the churche, authorised by the scriptures. I maruell you were not afrayde of S. Cyrill, seeinge he testifyeth so directlie the neces­sitie of good workes besides faith for the gayninge of the kingdome of heauen. But you receiue the fa­thers no farther then they seeme to make for you, such is your sinceritie.

PILK. Proofe 6.

Whatsoeuer is sought for vnto saluation, all Chrisost in Matt. 22. that is nowe fulfilled in the scriptures.

CHAMP.

Your ignorance or peruersitie in this place is in­tollerable. For S. Chrisost: speaketh of the institution of the newe testament, whereby all thinges necessa­rie to saluation are fulfilled, and not of the scriptures contayninge fullie all thinges necessarie to beleeued.

PILK. Proofe 7.

We adore the fulnes of scriptures, lett Her­mogenes Tertull. cont. Her­mogenem. shewe his opinion to be written, if it be not written lett him feare the woe denoun­ced to adders and detractours.

CHAMP.

Tertullian speaketh of the fulnes of the scripture in that one point, whereupon he disputed with that heretike, & not in all other articles of faith as is ma­nifest by the place it selfe, which the iudicious rea­der may see and satisfy himselfe, for here it cannot without tediousnes and ouer much prolixitie bee sett downe.

PILK. Proofe 8.

If anie shall preach either of Christ or his Aug cont. lit. Petil. lib. 3. c. 6. churche, or of anie other thinge that pertayneth to beleefe or life, I will not say, if we but that which Paule addeth, if an Angell from heauen shall shew vnto you besides that which you haue receiued in the scriptures of the lawe and the Gospell lett him be accursed. That which hath a fulnes in it as Tertull. and Chris. speake, and contayneth in itt all thinges pertayninge to faith and manners as Cyrill and Aug. say; that doth fullie prooue all articles of beleefe and life such is the scripture.

CHAMP.

S. Aug. wordes haue the sence and meaninge that S. Paules haue, takinge be [...]i [...]es for against or con­trarie to the scriptures as S. August. explicateth himselfe tract. 98. in Ioh before mentioned. Nowe your argument out of all these places is shewed to be vayne and of noe force by the particular answere to euerie authoritie: And thus farr haue you brought nothinge more, for the proofe of your position, thē anie heretike in the worlde may, or might haue brought for the proofe of his heresie. For euerie he­retike can bringe single places of scripture, yea and of fathers in fauour of his heresie. But to bringe scriptures interpreted by the fathers in fauour of theire heresie, is a thinge (if not impossible) at least verie harde and rare, beinge the priuiledge of the catholike churche alone.

PILK. ANTITHESIS 2.

The scriptures contayne in themselues a perfect doctrine of saith and good workes ne­cessarie to saluation, without testimonie autho­ritie or tradition of the churche, addinge vnto them or bringinge from without them anie other doctrine.

CHAMP.

This position is the same in sence (if either of them haue anie sence) with the former, and there­fore vainlie is tearmed by you, a second Antithesis, vnlesse euerie tyme you write a position varyinge a fewe wordes in it, but retayninge the same sence, you will say it is a newe positiō. But to lett this passe your proofes, so farr as they make anie thinge against the catholike veritie are to be pondered.

PILK. Proofe 1.

2. Tim. 3. 16. The whole scripture is diui­nelie geuen, and profitable for doctrine, for re­proofe, for correction, for instruction which is [Page 177] in righteousnes, that the man of God may be perfectlie instructed in euerie good worke. That which perfecteth the man of God to euerie good worke, contayneth perfect doctrine, of faith and manners, without addition of anie othèr, but the scriptures do so: Ergo.

CHAMP.

It must needes be obstinacie in errour, and not ig­noraunce, as I thinke, that maketh you abuse this place. For first you cannot be ignorant, that the Apostle speaketh there of the scriptures of the olde testament, wherewith S. Timothy was acquainted from his infancie, which if you will say to contayne a perfect doctrine, then is all the newe testament ei­ther superfluous, or at the least not necessarie. Se­condlie the Apostle peaketh not of the whole scrip­ture taken together, but of euerie parte thereof se­uerallie; meaninge that euerie parte of scripture is proffitable to teach correct, and instruct, which is true, but nothinge to your purpose. And that he speaketh not of the whole scripture in the former sence, but in the latter, it is manifest. For when he wrote this to Timothie, the whole scripture which the church nowe hath, was not written. Lastlie lett it be sayd that he speaketh it of the whole scripture in the former sence; yett he saith no more but that itSect. 2. §. [...] verie willingly. is profitable to teache, instruct &c. which I easilie graunt you, and yett I say your argument drawne from thence is most friuolous, as appeareth by the like sett downe before in answere of this of yours, wherunto I referre you.

PILK. Proofe 2.

Iohn 5. 35. Search the scriptures, for in them you thinke to haue eternall life. Luke 16. 29. They haue Moises & the prophetts lett thē heare them. That which teacheth how we may come [Page 178] to eternall life and shunne, or escape eternall death, contayneth a perfect doctrine of faith, and good workes; But the scriptures doe soe: ergo.

CHAMP.

Make your minor proposition this as it should be, but the olde Testament doth soe (for of the olde testament onlie these places speake as is manifest) and your conclusion will serue directlie to exclude the whole newe testament from the perfect rule of faith Fye, I am ashamed in your behalfe of such chil­dishnes as you shewe in these arguments.

PILK. Proofe 3.

Acts 1. 1. The former treatise haue I made ô Theophilus of all that Iesus began to doe and teach. These thinges that Christ did and taught contayne a perfect doctrine, but these thinges are written.

CHAMP.

Conclude, therefore the onlie ghospell of S. Luke contayneth a perfect doctrine. Is this your intent? noe, but blinde malice against the euident truth draweth you into these grosse absurdities. If you haue noe care of your soule, haue yett for shame so­me care of your credit and reputation, for the gay­ninge of which you haue trauelled these fower or fiue yeeres to bringe foorthe this miserable heape of vnshapen absurdities. A miserable labour I wisse, whereby you gaine nothinge but the reputation of an impertinent minister, deuoyde of ordinarie iudg­ment. To these fewe testimonies of scripture so mi­serablie mistaken, you adde some passages of the fa­thers, to as good purpose as you did in the former Antithesis. These they are.

PILK Proofe 4.Athan de incarnat. cont. Apo­linar.

If you be the disciples of the gospell saith Atha­nasius speake not iniquitie against God, but wal­ke [Page 179] in those thinges which are written or donne. For if you will speake diuers thinges from these thinges that are written, why striue you withIren cont. heres. li. 2. cap. 42. vs without them. The scriptures are perfect as spoken from the worde of God and his spiritt.

CHAMP.

S. Athanasius speaketh of such thinges, as are not onlie not directly in scriptures, but are against and contrarie to scriptures. S. Ireneus saith the scriptures beinge spoken by the spiritt of God are perfect, as the thinges spoken by men are not, which haue im­perfections and therefore are subiect to corrections and amendments. You abuse therefore your reader with an equiuocall tearme of perfect.

PILK Proofe 5.

The order of this present tecture teacheth, Amb. to. 4 lib de pa­radis. c. 12 that we must nott adde anie thinge to the di­uine precepts, for if thou addest or detractest it is a preuarication of the precept. Oftentymes when a witnes addeth anie thinge of his owne he spotteth the whole creditt of his testimonie with a lye, nothinge therefore thoughe it seeme good, must be added. And a litle after, if S. Iohn hath sayde of his writinge, if anie man adde vnto these thinges, God shall adde vnto him the plagues that are written in this booke, and if anie man shall take away from the wor­de of this prophecie, God shall take away his parte from the booke of life, howe much more nothinge is to be added to godds precepts?

CHAMP.

That which is taught or commēded by the chur­che, which the scripture commandeth vs to heare, is not superadded to gods commandements or pre­cepts but is comprised in them, you therefore that [Page 180] will not heare and obey the churche, which you are so expressely commaunded to heare, euidentlie and damnablie detract from diuine precepts. Therefore this authoritie is so farr from proouinge anie thinge to your purpose, that it ouerthroweth it rather.

PILK Proofe 6.

O Emperour doost thou demaunde what our Hill. ad Constant. faith is? Heare it not out of newe papers, but out of the bookes of God; heare I pray thee the thinges that are written of Christ, least, vnder them those thinges that are not written should be preached. Open thy eares to those thinges that shall speake out of the bookes, lifte vppe thy faith vnto God, I will not defend any thinge scandalous, nor anie thinge that is from without the gospell.

CHAMP.

