MR. PILKINTON HIS PARALLELA DISPARALLED. AND The Catholic Roman faith maintained against Protestantisme. By ANT. CHAMPNEY Sorbonist, and author of the Manual of Controversies, impugned by the said Mr. Pilkinton. WE WISH THAT THOSE WOULD depart from their own forwardness, who against Christ, carry the ensign of Christ, and against the Gospel, brag of the Gospel which they understand not. Aug. ep. 61. ad Dulcit. Cited by Mr. Pilkinton against himself. AT S. OMERS, For JOHN HEIGHAM. With permission, Anno 1620. Mr. PILKINTON HIS PARALLELA DISPARALLED. AND THE CATHOLIC ROMAN faith maintained against Protestantisme. By ANT. CHAMPNEY Sorbonist and author of the Manual of Controversies impugned by the said Mr. Pilkinton. We wish that those would depart from their own forwardness, who against Christ, carry the ensign of Christ, and against the Gospel, brag of the Gospel which they understand not. Aug. ep. 61. ad Dulcit. Cited by Mr. Pilkinton against himself. To Mr. George Abbat, called by some, Archbishop of Canturbury. IT is now three whole years I appealed to your judgement in a matter of difference and controversy betwixt a minister of your own making, or allowance at least, Mr. Francis Mason, and myself; concerning the vocation and consecration aswell of your own person, as of all the rest of the protestant Bishops and ministers in England. And though hitherto I have received no notice of any Sentences given by you in this Controversy (because for seeing as I suppose, that you cannot pass your Sentemce thereupon, without prejudice either of your own interest, or reputation, you willingly dissemble the matter) yet am I moved to demand your judgement in another difference, betwixt another minister of yours, Mr. Richard Pilkinton, and myself. For where as I set forth five years a go a brief Manual of Controversies, containing only seven sheets of Paper, proving all the chiefest heads of controversy by Scriptures only; he, this last year, to cross the same, hath printed a fowl great book of fifty sheets, calling it, Parallela. Which book he dedicateth to you. In whose Epistle Dedicatory, though there be as many falsities and impertinencies, as there are in so manies lines of the rest of his book; yet shall they pass without other touch in particular, than this general reprehension (as either refuting themselves, or not worthy refuting of purpose) only I cannot omit these braving words of his which follow. This popish agent (he meaneth the author of the Manual) I have undertaken, and stripped him of his armour, which he hath usurped, show his proofs to be as weak, as his positions are wicked, that his blind religion may appear unto all to be nothing but an heap of untruths without patronage of holy Scriptures. Which encounter I now offer unto the view of the world, under the shield of your grace's protection, who first encouraged me to this battle, and can best of all men judge (as the most experienced general in this sacred warfare) on which side the truth propendeth. In which words he doth not only vainly brag of the victory already achieved, but also acknowledgeth to have received this task from you, and perferringe your judgement of his travels before all other men's, offereth his book unto you, nothing doubtinge either of your approbation or protection. Therefore have I made free choice of you for umpiere betwixt him and me, to judge whether he hath indeed striped me of mine Armour, as he braggeth, & whether his proofs or mine be stronger, and more pertinent to the purpose for which they are produced. I say of the proofs only, for of the positions themselves, I hold you not a fit or competent judge. And were it not, that I am very confident in the clearness of my cause, and am also persuaded that you will not prejudice your reputation with the world so far, as to give your judgement against a manifest truth, I would not be so unadvised as to put my cause into so unequal and partial a judge his hands, as all men know you to be, between me and mine adversary. Nevertheless the premises being considered I will not refuse your judgement in this cause: Only I will request of you to peruse that which hath been said on either part, before you give your judgement of the cause itself; And this I think I may justly demand of you, without incurring any special obligation of particular grace or favour: which being performed, I freely permit you to pass your opinion of the difference, as you shall think most conformable to equity, and important for your own reputation. Whereof, I marvel not a little, you had so small reguarde, as to let go forth into the view of the world, with so much testimony of your allowance and approbation, such a piece of stuff as Mr. Pilkinton hath set to sale in this book. Which (to speak without prejudice of others that may seem to contend with him for the price of ignorance, impertinency and perversity) I think is one of the seeliest and shallowest things that hath seen sun in this age▪ And therefore a judicious friend (having looked a little into it) told me I was not to expect any honour by undertaking such an adversary. Wherefore I advice you for your own credit sake, to be more wary hereafter, then to let such birds fly abroad with your name in their forehead. ●●r the blemish and stain which they bring with them, will stick as fast in your face, as ●●●th in that of the author, yea by so much the faster, by how much more eminent your name and authority is, or aught to be above his. And so wishing you from my very heart more love and affection to the Catholic truth and verity, than hitherto you have showed, without which your part will infallibly be with the Father of all falsehood: For, qui non credit iam iudicatus est, he joan. 3. 18 that believeth not is already judged; I leave you to his disposition whose providence is never deceived; though his will whereby he wisheth us well, be not always fulfilled, we ourselves only being in fault thereof. Douai this last of june 1619. Your true friend, though enemy to your errors, A. CHAMPNEY. TO THE JUDICIOUS READER. IN the year 1614 (good reader) I put forth in print at the request of a friend, a brief Enchiridion or Manual of controversies, proving the Catholic faith in 38. several heads of controversy by the text of holy Scripture itself; which containing but only seven sheets of paper, Mr. Richard Pilkinton, who styleth himself doctor of Divinity, after four whole years, pretendeth to answre, and for that purpose hath set forth a book of fifty sheets thinking to cover by multitude of words, that which with force of argument he could not impeach nor make obscure. His book came but to my hands the last of February this present year, when I was both indisposed in my health, & had newly received a command from those who could command me, to transport myself from Paris, where then I lived, to Dovay. So that until the fourteenth of May, I could not begin to think seriously of any reply to him, though I had in the mean while run over some part of his book, and also noted something therein to that purpose. Where Mr. Pilkinton may peradventure say as he saith of the Manual, that it well appeareth to have ●ee● do●●e in haste, and yet not in such short time but another might well have made diverse such replies in the same space; as Apelles answered to one, who sheweinge him a picture, and saying he had made it in one day: But be ytt that Mr. pilkinton's wit and dexterity, could have performed much more in the same time, yet I confess that mine could do no better; the other employments wherein the greatest part of my time is taken up, lying upon me. Neither doth Mr. Pilkinton need much to brag of his dexterity and expedition in this kind; seeing he hath bestowed four whole years or very near in answereinge only seven sheets of paper, and that also so shallowly and seelily, that there is much less difficulty to refute his answer, then to Copy out or transcribe his words. I have replied to all he saith as it lieth in his book so far as I go with him, relating his own words, lest he should complain of ill dealing, as if something of moment were left untouched; And both he and the reader may likewise understand, that I might with as much facility have refuted the rest of his book, had it been either necessary or profitable to have bestowed the labour in transcribing it, and cost in printing it. I would wish thee good reader to take special notice of the preface, which may serve thee as a key not only to this small treatise, but also to other works of greater moment, and generally to all controversies. In the answereinge whereof as Mr. Pilkinton hath been more laborious, so hath he also showed himself more impertinent and perverse. Read the whole with attention if thy leisure will permit thee, and compare diligently his proofs and mine together, & after do not spare to give thy Censure thereon as thou shalt think good in gods name. And if thou receivest any profit by my small labour, I shall think it well bestowed, and as fully recompensed as I expect or desire in this world. God ever keep thee and me also. This first of july. 