This authoritie is like the rest; impertinent to your purpose, and rather against you then for you. For he that defendeth the authoritie of the churche, and these thinges that are taught by her, defendeth nothinge from without the bookes of God; but he that defendeth the contrarie as you doe, doth eui­dently impugne the gospell. S. Hill: willeth the Ar­rian Emperour to heare these thinges, that are writ­ten of Christ as this, he is one with his father, and the like, and then he should be farr from beleeuinge that which is no where written, to witt, that he is a creature and inferiour to his father. Your cause is most miserable and despicable, seeinge it is forced to begge testimonie of such extorted witnesses.

And nowe I leaue to the iudicious reader, be he ca­tholicke or protestant to iudge, whether the catho­licke positions of this first controuersie sett downe in the Manuall, be not both more clearlie expressed, and more firmelie and trulie prooued by scripture, then the protestant position sett downe by Mr. Pil­kinton, [Page 181] which is the chiefe issue of our controuersie and dispute. And further whether the positions sett downe in the Manuall vnder the title of protestant positions, be not truly and iustly ascribed vnto them, and more directlie pertayninge to the controuersie heere discussed, then the others proposed by him.

MANVALL. The second Controuersie of traditions, Catholike position 1.

The holy Apostles diliuered by worde of mouth, moe thinges to be beleeued & obserued by the churche, then either they found written or wrote themselues. And these thinges are vsuallie called traditions.

PILK.

You haue gotten a wolfe by the eare, when you fasten on traditions, if you lett them goe they carrie with them a great parte of your faith, if you holde them fast, you shewe you cannot prooue your faith from scriptures. For you freelie and plainlie tell vs what your chur­che meaneth by traditions; not interpretation of that which is written, but addition and suppli­ment of that which is not. For moe thinges say you, are to be beleeued and obserued then either the Apostles wrote or founde written, and these are traditions. Let the reader marke this; for the question here betwixt vs, is not of inter­pretation of scriptures, nor of rites and ceremo­nies, that haue correspondence with them, which here he carrieth vnder the name of thin­ges to be obserued, but of doctrines and mat­ters [Page 182] of faith, which are thinges to be beleeued all which (saith he) were neuer written in the old testament, nor yet in the newe.

CHAMP.

You putt me in minde of the fable of the fox that hauinge lost his owne tayle, would needes perswade his fellowes to cutt of theires. So you beinge out of loue with traditions, woulde perswade vs to reiect them also. But we are not so soone moued, we pro­fesse to beleeue diuerse things for traditions sake, and that by warrant of scripture. whereunto if you did geue so much creditt as you would be thought to doe, you woulde also beleeue the same. And seing you yeeld alreadie the one halfe of the controuersie, to witt traditions of thinges to be obserued (for of these thinges you say there is no question betweene vs) I will not dispaire to euict the other part, of thin­ges also to be beleeued, from you.

PILK.

Nowe this is a manifest vntruth. For there is not anie article of faith, which the Apostles founde not in the scriptures of the prophetts, nor which either the euangelists or themselues, did not consigne vnto vs in theire writings, which thinge any man may finde to be true, that will take paines to consider the articles of the Apostolike creede, one by one, which either haue proofe out of the ould testament, or else the Apo­stles did not double all theire doctrines out of the scriptures. Contrary to S. Paules practise, acts. 26. 22.

CHAMP.

Howe manifest an vntruth it is that the Apostles taught more then either they found written or wrot themselues, we shall see, in the processe of this con­trouersie. In the meane while I tell you that you af­firme [Page 183] boldlie but prooue nothinge. And why doe you referr vs to the Apostles creede for proofe of your vniuersall affirmation? Is nothinge to be belee­ued but that which is therein contayned? what find you (I pray you) in the creede touchinge either the number or the nature of the Sacraments, of theire efficacie or necessitie, of originall sinne, of the fall of the Angells, with manie moe articles beleeued by all christians? And yett you confirme your proofe farr more absurdlie, by supposinge that the Apostles doubled (that is your worde where you learned it I knowe not) al theire doctrine out of scripture: which is the thinge in question and therefore most absurd­lie brought for proofe of the same. Againe what ne­cessitie had the Apostles to double theire doctrine (as you say) out of the scriptures? Hadd they not au­thoritie to preach anie thinge but what they founde alreadie in the scriptures? What Christian euer drea­med of such doctrine as you haue deliuered here? But this was S. Paules practise you say. But you are either ignorantlie or wilfullie mistakē and that most grosselie. For thoughe S. Paule and the rest of the Apostles preached nothinge contrarie to the doctrine of the old testament, but contrariwise shewed howe the auncient prophecies were fulfilled by our Sa­uiour Christ (which S. Paules auditours at Boerea findinge, by conferinge his doctrine with the pro­phets, were much confirmed in theire faith) yett is it noe where sayd, that either he or the rest preached nothinge but that they founde written. Neither did this paradoxe euer enter into anie mans heade but Mr. Pilkintons.

PILK.

Reade saith Ireneus diligentlie the Gospell, which the Apostles haue geuen vs, and read al­so diligentlie the prophetts, and you shall finde all the actions and passions of our lorde, yea all his doctrine for to be preached, your proofes [Page 184] haue as much truth as the Carthaginians faith.

CHAMP.

S. Ireneus saith no more but that there is a great and manifest conformitie or agreement, betweene the Prophetts and Apostles preachinge and doctrine, which as it is most true, so is it as much to your pur­pose as Paules steeple is to Charinge Crosse. And whether my proofes or yours haue more affinitie with the Carthaginian faith, lett the indifferent reader iudge.

MANVALL. Proofe of the catholike position. 1.

Hauinge moe thinges to write vnto2. 10. 12. 3. 10. 13. you, I woulde not by paper and Inke; For I hope I shall be with you, and speake mouth to mouth.

PILK.

These well conclude, that in this shorte Epistle S. Iohn did not write all the poyntes of faith, but that others of the Apostles did not write them he saith not a word. What loose reasoninge is this? S. Iohn did not write all in these Epistles, therefore the rest did not; For whatsoeuer is necessarie vnto saluation, and of faith though there it be not to be found, yet in the writings of the other Apostles it is to be read.

CHAMP.

Seeinge I haue by your confession prooued out of the scripture, that this Apostle taught moe thinges by worde o [...] mouth then he wrote (which was my Position) it nowe belongeth to you, either to graunt my position to be true, or to prooue by scriptures that the rest of the Apostles wrote that which he [Page 185] taught by worde of mouth, and omitted to write: For to say it only without proofe, yea and such as you require of your aduersarie is to make your owne affirmation à lawe and rule of your faith. Which though it appeareth well to be so, to your selfe, yett will it not be admitted of others. And if I should here againe presse you with your owne rule; non eredimus quia non [...]eg [...]nous; you would find ei [...] your rule too strickt, or your assertion here (that the other Apostles committed to writinge, that which S. Iohn taughte by worde and omitted to write) to be false. Choose whether parte you will. You see therfore that my reasoninge was not loose, but that your iudgment thereon was light.

Your reason followinge, is a miserable begginge of that which is in question, and which you should prooue, and is more easilie and trulie denyed then affirmed. And for your better instruction I wish you to marke a litle more diligentlie the wordes of the Apostle, and you will (as I suppose) perceiue the argument to be of more force then you tooke it to be of, vnles you dissembled. For he giuinge the rea­son why he would not vse paper and inke, to make knowne vnto them to whome he wrote those thin­ges which he had to teache them, he saith not, that it is for that either he himselfe or anie of the other Apostles had or woulde sett them downe in writin­ge, but because he hoped to be with them, and to speake vnto them mouth to mouth.

Manuall Proofe 2.

And the rest I will dispose when I co­me. Where the Apostle euidently sheweth, that he reserued something more to be or­dayneth by worde then he wrote.

PILK.

This is litle to the purpose, for the Apostle doth not there speake of matters of faith, which [Page 186] is our question, but of such things as belonge to order and comelines, as it is playne by the word in greeke which properlie signifieth orderinge of rites, and matters of decencie, not teachinge of doctrines and matters of faith, as appeareth [...] the same epist: cap. 16. 1. concerninge the ga­ [...]inge for the Saincts, as I haue geuen order to the churches of Galatia, euen so doe yee. TheIn hunc locum. rest saith Aquinas, videlicet these thinges that are not of such danger will I dispose of when I come, howe you shall obserue them. But lett it be graunted that he meaneth doctrines and mat­ters of faith, it is an inference without coherence, that because he writte them not then, therefore he did omitte them for euer, or because he wrot them not, therefore the rest were silent and writ­te them not. When you consider of these conse­quences, then you may see that it is as farr from your purpose as Gades is from Ganges.

CHAMP.

Your second answere to this testimonie is effec­tuallie frustrated in my reply to your answere of the precedent testimonie, and therefore needeth no fur­ther confutation. Your former answere (admittinge it in your owne sence) doth expresselie graunt tra­ditions in matters to be obserued, and practised in the churche, which seeinge they concerne the vse of the Sacraments, and other holy obseruations to be kept by all Christians established and ordayned by the Apostles by the expresse commaundement of our Sauiour Christ. Matt. 28. 20. I would knowe of you some reason why you deny the authoritie of tradi­tions in thinges to be beleeued, and graunt them in matters to be donne and obserued, will you say that they are more fallible in the one, then in the other? [Page 187] To say this onlie without some ground or reason, will haue small grace or force.

Manuall. Proofe 3.

The Apostles were commanded to tea­che all nations to obserue all thinges which our Sauiour had commāded. Which doubtles they fulfilled, but they were not commanded in anie place to write all the same: neither doth it appeare by anie scrip­ture that they did write all thinges which they taught men to beleeue and obserue. This is a demonstration that they taught more then they wrote, if nothinge be to beleeued but that which is contayned in holy scripture.

PILK.

That Christe charged the Apostles to teach all nations whatsoeuer he commanded, which they fulfilled also, but he charged them no where toIren. li. 3. cap. 1. write all; The fathers shall answere. We knowe not the dispensinge of our saluation, from anie where, then from them by whome the gospell came to vs, which then they preached, and after by the will of God deliuered vnto vs in the holy scriptures to be the foundation and piller of ourDe con­sensu E­uang. l. [...]. cap. vlt. saith. S. Aug. saith, that when the Euangelists and Apostles did write what God shewed and sayd, we may not say that he writte it not; for whatsoeuer he would haue vs to read either cō ­cerninge his wordes or workes, he commandeth them as his owne hands to write it. If what the Apostles preached after they writte as Ireneus [Page 188] saith; If what God commaunded them so to doe, as S. August. auoucheth. Then it plainlie fol­loweth, that they writte as much as they prea­ched, and that not onlie by the allowance, but by the commandment of our Sauiour Christ. For they writte nothinge but that with which theyLib. 4. de Pon [...]. were inspired. Nowe inspiration is a comman­dement, as Bellarmine confesseth.

CHAMP.

Stande to your grounde and doe not flinche from it, you say nothinge is to be beleeued but that which is written. If you will therefore that it should be be­leeued that the Apostles wrot all things they taught, shewe it written, or acknowledge your ground to be false. The scripture testifieth that the Aposties were commanded to teach all thinges necessarie to be ob­serued, but that they were commaunded to write the same, it no where appeareth. If therefore they did it, either they did it by Christs commaundement, and then you must needes confesse something neces­sarie to be beleeued more then is written; for it is no where written that he commaunded them to write all thinges they taught. Or they did it with­out his commaundement. And then it was not ne­cessarie they shoulde doe it, and consequentlie was it not necessarie there should be anie thinge written at all in the newe testament. And thoughe they writte nothinge but that was inspired into them, yea & that they were inspired to write, both which thinges you beleeue, thoughe you finde neither of them written, yett it no where appeareth, that they were inspired to write all they had by inspiration. You say the fathers shall answere for you; but I re­ceiue not theire answere as sufficient, vnles you will stande to the fathers testimonie in all other points. You promised scripture for all your positions, per­forme therefore your promise, or confesse your posi­tion [Page 189] of beleeuinge nothinge but that which is writ­ten, to be false.

Notwithstandinge because the testimonie of the fathers is venerable with me, I will not refuse it if they say anie thinge for you. But neither of the fa­thers cited by you saith, that the Apostles wrote all they preached, which is our issue heere. And as fo [...] the former to witt S. Ireneus, you haue his plaine meaninge layd downe vnto you before in the be­ginninge of our dispute, to witt, in the answere to your second Antithesis which you frame out of these selfe same wordes of S. Ireneus. And as for S. Aug. he saith not that Christ commanded to bee written whatsoeuer he woulde haue vs to beleeue of him, or his workes, but onlie whatsoeuer he woulde haue vs to reade; Which is most true. For he could not will that we shoulde read anie thinge but that which was written. But lett vs yeelde yett further vnto you, and suppose these fathers to say as much for your purpose as you would haue (which you see is farr otherwise) yett woulde I aske, you where they had that doctrine? not from the scripture, for no such thinge appeareth therein. If therefore you will ad­mitte of theire doctrine, though not taken out of the scripture, why doe you professe that nothinge is to be beleeued, but that which is written and contay­ned in the scripture. And thus you see your selfe so inuolued with your doctrine, that you can finde noe way to escape some manifest absurditie.

Manuall. Proofe 4.

They (the Apostles) taught baptisme giuen to infants to be good and lawfull, or else the Anabaptists are not heretikes for rebaptisinge them.

PILK.Bell. li. d. [...]ap. c. 8.

The Baptisme of infants may by good and necessarie consequence be deriued from the scrip­tures [Page 190] otherwise your friend Bellarmine hath brought chaffie arguments against the Anabap­tists. The first is from the figure of the olde testa­ment, children were circumcised, therefore they ought to be baptised: this is so stronge saith he that it cannot be eluded. The second is taken out of the thirde of Iohn. Except a man be borne a­gaine of water and the holy Ghost, he cannot en­ter into the kingdome of heauen. Whereunto may be added Christs commaundment Matt. 19. 14. Suffer little children to come vnto me, for of such is the kingdome of heauen. And in howe manie places doth S. Aug. prooue from the holy scriptures, the necessitie of Baptisme against the Pelagians, who imagininge children to be with­out original sinne, thought it vnnecessarie; wher­as he sheweth out of Iohn that without it ori­ginall sinne is not remitted, and therefore if it be needfull certainlie it is lawfull.

CHAMP.

The arguments vsed by Bellarmine are not chaffie but substantially good, because they are taken from the scripture interpreted by the authoritie of the churche, and the canonicall practise thereof, recei­ued from the Apostles, which is sufficient to prooue the Anabaptists to be heretike denyinge the Baptis­me of infants to be lawfull. And seeing you confesse the testimonie of the 3. of S. Iohn to be so effectuall to prooue the lawfulnes of the Baptisme of infants, you must likwise confesse Caluin and all his fol­lowers to be heretikes. For he denyeth the necessity of Baptisme to saluation which is much more clear­lie prooued out of that place, then is the Baptisme of infants. And so whilst you woulde auoyde one euill you fall into a worse. The same inconuenience [Page 191] followeth against you vppon the argument of S. Au­gust. For if he prooue rightlie against the Pelagians that Baptisme is necessarie; he concludeth directlie against your Master Caluin. Yea against the doctrine deliuered in the first dayes conference of Hampton Courte. Read it and see whether I say not true.

Manuall Proofe 6.

They (the Apostles) taught the sunday to be solemnised and the Iewes Sabboth to be lefte without all solemnitie. Thoughe moste strictly commaunded by God to be solemnised as an euerlastinge Couenant.

PILK.

The obseruation of the sunday and alteration from the Iewishe Sabboth we finde written in the scriptures. For Iohn tearmeth it the Lordes day; not onlie for that it was consecrated to his publike seruice, but for that he was the institu­terEpist 119 cap. 13. Chrisost. serm. 3. de resurrect. and ordayner thereof, as S. Aug: speaketh. It was prefigured in the eight day wherein the Iewes vsed circumcision as both the same fa­ther, and Chrisost: teach; and if prefigured then prescribed. In this day did the Apostles come to­gether acts. 20. 7. and accordinglie they taught the churche to obserue it, not by voyce onlie, but by writinge 1. cor. 16. 2. Euerie first day of the weeke lett euerie one of you put a side by him­selfe, and though it were commaunded by God to be obserued as an euerlastinge couenant, yett who is so meanlie skilled in the Hebrue, that knoweth not Gnolam, sometymes to signifie eternitie, sometimes a definit tyme, as to the Iubilee, Exad▪ 21▪ 6▪ then his master will bringe [Page 192] him vnto the iudges, and sett him to the dore, or the poste, and his maister shall bore his eare throughe with an awle, and he shall serue him for euer, and as the passeouer was tearmed Exo: 12. 14. an euerlastinge ordinance, which yett was but to continue till the fulnes of tyme. So the Sabboth is tearmed an euerlasting couenant, which yett for the day was onlie vnder the state of the olde testament.

CHAMP.