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 adversum fidem Catholicam vel bonos mores, sed eandem fidem Catholicam in nonnullis propugnatam, & adversarij ineptias & fraudes detectas. Quocirca iudico eundem utiliter praelo committi posse. Datum Duaci die decima Decembris, Anno salutis 1619. Matthaeus Kellisonus. Mr. PILKINTONS' PARALLEL DISPARALLELD. Mr. Pilkinton after his own Epistle Dedicatory to his Gracious Patron of Canterbury, and his shapeless answer to my short Epistle to the reader (for so exact he would seem to be that he letteth nothing pass without an answer) he beginneth his encounter as followeth. PILKINTON. A brief Synopsis of popish positions avouched by the Manualist, directly contradicted by the Fathers. CHAMPNEY. I may err and fail, as all other men may; but obstinate in error by god's grace I shall never be. Neither will I ever be but a scholar and child of the orthodox Fathers. If therefore by oversight, ignorance or error which are defects incident to all men, I have uttered any thing contrary to their doctrine, I do here willingly and wittingly recall and retract it. But let us hear the direct contradictions you speak of. PILK. All articles of faith are not contained so Thesis papist. 1. much as indirectly and implicitly in the holy Scriptures. CHAMP. You were very ill advised to use such evident corrupt dealing in the very first line of your book. This position, set down by you, is no more mine, than your Parallel, is my Manual. But you prove yourself a fit scholar of your old Masters. My position is this. All such articles as are of faith, are not contained so much as indirectly or implici●lie in holy scriptures, but only so far as the scriptures contain and testify the authority of the Church and Tradition. To this position let us now see your Antithesis of the Fathers. PILK. In those things that are plainly set down in the holy scripture, all points are found that concern either belief or life. CHAMP. If your wits had been at home when you wrote Antithesis Aug. lib. 2 de doctr. christ. c. 6. this, you would easily have seen this doctrine of S. August: to have had no opposition with my position. For my proposition, were it set down in these words. All articles of faith are contained in scriptures so far as they testify the Authority of the Church, and Traditions. Which you will not, as I suppose, deny to be the very same in sense with the position set down in the Manual; I would learn of you wherein you put the antithesis betwixt this position, and that of S. August. But let S. August. Cont. Crescon. lib. 1. cap. 33. himself be judge of this matter. Although (saith he) no example of this thing (speaking of the validity of Baptism, ministered by heretics) be brought out of holy scriptures, yet do we follow the truth of the same scriptures in this point, whilst we do that which pleaseth the whole Church, which the authority of the scripture doth commend. Whereby you see S. August. to teach some articles of faith not otherwise to be contained in holy scriptures, but so far only as they commend unto us the authority of the Church, which is that my position saith; and therefore your antithesis is in your own brain that seemeth to be at odds with all true doctrine. And marvel truly it is to me, with what countenance you produce S. Aug. doctrine, as though you attributed to him some authority, seeing in the Lib 2. d● doct. chri. cap. 5. very chapter immediately going before the place alleged by you, amongst the other canonical books of holy scriptures, he numbereth the books, of Ecclesiasticus, Sapientia, Toby, ●udith, and the Maccabees all rejected by you: and beginning the chapter where you would take your antithesis, saith thus. In his omnibus libris timentes Deum, & pietate mansueti quaerunt voluntatem Dei. In all these books, those that fear God, and are endued with true piety seek the will of God. If now you make any esteem of S. August. judgement, what case are you in, that reject these books of holy scripture as apocryphal, whence he saith all pious and those that fear God, do seek his will: but this only by the way. PILK. The holy Apostles delivered by word of Thesis papist. 2. mouth more things to be believed and observed by this church, then either they found written or wrote themselves. We know not the disposition of our Antithesis Ireneus lib. 3. c. 1▪ salvation from any other then from them by whom the Gospel came to us, which first they preached, and after by the will of God delivered unto us in the holy scriptures to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. CHAMP. If you had taken but ordinary heed what you wrote, you would not have said that my position hath any opposition with S. Ireneus; who saith not that the Apostles wrote all they preached, as he should have done to make your antithesis good, but only that they wrote the same gospel which they preached, and not a different or contrary doctrine to their preaching, as some profane heretics of whom he maketh there mention impudently taught, which sense of this Father yourself acknowledge pag. 5. But if you will needs make this consequence they wrote that which they preached, ergo, they wrote all that they preached, (as you must argue if you will make any antithesis betwixt