Here you exceede your selfe in impertinencie and wilfull obstinacie. If I should haue brought out of the scriptures for traditions such proofes as you doe to ouerthrowe them, you would make sporte ther­at, and worthelie, saying they were not onlie loose arguinge, but verie seelie Sophistrie, S. Iohn tearmeth one day, the Lordes day, ergo say you the scripture testifieth the abrogation of the Iewes Sabboth, and establishment of the sunday, and that fully, for of full proofe and testimonie wee here dispute. Againe the Apostle willed the Corrinthians euerie first day of the weeke to lay a side by themselues &c. Ergo say you the Apostle did not onlie teach by voice, but by writinge also the obseruation of the christians sun­day insteede of the Iewishe Sabboth. These are your best and strongest arguments in this matter, which if you trulie thinke to be fully sufficient of themselues, to prooue that you desire; with what face or cons­cience can you reiect the proofes of expresse scripture and cleare instances brought for the catholike posi­tion, as not sufficient to prooue the same?

Manuall Proofe 6.

They deliuered and taught the creede by worde of mouthe and not in writinge, which from theire tyme till nowe hath cō ­tinued in the churche by tradition onlie.

PILK.

The creede we confesse the Apostles taught, and finde euerie parcell and portion thereof in theire writings, which if you denie we can quickelie make good. S. Aug. telleth vs so much. Lib. ad Catech. de Simbolo. These wordes which you haue hearde (he spea­keth of the Simboll) are scattered in the holy scriptures; from them collected and reduced into one, to helpe the memorie of dull men. But here you delude your reader againe with a triflinge Homonomie of this worde creede. For if thereby you meane wordes and sillables, then it is true, that the Apostles vse not in theire writings, so­me wordes expressed in the creede, neither is it necessarie to beleeue that they wrote the wordes thereof, and then it is not to the purpose to proue your positiō, which is of thinges to be beleeued, and not of wordes. But if by the creede you vn­derstande the matter of it, and thinges to be be­leeued, then it is vntrue that the Apostles writte it not, and all thinges contayned therein; which thinges haue continued in our churche as the obiect of our faith, not for tradition onlie, as you ignorantly say, but because they are recorded in the holy scripture.

CHAMP.

Shewe me then in theire writings, I meane the Apostles, the discention of our Sauiour into hell; and the catholicke churche, which Luther loued so little, that he turned it the christian churche. Thoughe we beleeue not onlie the parcells of the creede, but the whole creede together. And that the Apostles made it, which is no where expressed in scripture. And if I say ignorantlie that the creede as it is composed by [Page 194] the Apostles and therefore receiued and beleeued of all christians in al ages, hath continued in the church vntill this day by tradition only; shewe it me written in the scriptures, and I will confesse myne ignoran­ce, and correct my wordes. But seeinge you cannot performe that, I tell you, that you impudentlie af­firme that it hath other continuance then by tradi­tion, opposinge tradition to the canonicall scripture onlie.

Manuall. Proofe 7.

They taught Baptisme administred by heretikes to be good; and therefore S. Aug. speakinge thereof saith. Manie thinges which Aug li 2. cont. Do­nat. c. 7. are not found in the Apostles writinges nor in the latter councells, yet because they are obser­ued by the whole churche, are beleeued to be deliuered and recommended by none but by thē. Againe he saith. There are manie thinges which the whole church doth hold, and therefore are well beleeued to be commaunded by the Apostles, albeyt they be not found written.

PILK.

That Baptisme ministred by heretikes, was preached by the Apostles, but not written, hath as much truth as the rest. For whereas Cyprian hath taught, that Baptisme of heretikes was not good, and therefore to be reiterated, S. Aug. crosseth him and prooueth the contrarie out of the ghospell, and out of the wordes of the Apo­stle Ephe. 4. And this is so frequent with that father, that it maketh me thinke you haue not read him of that argument, but gleaned out of others that might serue your turne. So p [...]lpably [Page 195] are you deceiued to thinke that S. August: con­ceiued this to be an vnwritten tradition with­out ground of scripture, for thus he writeth. (That I may not seeme to prooue it by humane arguments, I will bringe foorth certayne docu­ments out of the scripture). And whereas Cy­prian had taught, that for proofe of this we must haue recourse vnto the fountayne of Apo­stolicall tradition, that is the scriptures, S. Aug: approoueth it, and saith that the Apostles deli­uered, that there is one God, one Christe, one baptisme, and therefore baptisme of heretikes is firme, and not to be repeated. When then he saith of this as of other thinges, that they are not founde in the Apostles writinges, nor in lat­ter councells &c. And there be manie thinges which the whole churche doth holde, and ther­fore are well beleeued to be commended by the Apostles, albeyt they be not found written. Which wordes are in his 2. booke contra Do­natistasI cited the same place you doe if you coulde see it, thoughe the prin­ter added the other vnto it.cap. 7. and not lib. 5. cap. 27. as you cited them. His meaninge is they are not written in so manie wordes, but the groundes of them are layd in the scriptures and thence necessarilie they may be concluded. This is playne out of Aug. for hauinge vttered these wordes vrged by you, when he draweth to an ende of this disputation, he thus concludeth. It might suffice that our reasons beinge so often repeated and diuerselie debated and handled in disputinge, and the documents of holy scripture beinge ad­ded, and so manie testimonies of Cyprian con­curringe. [Page 196] By this tyme I thinke the weaker sorte of men vnderstande, that the baptisme of Christe cannot be violated, by the peruersnes of the par­tie that geueth or receiueth it. Loe howe be bringeth documents out of scripture, to prooue that the peruersnes of heretikes, peruerteth not the baptisme of Christe, and therfore baptisme ministred by hereticks is good.

CHAMP.

Is it be written by the Apostles that the Baptisme of heretikes is sufficient, and not to be reiterated, why doe not you shewe the place and confound your aduersarie? But you had rather impudētlie affir­me an vntruth, thē ingeniously acknowledg a cleare veritie. As thoughe if it hadd been so clearly & fully taught in holy scripture, as you are bound to shewe it, S. Cyprian who had a much iudgmēt to discerne it as you att least, and noe lesse good will to acknow­ledge it, nor yett lesse industrie and diligence to seeke it, could not he haue esped it? And howsoeuer here you wilfullie wrangle out of S. Aug: as though he acknowledged not the Baptisme of heretikes by tra­dition, yett two pages after, you in expresse wor­des confesse, that he saith: neither baptisme of in­fants, nor by heretikes are written in scripture. And though you interpret him both here and there, to meane that they are not founde written in so manie wordes, but that the groundes notwithstandinge from whence they may be necessarilie concluded are layd in the scriptures; yett is this your glosse mee­relie voluntarie, clearlie against S. August: meaninge and common sence. Or i [...] not, why doe not you fra­me some argument which by necessary consequence may conclude out of the groundes layd in scripture, abstractinge from the authoritie of the churche and tradition, either of these two articles? But it is more easie for you to affirme twentie positions, then to prooue one.

Manuall catholike position. 2.

The Catholike churche doth, and ought to beleeue those thinges which the Apost­les deliuered by worde of mouth without writinge, in the same degree of faith with those that are written.

PILK.

For answere vnto this, lett the iudicious rea­derBell. lib. 4 de verbo. cap. 11, respons ad Ireneum. The here­tikes abu­singe the authoritie of tradi­tions proo­ueth theire authority, as it doth also that of the scriptures which they like­wise a­buse. obserue that it is the vsuall doctrine of Pa­pists to teach, that all points of Christian beliefe, which are necessarie for all men, were publike­lie preached by the Apostles to all men and recor­ded in the register of holy scripture. But besides these there were diuers thinges committed to prelats and priests that were more perfect men, which they taught them a parte, accordinge to that which S. Paule saith, we speake wis­dome amonge them that are perfect. And these be theire traditions which they would haue e­quallie credited with the scriptures. Nowe this was the verie doctrine of the auncient heretikes, Valentinians, Cerintheans, Marcionists &c. For abusinge the scripture and aduancinge traditiōs grounded on the same foundation, as the fathers tell vs. And these be thinges which the protes­tants denie to be equall with the scriptures, for they graunt that the Apostles in the beginninge of theire embassage, write not the whole doctrine which they preached, but deliuered parte by worde of mouth, and parte by writinge; how­beit they consigned the Canon of the scripture, and writte that formerlie they had deliuered as [Page 198] Ireneus and August. doe teach. This beinge the true state of the question, if the papists meane not these former secret matters that Bellarmine mentioneth and are not written, his position is, de non ente. For that there is nothinge or faith nowe, which the Apostles did not after they preached either finde or leaue in writinge vnto the churche, and these beinge deliuered at first, partely by liuelie voyce, partely by letters, were to be embraced with like acceptance and creditt. But if he meane these secret doctrines deliuered a parte, and only by worde, neuer by them writ­ten, then we denie that the Apostles left any such thinge equallie to be credited, with the holy scriptures, neither the allegations inferre anie such matter.