my position and S. Ireneus his doctrine) I will say that either you have forgotten your logic, or that you never had any. For to make or infer an universal proposition, of an indefinite in n●n necessarijs, is most absurd, as you shall see by these examples. Homo est albus vel caluus, ergo omnis homo est a ●us vel caluus▪ or, the king writeth that he speaketh and thinketh, therefore he writeth all he speaketh or thinketh. Moreover, of S. Ireneus his judgement concerning traditions, you might have informed yourself by the chapter immediately following that which you cite, where he hath these words. When we appeal to that tradition (which descending from the Apostles, is by the succession of priests in the Church preserved) they, to wit heretics, reject Traditions. PILK. The scriptures are dark and difficult to be Thesis papist. 3. understood, and all articles of faith are not clearly laid down in them. All things are clear in the holy scriptures Antithesis Epiphan. haeresi 76. to them that come to them with a godly mind. CHAMP. The position of the Manual which you aim at as this. All places of holy scripture containing articles of faith (the obstinate misbelief whereof is damnable) are not easy to be understood, but require some rule to be interpreted by. Now if you will maintain this position to be opposite to S. Epiphanius, you must grant that your doctrine is opposite to him, which I evidently show in this manner. In the roll of positions which you say are forgéd by me against you, and are set down by you in the next page of your book; This in the second. All places of holy scripture containing articles of faith, are easy to be understood, which proposition if you will reject as none of yours, as you do in the place mentioned; then must necessarily the contradictory proposition which is the same with mine here carped at by you, and which you say is opposite to S. Epiphanius be, yours, and then do you contradict S. Epiphanius, if you will say that I do. Or if you will confess the truth, and acknowledge this latter proposition. to be yours, as doubtless it is, why do you then charge me with forgeinge it against you? Accord your own sayings, and then shall I know what to answer unto. In the mean while, you are unfortunate to stumble so grossly (if contradicting yourself in so short a space may be termed only stumbling) in the very entrance of your dispute. My position shall be showed agreeable both with holy Scriptures and ancient Fathers in due place. And as for your authority alleged out of S. Epiphanius, if it be in him (as I know no● whether it be or Noah, for it is cited by you so at large that I cannot find it) it may have this true sense and meaning; That all things are clear in scriptures to such, as come to them with this mind to understand them as the catholic Church and the true pastors thereof interpret them. Which saying hath no contrariety at all with my position. For I do not say that the scriptures are hard to be understood by the church, or that they need another rule to be interpreted by then the Churches understanding and interpretation. PILK. The sense of the holy scriptures given by the Thesis papist. 4. church is unfallibly true; as are also the definitions and declarations of faith delivered by the same, and every one is bound upon his damnation not to reject the judgement thereof. Who knoweth not that the holy scriptures Antithesis Aug. lib 2 de Bapt. c●nt▪ Donatist. c. 3. as well of the old as new testament is contained in certain bounds and so is to be preferred before all the latter writings of Bishops, that no man ought to doubt at all or call in question, whether it be true or right, whatsoever is written therein; when as the writings of bishops that have been or are written after the canon confirmed, may lawfully be reprehended, both by the wiser speech of any that is more skilful in that matter, and by graver authority of other bishops and wisdom of the learned, and also by counsels if they have in any point wandered from the truth: and even national and provincial counsels do give place to those that are collected out of the whole universal Christian world: and general counsels themselves are often amended, the former by the latter, as often as by trial & experience the thing was opened, that before was shut; or known that was hid; without any swelling of sacrilegious pride, or stiff neck of arrogancy, or contention of deadly envy, with holy humility, with Catholic peace, with Christian charity. CHAMP. You do greatly abuse your reader's patience farceinge your book with such impertinencies. And you do no less wrong the holy Father S. August bringing his words as contradicting the church's infallibility in matters of faith, and interpretation of the scriptures, which he so often and so