CHAMP.

You haue here multiplyed a greate heape of vnne­cessarie wordes, making the thinge obscure, which of it selfe is cleare enough. The question is not now (as you say) whether the Apostles taught not more by word of mouth (whether in secret or in publicke, that importeth not) that, hauinge been disputed before, and prooued against you. But of what autho­ritie the thinges deliuered only by worde of mouth are, of which question you haue the beleefe of the catholicke churche sett downe directlie in the posi­tion of the Manuall, and the proofe thereof out of expresse scripture, whereunto lett vs heare your an­swere.

Manuall. Proofe 1.

Therefore brethren stand and holde the traditions which you haue learned, whe­ther it be by worde or by our. Epistle S. [Page 199] Basill saith I account it Apostolike to con­tinue2. Thes. 2. 15. Basil de Spiritu S. cap. 29. Fulke 2. Thes. 2. Sect. 17. firmelie in vnwritten traditions, and alleageth this place of S. Paule S. Chrisost cited by fulke himselfe saith this. Hereof it is manifest that they (the Apostles) deli­uered not all by Epistles: but manie things without letters, and the one is of as great creditt as the other. Therefore we thinke the traditions of the churche to be worthy of creditt, it is tradition, inquire noe more.

PILK.

To your first testimonie, if I shoulde answere that S. Paule meaneth not he deliuered some thin­ges by writinge, somethings by worde only, but the very same by both, first preachinge it, and after writinge, it would trouble you to prooue the contrarie. For the disiunctiue (whether) ar­gueth not diuersitie of thinges deliuered, but di­uers wayes of deliueringe the same, as in other places Rom. 14. 8. whether we liue or whether we dye, wee are the lordes: it followeth not dying we are one, and liuinge we are another 1. Cor. 5. 11. whether I or they, so we preach, and there­fore Paule preached one gospell, the Apostles another.

CHAMP.

You doe wiselie not to stand much vppon your newe inuention, least to your owne companions you might become ridiculous, neither though you should stande there vppon, shoulde it putt me to much trouble to prooue the contrary: vnles to establishe your noueltie you woulde thinke to inuert the com­mon and vsuall manner of speakinge and vnderstan­dinge [Page 200] of all men. For the disiunctiue (whether) doth alwayes signifie the diuersitie of the thinge ioyned with it, as is manifest euen in your examples, whether we liue or dye; whether I or they: but so as one and the same thinge is affirmed of them both, & so it is in our testimonie as also in these sayinges fol­lowinge; retayne the goods you haue receiued whe­ther in money or marchandise. Keepe the present I sent you, whether in Iewells or in plaie With fiue thou­sand moe. And it is a ridiculous conceipt to thinke, that the Apostle commended vnto his disciple the same thinges both written and preached: in which sence his sayinge shoulde be no more disiunctiue but copulatiue in this manner, hold those thinges which you haue learned both by worde and Epistle: Which is not to interprett the Apostle, but manifestly to corrupt him. Seeinge therefore you dare not stand vppon this interpretation, let vs heare your auowed answere.

PILK.

But I adde that if one vnderstand these thin­ges of diuerse pointes of Christian religion, which S. Paule deliuered vnto the Thessalon [...]ās and writte them not: it will not followe, that other Apostles writte them not, and still your thesis is de non ente this testimonie is to no purpose, sith what point of doctrine Paule deliuered by voyce, we finde recorded in the scriptures.

CHAMP.

It followeth right well that the other Apostles writte not these thinge which S. Paule deliuered onlie by worde. if your rule be true, non credimus quia non [...]egimios For it is noe where written that they wrote those thinges; therefore accordinge to your doctrine, not to be beleeued. Againe I hauinge prooued by expresse scripture interpreted by the fa­thers, [Page 201] that the Apostle taught somethinge more then he wrote, and commanded it to be beleeued equally with his writinge (which is the position of the Ma­nuall) it behooueth you that maintayne the con­trarie, to prooue it by expresse scripture, or else to confesse that the catholike doctrine hath better and more firme ground in the scripture then Protestan­tisme. You prooue brauely my thesis to be de non en [...]e, and the proofe thereof to be to no purpose, by your ordinarie miserable, absurde, and ridiculous begginge of that which is in question, & supposinge that for true and graunted, which is expresselie de­nyed But to such shameful shifts is falsitie worthely driuen. Lett vs see the rest of your answere if it be anie better.

PILK.

The testimonie cited out of Basill, is wrong­fullie fathered on that worthy-Bishoppe, and contradicteth that which he writeth in other places, and are acknowledged on both sides to be his, and namelie his sermon de fide, where he saith, that it is a manifest desection from faith, to bringe in anie thinge that is not written. Besides in this verie chapter mentio­ned Epist 44. & 67. by you, he speakes of Meletus, as a rare man that liued an dyed before his tyme, as appea­reth by diuers of his Epistles. And if we creditt Baronius he dyed after Basill. For Basill dyed. 378. and Meletus 381.

CHAMP.

Here indeede you goe roundlie to worke, and like yourselfe, for not knowinge howe to answere the authoritie, you denie the author; for two weighty reasons I wisse. The first is a pretence of a contradic­tion, which is as much a contradiction, as to affirme Mr. Pilkinton to be a minister, and a doctor. For he [Page 202] affirminge it to be Apostolike, to continue firmelie in vnwritten traditions: saith it is infidelitie to adde any thinge to the scriptures that is contrarie vnto them. The second is a weake cōiecture, that he liued after one Meletus, who notwithstandinge is sayde to die after him.

PILK.

Chrisostome is the onlie man that seemeth to fauour your assertion, but trulie vnderstood he helpeth it nothinge. For he speaketh not of traditions that are not written at all, but of such as are not written in so manie wordes. And it is vsuall with the fathers, to call them vnwritten traditions, which are not verbatim sett downe in the scriptures, and yett haue a true ground in them, as formerlie I shewed out of S. Aug. who saith that neither baptisinge of infants, nor baptisinge by heretikes, are written in the scripture, and yett prooueth both out of them. This is the answere of that worthy diuine D. Fulke.

CHAMP.

Both you and your worthy diuine D. Fulke, cor­rupt S. Chrisost: who saith it is manifest by the testi­monie of the Apostle, that they deliuered not all by Epistles, but manie thinges without letters, marke these wordes without letters, and see whether they will stand with your glosse. You here confesse against your selfe, that S: Aug: saith, neither baptisme of in­fants, nor by heretikes is written; and therefore con­sequentlie beleeued by tradition. But you say he ne­uerthelesse prooueth both by scriptures. He sheweth indeede by scriptures, that they are not contrarie to scriptures; but that they are either commaunded or warranted by scriptures he shewed not; but recur­reth to tradition and the authoritie of the churche. [Page 203] So that the confirmation of your glosse vppon S. Chrisostome out of S. Aug: is as voluntarie as the glosse it selfe.

PILK.

This is the answere of that worthie diūine Dr. Fulke to the obiection of the Rhemists cited not by him, but by them out of S. Chrisostome; which I wounder howe you impute to him, ex­cept you would haue your reader to conceiue that he fauoreth your opinion, which he directlie impugneth in that place.

CHAMP.

I knowe that amongst other peruersities of that af­fected wrangler Fulke, this is one, which for his name, hath not the more, but much lesse probabi­litie, because he euerie where impugneth the mani­fest truth. Nor did I impute it to him for the end you say, for I desire not his fauour in the behalfe of the catholike truth, beinge a peruerse enemie thereof; but for this reason, that the protestant reader should not suspect the place to be cited by me more fauora­blie then it was in it selfe.

Manuall Proofe 2.

O Timothie keepe the depositum, that is that which is committed to thy trust, not certes by writinge. For litle or nothinge written of the newe testament was know­ne to Timothy then. See a large discourse hereuppon in Vincentius Lirinensis.

PILK.

This is nothinge to the purpose. For whether1. Tim. 6. 20. that which was comitted to Timothies trust, be vnderstoode his flocke as Lyra conceiueth it, or those gifts which were bestowed vppon him for [Page 204] the edifiinge of the people, as Aquinas iudgeth; it is farr from your inference, that vnwritten tra­ditions are of equall creditt with the scriptures. Vincentius fauoureth not your traditions att all; For that which was committed to Timothie, is in his opinion the talent of catholike faith, whe­reof, he was not the author, but the keeper, not an ordayner, but a follower; not a leader but one that is ledd. Loe this is the catholike faith con­tayned in the scriptures, not traditions of other doctrine beside them or without them.

PILK.

The depositum which S. Paule speaketh of, is the whole christian doctrine deliuered by the Apostles to theire disciples to keepe, and to deliuer to others as is manifest, by the wordes followinge in the same text. O Timothie (saith he) keepe the depositum, auoydinge the prophane nouelties of voyces and opposi­tions of falslie called knowledge. Verie litle of which doctrine beinge then written, it must necessarilie be vnderstoode of tradition. And this is Vincentius Li­rinensis doctrine; which you cannott denie, though you would obscure it a litle in wordes, sayinge the depositum is the catholike faith; where if you mea­ne, the thinges belieued▪ you say the same that I say, if you meane the act or habitt of faith, you speake against common sence.

For that is not the depositum comitted to Timo­thie, by S. Paule, but the vertue of faith, geuen him by God, neither is it formallie opposed to the pro­phane nouelties to be auoyded by him; but the ver­tue or act whereby we assent vnto the articles of faith and verities proposed vnto vs.

Manuall Proofe 3.

But if anie man seeme to be contentious, we haue no such custome nor the churche [Page 205] of God. Where S. Paule alleageth the custo­me of the churche, as a sufficient disproofe of any practise: why not therefore for the proofe of anie.

PILK.

Our question is of doctrines of faith, to be beleeued and receiued of all, not of rites and ce­remonies concerninge externall order of the churche, whereof the Apostle treateth in that 1. Cor. 11. 16. place. This therefore is nothinge to the pur­pose, nor touchinge our question att all: and yett S. Paule alleageth not onlie custome, but geueth a reason of it in the wordes goinge before; which you seldome doe satisfy your proselites, but persuade them to beleeue and hange faith vppon your credit, as if it were impossible you shoulde be deceiued.

CHAMP.

Our question is as well of manners or thinges to be obserued, as of faith, and so is the former Ca­tholike position of the Manuall conceiued, and sett downe, neither is the authoritie of traditions either more fallible, or lesse necessarie in the one then in the other. Or if you thinke the contrarie, geue vs some sufficient reason or proofe thereof, besides your owne bare assertion. Which if you cannot seeinge you are constrained by the euidence of scrip­ture, to admitte the authoritie of tradition in the one, you cannott without wilfull obstinacie reiect it in the other. And thoughe S. Paule geueth some reasons of his doctrine in that place, yett he recur­reth to the custome of the churche, as to the most effectuall and forcible argument against those that are obstinat and contentious as you are.

Manuall Proofe 4.

The things thou hast heard of me by ma­nie2. ad Tim. 2. 2. witnesses these comend to the faithfull men which shall be fitt to teach others al­so. Loe no worde here of writinge, but of hearinge and teachinge by word of mouth.

Nowe hauinge prooued by scripture it selfe & euident instances, that manie thin­ges are to be beleeued, that are not direc­tlie contayned in scripture, it appeareth a senceles thinge to demande proofe of eue­ry thinge we beleeue, out of scriptures.

PILK.

Whereas Paule chargeth Timothie to com­mend those thinges to faithfull witnesses, which he had learned of him, where there is no men­tion of writinge but teachinge by worde, I woulde gladlie demande of this Papiste, if he woulde with patience endure anie of vs thus wildlie reasoninge. These thinges were taught and hearde, and commended to faithfull wit­nesses, therefore not written. The Bereans hearde S. Paule teach, but the same things they founde in the scriptures. Thus Aquinas inter­preteth this place, these thinges which thou hast hearde of me and of Christe, I say not of one onlie, but confirmed by manie witnesses vid. the Lawe and the Prophetts. So thinges were not onlie taught by worde, but confirmed by the doctrine of the oulde testament.

CHAMP.

This reasoninge is not wilde but firme and good, especiallie accordinge to your groundes, who teach that nothinge is to be beleeued that is not written. For seeinge it is no where written that these thinges which S. Paule taught and comended to Timothie to teach to others were committed to writinge, you cannot beleeue that they were written, but by con­tradictinge your owne rule, non credimu [...] quia non le­gimus. Agayne S. Paule exhortinge Timothie to teach others, and not to write vnto them these thin­ges which he had hearde of him, not read out of his writinges, doth manifestly shewe, that not onlie thinges writter [...], but also thinges spoken (yea these principallie) are to be beleeued. And therefore this arguinge is not wilde, but that your witts were one wooll-gatheringe, when you wrote this and sawe not the force of the argument, vnles peraduenture you woulde be politike in dissembling the force the­reof, because you coulde not auoyde it. And though S. Paule confirmed much of his doctrine by the au­thoritie of the oulde testament, yett that he taught nothinge more, then that which was written be­fore, I suppose you will not dare to say. And if you thinke the commentarie of S. Thomas here alleaged by you to be true, why doe you condemne the be­leeuinge of thinges not written, seeinge you finde not his comment written in all the whole Bible. Or if you condemne it not in him▪ why should you con­demne it in vs, or abhorr it in your selfe? And thus you see you are forced which way soeuer you turne your selfe, to admitte of vnwritten doctrine for good and canonicall, when you haue spited all your canne against it.

PILK.

Nowe that you may knowe that protestants haue bothe a shielde to defend themselues, and a sworde to wound theire aduersaries, heare theire [Page 208] positions with the confirmation thereof.

CHAMP.

If your sworde be no sharper, then your shielde is stronge, it will no more wounde your aduersaries, thē the other hath kept your doctrine whole. Which hath been so often pierced, as hadd your shoulders receiued so manie but drie blowes, as your doctrine hath donne ouerthrowes, they would geue you but small rest till you had taken some soueraigne Elixir to cure them.

And why doe you not put downe the protestants positions sett downe in the Manuall? If you had dis­liked them, you should haue tould vs why; if you did not dislike them, they had been more easily sett downe in theire owne wordes, then in others. Well I will here sett them downe that the reader may see them in theire owne shape.

Manuall protestant position 1.

The holy Apostles deliuered not by worde of mouth moe thinges to be belee­ued and obserued by the churche, then they either found written or wrote them­selues. And therefore are there no tradi­tions to be holden or beleeued.

Position 2.

The catholike churche ought not to be­leeue those thinges which the Apostles de­liuered onlie by worde of mouth without writinge in the same degree of faith, with those which are written. Nowe lett vs heare yours.

PILK. ANTITHESIS. 1.

The Apostles deliuered not by worde of mouth, more thinges to be beleeued, or obser­ued [Page 209] by the churche as necessarie to saluation, then they wrote themselues or found writen.

Proofe. 1.

Acts. 26. 22. hauinge therefore obtayned helpe of God, I continue vnto this day, wit­nessinge both to greate and small, sayinge none other thinges, then those which the prophetts and Moses did say shoulde come.

Argument.

They that preached no other thinges then that which is in Moises and the prophets, deliuered no more by worde of mouth then is written (then was written you shoulde haue sayd) but the Apostles did so. Ergo.

CHAMP.

Your argument if it did prooue anie thinge would conclude that the Apostles taught nothinge more then which was written in Moises and the pro­phets; which if it be true, what necessitie or profitt [...] is there of the gospells and the rest of the bookes of the newe testament? Whilst therefore you im­pugne traditions, you ouerthrowe the whole newe testament. S. Paule therefore taught nothinge con­trarie to the lawe and prophetts, yea those thinges which he preached to the Iewes of our Sauiour Christe, he prooued to be conformable to theire owne prophetts. Which kinde of proofe to the gentills would haue been of small moment, and therefore you see your argument not to be effectuall nor to conclude vniuersallie.

Againe why doe you vse the like manner of rea­soninge which you reprehended in me a litle be­fore, concludinge that because S. Paule at one tyme, or in one audience preached nothinge without the lawe, and prophetts; that therefore neither he or [Page 210] anie other tymes nor anie other of the Apostles▪ did preach anie thinge more then that which is con­tayned in them? Which kinde of argument thoughe I may iustly maintaine against you, as conformea­ble to your owne principles, denyinge traditions and beleeuinge nothinge but that which is written, yett are you ridiculous to vse it against me, who pro­fesse to beleeue manie thinges not written. And much more ridiculous you are to vse it for the im­pugninge of traditions, assuminge that for the grounde of your proofe, which you knowe is de­nyed you, and which oughte firste to be prooued.

Further where doe you finde in all the prophetts or Moises, the vision whereof S. Paule maketh a re­citall in the chapter cited by you? Certainlie no where. And yett this he preached with much vehe­mencie in an assemblie of greate personages, and himselfe thought it worthy of beleefe. Somethinge therefore you see he preached more then that which was contayned in Moises and the prophetts. And this I geue you for an example onlie, and not as the sole thinge wherein instance may be made.

PILK. Proofe 2.

2. Tim. 3. 16. From a childe thou haste know­ne the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise vnto saluation, thoroughe faith which is in Christe Iesus.