evidently testifieth. But to convince you of wilfulness in abusing S. Aug. it shall suffice to set here before you that only Testimony of the same holy Father which is expressed in the Manual in proof of this position which you would have him to contradict. His words there set down are these. Although no example Aug. Lib. 1. cont. Crescen. cap. 33. is brought out of holy scripture of this thing (that the Baptism of heretics is sufficient) yet do we follow the truth of the same scripture in this point, whilst we do that which pleaseth the whole Church, which the authority of scriptures doth commend. And because the holy scripture cannot deceive, whosoever feareth to be deceived by the obscurity of these questions, let● him consult thereupon with the church, which without all doubt the scriptures do show. judge now with yourself whether you or I speak more conformably to S. Aug. That which you allege out of him of the doctrine of particular bishops or counsels, compared with the doctrine of holy scripture, is altogether impertinent to your purpose. That which he saith of universal counsels that the former may be amended by the latter, is understood of matters pertaining to manners or practice, which often are changed according as circumstances of time and place change and alter, as experience teacheth, and not of matters of faith and belief, which are ever the same without any change or alteration. So that my position hath no other contrariety with S. Aug. doctrine, than heat hath with white, or hearing with seeing. PILK. Thesis papist. 5. Universality is a note to find out the church by. Attend not those companies that go Antithesis Aug. in Psal. 39 the broad way, they are many and who cann number them? and few go in the narrow way: bring forth thy weights, & weigh them; see what a deal of chaff for a little corn. CHAMP. The farther you go, the more your ignorance or obstinacy doth appear. Are you not ashamed to make S. Aug. at odds with the Apostles and Nycen Creed, both which make universality a note & propriety of the true church? Besides are you so shallow brained that you see not, that S. Aug. speaketh here of baddly living Christians, which make not divers churches, but are as Chaff in the same ba●ne or flore with the good Corn, and not of misbelieving heretics and Sectaries which make their conventicles a part out of the church, and are never comparable to the true church, for universality either of time or place? Again why do you charge me in the page following with forgeinge this proposition and fathering it upon you: ●he true church of christ is not necessarily Catholic or universal▪ either in respect of place or time: if you will deny universality to be a note of the true church? You are so busied to make contrarieties betwixt my positions and the father's doctrine, that you run into evident contradictions with yourself, and that within the space of a little leaf of paper. Either confess the cause which you would defend to be so bad that it enforceth you to these absurdities, or leave the defence of it to some others of better skill and judgement. PILK. Thesis papist. 6.▪ The true church of God is visible and apparent, both to the saithful believers that are in it, and also to heretics and others that are out of it. What church now freely serveth Antithesis Athana. in epist ad so●●●. vitam agentes. Christ? For if it be godly it is exposed to dangers; & if there be in any place faithful servants of Christ, as in all places there are many, they like unto the great prophet Elias are secret, and hide themselves in dens and caves of the earth, or wandering up and down, remain in the wilderness. CHAMP. If you would have proved the truth of my position and the conformity thereof with the doctrine of S. Athanasius, you could not easily have done it more effectually, then by the testimony you bring out of him to prove the contrary; so devoid of judgement are you in all your sayings. For the church that is exposed to dangers, that is in all places, and is persecuted, is doubtless visible both to the faithful, and to the heretics. Yea those servants of Christ that like unto Elias hide themselves in dens, and remain in the wilderness, are not invisible more than the catholics now are in England, whereof some part is in prison, others are in woods and wildernesses, as these were of whom S. Athanasius speaketh. And if you could show such a visible church of protestants before Martin Luther, you would not use the shameless shift of an invisible church whereunto you are driven by mere necessity. PILK. S. Peter was by our Saviour Christ constituted Thesis papist. 7. supreme head or sovereign Bishop, or pastor over his whole church militant. Christ gave to all his Apostles equal Antithesis Cypriàn. de unitat. power after his resurrection, and said as my Father sent me, so send I you, receive the holy ghost: whose sins you remit, they are remitted: and a little after; the rest of the Apostles were the same that Peter was; endued with like fellowship both of honour and power. CHAMP. The equality of power to remit sins, or as the divines term it power of order (of which equality S. Cyprian speaketh) in all the Apostles, doth stand well with the supremacy of the power, of jurisdiction and government, which S. Cyprian giveth to S. Peter. Again all the Apostles were of equal power in respect of the rest of the church, but not in respect of themselves. For one head was chosen saith S. Hierome that the occasion of schism Contra jovinianum. might be taken away. Where you are also to note, that if you will still persist to urge the equality of power in all the Apostles, out of this testimony of S. Cyprian; you must also in like manner conclude the equality of honour in them all, which notwithstanding none of you dare to do, in regard of so many prerogatives clearly given to S. Peter▪ both in holy scriptures and by all antiquity: For which reason Spalatensis who hath struggled more perversely against S. Peter his supremacy, than any other heretic hitherto, doth grant unto him a supremacy in divers respects, thinking thereby (as 〈◊〉 he is malicious and perverse) by granting him some part of his due, more easily to deprive him of the rest. Either cease therefore to impugn S. Peter his supremacy out of this testimony of S. Cyprian, or if you will continue still to do it, take his whole words and sense, and so shall you make him opposite to yourselves. PILK. The Bishop of Rome is the lawful and lineal Thesis papist. 8. successor of S. Peter, in that charge and office which our Saviour gave unto S. Peter over his church militant. Let none of us make himself bishop Antithesis Cypr cited by S. Aug. lib 2. de bap. contr. Dona●. c. 2 of bishops, or by tyrannical fear force his fellows to necessity of obedience, seeing every bishop hath free liberty and licence of his own power and may not judge another, no more than another may judge him, but let us expect the judgement of our Lord jesus. Christ, who only and alone hath power to prefer us in the government of the church, and to judge of our acts. CHAMP. I know not whether I should ascribe it to ignorance or perversity, that you produce this Testimony as opposite to my position. For no man of common sense that readeth in S. Aug. whence you cite it, but will judge it most impertinently alleged for your purpose. S. Cyprian there speaking to his fellow bishops of Africa, willing them to give their opinions of the matter proposed (which was touching the Baptism of heretics) professing to keep union and communion with them that should judge other ways than he did. And this without mention or intention to include in his speech the Bishope of Rome, but directeth his words to the Bishop's present for that particular matter which there he proposed unto them. PILK. To holy Saints and Angels in heaven, is due Thesis papist. 9 more than civil honour and reverence. We honour the Angels with love not service, we build them no temples &c▪ our Antithesis Aug. de vera relig. cap. 55. religion teacheth us not to worship dead men. CAMP. Your ignorance or perversity if not both, lieth so open to all men, that nothing else appeareth hitherto in you. If you had read S. Aug: and but half understood him, you would never have dreamt of any Antithesis betwixt my position & his doctrine. He speaking manifestly of that service which is due only unto God, called of divines 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 service but only that which is called Latria and is only due unto God, learn of S. Aug▪ to correct your senseless error. Who disputing against Faustus and having confessed the religious worship of Martyrs, to prevent your error, addeth these words. But with that worship C●t. Faust. lib. 20. cap. 21. which in Greek is called Latria, and in Latin cannot be expressed in one word, being a service due only to the divinity, we neither worship nor teach to be worshipped but God only. Read the whole chapter and see his doctrine more at large and you shall find that in S. Aug. opinion, Christian religion doth not forbid the religious worship of martyrs who are no more to be called dead men, than Abraham Isaac and jacob of whom our Saviour himself testifieth that they are living. Matt: 22: 32: PILK. To pray to the angels and Saints in heaven Thesis papist. 