Argument.

The Apostles deliuered no more by worde nor writtinge but that which maketh a man wise to saluation. But all this written.

CHAMP.

If you dare stand to this argument, I will easilie prooue you to be more a Iewe then a christian by this Sillogisme. He that holdeth al that which is able to make a man wise to saluation (so that no other thinge is necessarie) to be written in the oulde testa­ment [Page 211] is more a Iewe then a Christian. But Mr. Pil­kinton holdeth this. Ergo. The minor which onlie needeth proofe I shewe thus. Maister Pilkinton hol­deth the scripture which S. Timothie knewe from a childe to be able to make a man wise to saluation. But this was onlie the olde testament. Ergo. By that tyme that you shall haue quitte your selfe of this argument, you will I suppose finde your owne not to deserue the name of an argument, nor yett of a wittie Sophisme. For to beleeue one only God, is able to make a man wise to saluation, because it maketh him wise in some thinge necessarie to salua­tion, as no man of common sence will denie. And yett that alone is not sufficient to saluation, as I thin­ke you yourselfe will confesse.

PILK. Proofe 3.

Io. 20. 31. These are written that yee might beleeue that Iesus is the sonne of God, and be­leeuinge you might haue life thoroughe his name.

Argument.

They that writte all thinges, whereby we might come to eternall life, wrote all thinges necessarie vnto saluation, and more they prea­ched not: But the Apostles did so.

CHAMP.

This argument is all moste as wicked as the prece­dent. For if it conclude anie thinge, it prooueth the Apostles to haue preached nothinge but S. Iohns gospell. And consequentlie all the rest of the newe testament, either to be Apocripha, or at least not to be anie way necessarie to saluation. This man thou seest (iudicious reader) to be as little a friende to scripture as to traditions, seeing to impugne the one, he destroyeth the other. Is this your sworde Mr. Mi­nister wherewith you would pearce and wounde [Page 212] your aduersary? no wise man I thinke but will say it was made to cutt your owne throate with, rather then to drawe one droppe of blood of your aduersa­rie. But you will bringe sharper weapons out of the fathers. You should remember that the testimonies out of the fathers, should be explications of the scrip­tures cited for the same purpose, and not theire sin­gle sayinges. But lett vs take them as they are.

PILK. Proofe 4.

We know not the disposition of our salua­tion, Iren. lib. 3. cap. 1. from anie other then from them, by whome the ghospell came to vs, which first they prea­ched, and after by the will of God deliuered it vnto vs in the holy scriptures, to be the founda­tion and pillar of our faith.

CHAMP.

This authoritie hath been once or twice satisfied before, and it saith not; they wrote all they preached; but the same doctrine which they preached, they writt, and not a diuerse or contrarie, as some here­tikes fabulouslie taught, against whome S. Ireneus there writeth; and this is the true meaninge of that place, as anie one that looketh thereon will easilie see.

PILK. Proofe 5.

These thinges are chosen to be written, Aug. trac. 49. in Io. which are sufficient for the saluation of the beleeuers.

CHAMP.

This is true and not against the catholike doctrine of traditions. For he that beleeueth that which is written, beleeueth sufficient for his saluation, if he haue not repugnancie in his minde not to beleeue anie more.

PILK. Proofe.

It is a manifest defection from faith, and [Page 213] the crime of pride, either for to refuse anie thin­ge of those that are written, or to bringe in that which is not written, as our Sauiour Iesus Christe saith, my sheepe heare my voyce.

CHAMP.

It is an equall crimē to denie that which is writ­ten, and to bringe in anie thinge not written, con­trarie to that which is written, as the Arrians did who made Christe to be a creature, different in sub­stance from his father, contrarie to that which is written in manie places. And this is S. Basills playne doctrine, which is nothinge for your purpose, nor against me.

PILK. ANTITHESIS 2.

The catholike churche ought not to beleeue these traditions which the papists say the Apost­les deliuered by worde of mouth onlie, in the same degree of faith with these thinges that are written.

Proofe 1.

Esay 8. 20. To the lawe and the testaments, if they speake not accordinge to this worde, it is because there is no light in them.

Argument.

That which speaketh not accordinge to the lawe and testimonie hath no truth, and is not to be credited as the lawe: But papists tra­ditions are so.

CHAMP.

The answere to your argument shall be to re­turne it vppon you in this manner. That which speaketh accordinge to the lawe and testimonie is true, and is to be credited as the lawe it selfe. But such are catholike traditions. Ergo.

PILK. Proofe.

Gall. 1. 8. 9. But thoughe we or an Angell from heauen preach anie other gospell vnto you, then that which we haue preached, lett him be accursed: as we sayd before, so say I nowe a­gaine, if anie man preach anie other gospell vnto you then you haue receiued, lett him be accursed.

Argument.

That which is not the same but another, be­sides that which Paule preached, is not to be credited but accursed. But popish traditions are so.

CHAMP.

I must needes say that the catholike doctrine shoulde be verie weake indeede▪ if it should be ouerthrowne with such lame and limpinge argu­ments, that haue not so much as one good legge to stand vppon. And what shall we say then of the protestants doctrine, that is supported by such bean-strawe pillars? Your maior were it true, woulde conclude all the Apostles writinges besi­sides S. Paules to be accursed, at leaste in all such thinge [...] as are not found in S. Paule: Your minor may as easilie be affirmed of S. Iohns Gos­pell or anie other booke of the bible. So that your conclusion is like to be verie protestanticall. See therfore howe stronglie you haue prooued your protestant position, or antithesis, and consequent­lie howe deepelie you haue wounded your aduer­sarie. Euer so blinde may the enemies of gods churche be, to impugne it in this manner, so longe as they doe impugne it.

PILK. Proofe.

2. Petri. 1. 18. 19. And this voice which [Page 215] came from heauen, we heard when we were with him in the holy Mount. We haue also a more sure worde of prophecie, whereunto you doe well that you take heede as vnto a light that shineth in a darke place, vntill the day dawne, and the day-starre arise in your harts.

Argument.

That which is more firme and sure, then reuelation from heauen, not then written, is more to be credited then anie thinge nowe not written: but the scriptures are such.

CHAMP.

Doe you thinke that the writinge of anie reuela­tion maketh it more firme? or that it receiueth anie increase of authoritie thereby? you seeme to be of this opinion, but it is moste absurde to thinke. For the authoritie all reuelations haue, is from God al­mightie, and not from the writinge of them in pa­per or parchment. And therefore the prophecie S. Peter speaketh of (whether it were written or vn­written, for he saith not it was written, but rather the contrarie, tearminge it a propheticall speach or sermon) is sayde by him to be more firme then the testimonie receiued in the holy mount, because that had been auncientlie promulgated, credited and re­ceiued; whereas this had neuer yett bin preached or proposed to be beleeued; and therefore no maruell though that were esteemed more firme then this hi­therto hadd been; not because this had not been written, but because it had not been preached or pu­blished att all till that tyme.

PILK Proofe.

Iohn. 5. 36. 37. 38. 39. But I haue greater witnes then that of Iohn, for the workes [Page 216] which the Father hath geuen me to finishe, the same workes that I doe, beare witnes of me, that the Father hath sent me. And the Fa­ther himselfe which hath sent me, hath borne witnes of me; Yee haue neither heard his voice at anie tyme, nor seene his shape. And yee haue not his worde abiding [...] in you, for whome he sent, him yee beleeue not. Searche the scriptures for in them yee haue eternall life, and they are they, which testifie of me.

Argument.

That which is greater then the testimonie of Iohn is more to be credited, then an [...]e thinge not written: But the scriptures are greater then the testimonie of Iohn.

CHAMP.

The farther you goe the more foolishe and imper­tinent still you are; vppon what ground doe you as­sume in your minor? But the holy scriptures are grea­ter then [...]he testimonie of Iohn? not out of the texts of of scripture cited by you: for they say no such thing. They say that, indeede, of the workes of Christe, and of his fathers testimonie, which notwithstan­dinge were noe where then written; but of the scrip­ture they say no such thinge. And therefore your ar­gument is as fitlie founded vppon these text▪ of scrip­ture as those are which Pruritanu▪ sett downe in the name of your felowes, the author of which pam­plett had he seene your booke, might haue increa­sed his not a little out of it. As with this for example. I have greater witnes then Iohn▪ [...]r [...] ther are noe traditions; or traditiōs are not to be beleeued equal­lie with scriptures. For amongst all his I knowe not whether there be one more impertinent then this. But you will thinke to make some force out of the [Page 217] laste sentence: search the scriptures &c. but with as much probabilitie as out of the other. For were it as you read: For in them yee haue eternall life, and not: For in them you thinke to haue eternall life Which is the true texte▪ yett haue you thence no other thing then that the old testament, (for of that onlie our Sauiour speaketh) doth testifie of him. Which how it either prooueth your Antithesis, or improoueth my position, iudge you by this consequence. The old testament in which the Iewes thought to haue eter­nall life beareth witnes of our Sauiour Christ; Ergo traditions are not of equall authoritie with scripture. Doe doctors in Oxeforde vse to make such conse­quences? if they doe I dare say it is the paine of sinne and heresie, for the which they are depriued of the verie light of naturall reason and discourse.

PILK. Proofe.

Whatsoeuer is confirmed by the authoritie of Aug. epist. 112▪ diuine scriptures which in the churche are called canonical, is without al doubte to be beleeued. But you may beleeue or not beleeue other witnesses or testimonies (which men persuade you to beleeue) as much as they deserue or not deserue to bee credited by the force yee finde in them.

CHAMP.

If you dare stand to this authoritie, I will euident­lie prooue against you, that you are to beleeue pur­gatory, prayers for the dead, the gua [...]de of Angells, and diuers other thinges which you condemne in the catholikes. For these thinges are euidentlie con­firmed in those scriptures which the churche in S. August▪ tyme did call canonicall as he witnesseth. Further the bookes receiued by your selfe for cano­nicall, doe confirme the authoritie of traditions, as is playne out of the second Epistle to the Thessalo: cited before. Againe it is not onlie men, but gods churche, and consequentlie God himselfe by her▪ [Page 218] that perswadeth vs to beleeue traditions, and there­fore this your argument is as foolishe as the rest.

PILK. Proofe.

Abraham when he was desired to send La­zarus, answered, they haue Moises and the prophetts, if they will not beleeue them, ne­ther will they heare the dead raysed vppe. Christe bringeth him speakinge in a parable to shewe that he woulde haue more faith geuen to the scriptures, then if the dead should re­ [...]iue: Moreouer Paul (and when I mention Paule I mean Christe for he knewe his minde) preferreth scriptures before Angells that des­cend, and that in great congruitie; For an An­gell thoughe verie greate, yett are they seruants and ministers, but all scriptures came vnto vs not from seruants, but from God, Lord of all. Chrisostome in cap. 1. ad Gallatas.

CHAMP.

There is no end of your impertinencies and absurd parologismes. Christ woulde haue more faith geuen to the scriptures then if the dead shoulde reuiue say you. Ergo what? Ergo Mr. Pilkinton knoweth not what he saith. Certainlie this is the best consequence anie man can make of this testimonie, as it is cited by him. Againe S. Paule yea our Sauiour Christ pre­ferre scriptures before angells, that shoulde teach anie thinge, against that which the Apostles had taught, say you, because the angells are ministers, but the scriptures came to vs from God the Lord of all. Ergo traditions are not to be beleeued equallie with scriptures. A learned consequence I wisse, and like the rest of your doctrine, hauinge as much truth and connexion in it as hath this. God is in heauen. Ergo Mr. Pilkinton is a Roman Catholike.

[Page 219]Nowe looke backe I pray thee iudicious reader vpon the catholicke positions sett downe in the Ma­nuall, with the proofes thereof out of the scriptures, and compare them with Mr. Pilkintons Antitheses, and the proofes thereof, and passe thy impartiall iudgment on them, whether of them haue better grounde in holy scripture.

Thus farr I haue gone with your Parallel Mr. Pil­kinton examininge the weight and truth thereof and in a fewe leaues haue founde so manie absurdities falsities and impertinencies, that your whole booke seemeth to me to be no other thing then a defor­med lumpe or masse of mouldinge past, which ma­keth not anie resistance, but is without all difficul­tie, cutt in peeces, pearced, or thrust thoroughe, euen with euerie wooden knife, or other instru­ment. For if I had no more difficultie to coppie and transcribe▪ your wordes, out of your booke into my paper that they might goe to the printe with my re­ply, then I had to confute them, you shoulde not haue been so manie dayes without your answere.

I goe no further with you in discussinge your doc­trine, because I will not bestowe good howers in such vnnecessarie and vnprofitable labour, learninge of your selfe in the laste page of your booke, that as to knowe the sea water to be salte it is not necessa­rie to drinke vppe the whole sea, or to knowe an earthen statua guilded ouer, not to be gold, it is suf­ficient to scrape of one peece onlie of the guildinge. So for anie man to discouer the absurditie, and im­pertinencie of your booke, it is not necessarie he shoulde goe thoroughe it whollie, but it abundan­tlie sufficeth to haue examined one parte thereof onlie. I would not lett it goe whollie without refu­tation, least you shoulde haue interpreted my silence to haue proceeded from the difficultie there had been to confute your doctrine; and least your lesse skilfull reader might thinke you had sayd something to the purpose, in answere of the catholike doctrine [Page 220] or proofe of your owne. I woulde not goe anie fur­ther in mine answer, for the reason alreadie sett downe out of your owne wordes. If you please to lay downe your wilfulnes to defend your errours, and with some in differencie to consider the sinceritie of the catholike truthe, I make no doubte but by this litle which hath been sayde, in reply to your answere, you will see the vanitie of your doctrine deliuered in this booke of yours. But if you persiste in your obstinate will, not to geue eare to the truth, you may well be vanquished and ouercome (as S. Hierome saith) but you will neuer be perswaded.Dialogo cont. Luc. Neither is my paynes herein bestowed so much out of hope to proffitt you, whom obstinacie may haue made incurable as to helpe others that embrace errour and falsitie, rather out of ignorance then ma­lice or obstinacie.

FINIS.

The Errata.

Pag. 3. line 1. to Mr. Abbat, for, three whole yeares I appealed, reade, three whole yeares since I appealed. pag. 5. l. 11. perferring, preferring. p. 15. l. 6. This in, This is. pag. 20. l. 30. is hee, hee is. pag. 41. l. 29. depise, despise. If there be any other, they are so smale that none in reading, but can correct them.

APPROBATIONES.

LIbrum D. Antonij Champnei Doctoris Sorbonici inscriptum, Maister Pilkin­tons Parallela Disparalleld legi, in quo nihil inuenio quod contra sanctam fidem Catho­licam Romanam, aut bonos mores sit. Quare cùm hominis haeretici ineptias aper­tè detegat, & auctoritatem Ecclesiae Catho­licae Romanae in definiendis fidei Contro­uersijs propugnet, vtiliter praelo committi posse censeo.

Ioannes Floidus Societatis Iesu S. T. Professor.

VIso hoc testimonio Reuerendi Patris Ioannis Floidi societatis Iesu S. Theolog. Professoris qui Anglicum hunc libellum visitauit prout superius habetur, Reuerēdiss. Dom. Episcopus Audomarens. permittit vt typis mandetur. Datum Audomari, Anno millesimo sexcentesimo decimo nono, mensis Decembris die vigesima octaua.

D [...] mandato Reuerendiss. Dom. Praefati,
A. Deleau Secret,

Faultes escaped in the text.

IN the first line of the Epistle reade, fower yeares since. p. 11. l. 3. r. positions. p. 13. l. 22. r. the. p. 24. l. 19. r. your. p. 30. l. 4. after ses­sion add. 6. p. 35. l. 13. r. Nilo. p 37. l. 7. r. thinges. p. 47. l. 13. after councells add which. p. 55. l. 22. r. redundant. p. 66. l. 5. after geue add an. p. 74. l. 19. after that, add which he affirmeth himselfe. p. 90. l. 31. after veluet, add by another. p. 105. l. 21. r. Bethanen. p. 124. l. 33. r. is. p. 127. l. 20. r. [...]. p. 126. l. 8. r. an vnskilfull. p. 127. l. 19. r. promeretur. p. 132. l. 7. after vnles, add therefore. p. 134. l. 11. r. For he saith not my sheepe reade. p. 146. l. 16. r. dwell. p. 147. l. 30. r. l and the father are one, doth not fully prooue the. p. 156. l. 2. For like as reade litle. p. 174 l. 1. r. your. p. 185. l. 34. r. ordained. p. 205. l. 14. r. do to. Ibid. l. 15. r. hange theire. p. 209. l. last. r. For, he or. r. he at. p. 210. l. 31. r. This is. p. 215. l. 16. r. So to.

In the margent.

Page 80. against these wordes looke backe, wan­teth this marke † pag. 112. in the middest of the page wanteth, de vtilitate [...]redendi cap. 6. pag. 128. against the line 14. wanteth libro 2. de verbo Dei. cap. 14. pag. 136. against the line 2. wanteth epi­stola prima ad Simpronianum.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.