10. is lawful and derogateth no whit at all from the mediation of Christ. The martyrs are nominated in their place Antithesis Aug. lib. 22 de ci●. Dei c. 10. and order, but yet are not prayed unto by the priest that offereth Sacrifice. That prayer which is not made by Christ, not only doth not abolish sin, but itself is Aug. Psal. 108▪ turned into sin. CHAMP. Though I be already weary of your impertinencies, yet will I not stick to refute this last, which is as apparent as the rest. First therefore, though you take the words of S. Aug. as nakedly as you set them down, yet do they sound no Antithesis with my position, he only denying, that Sacrifice is to be offered to martyrs which the manual affirmeth not. secondly S. Aug. speaketh only of such invocation▪ as the heathens used to their false Gods, as you yourself cannot deny if you would but read that same chapter, which is by you alleged, and therefore his doctrine cannot contradict my position which maketh not Saints to be Gods, nor yet to be worshipped as such. Furthermore in this your allegation, I note the shameful beggary and misery of your cause, which is such that you cannott beg or borrow of the holy Fathers the least seeming cover for one soar without gauling or discovering another. For whilst you would cover your heresy of not praying to Saints with a patch borrowed of S. Aug: you shamelessly discover and lay open that other heresy of yours wherein you deny the sacrifice of the church. I will set down S. Aug: words that all such as are not as wilfully blind as your self may see both your vanity in this Antithesis, & the confutation of your heresy against the sacrifice of the new Testament. The Gentiles (saith he) built temples, erected altars, Aug. de civet. lib. 22. c. 10. ordered priests, and did sacrifice to such Gods; (to wit Hercules, Romulus and the like) But we build not churches to our Martyrs as to Gods, but memories as to men departed▪ whose souls live with God; neither do we erect altars there to Sacrifice thereon to the Martyrs, but we Sacrifice to one God, who is our God, and the God also of the Martyrs: in which sacrifice they are named in their place and rank, as men of God who vanquished the world in confessing him but they are not invocated (to wit as Gods) by the priest that sacrificeth, for he sacrificeth to God and not to them▪ though he sacrifice in their memory, because he it the priest of God and not of them. And the sacrifice is the Body of Christ, etc. Your other testimony out of S. Aug. upon the psalm 108. is yet more foolishly alleged. As though for sooth those prayers which are made to God by his Saints, were not made unto him by his son our Saviour? Your perversity hath made you intolerably ignorant if you think so. Again S. Aug. there speaketh nothing of prayers made to Saints, but of prayers made by judas, who selling and betraying Christ, did not only not pray by him, but against him, which being so, hence I gather that if you saw and read S. Aug. yourself, you have a most wicked mind, wittingly labouring to induce you●lesse careful and wary reader into error. A degree of malice almost proper to the devil himself. PILK. The like may be verified of the rest. CHAMP. If you call this verifying, I desire you should always plead against me, and never for me. For hitherto have you not verified any apparent contrariety betwixt my position and the father's doctrine, though you braggingly pretend to bring direct contradiction between them. And in this dare I stand to the judgement of your own patron of Canterbury, upon 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 indeed then the rest, yet hath it a more apparency in words then the rest, and so is willingly understood by yourself, and all the adversaries of S. Peter's primacy. After your Antithesis you put down a roll of forged positions as though I had imposed them upon you and your fellow protestants. To which I answer first in general, that if it had not pleased you to wink att, and overlook that which I say neither confusedly nor obscurely in my preface, you would not (if you would have said the truth) charge me with forgeing any positions against you. I will here set down mine own words which shall clear me of that imputation, I think even with mine adversaries, if they be not wilfully malignant. Thus therefore I say there. First I jet down the Catholic pag. 12. Roman belief in direct and plain positions etc. And last of all I put down the position contradictory to the Catholic doctrine▪ to the end that the indfferent reader may more easily judge, whether doctrine hath better ground in holy Scripture. And further that he that will impugn this treatise, may see, what he hath to prove if he will prove any thing to purpose. That is if he will prove any thing against the Catholic Faith, which only I undertake in the Manual to prove, and not to impugn or disprove the protestants, further than the proof of one contradictory, is the disproof of the other. Without reason therefore do you charge me with forgeinge positions, though amongst these which I set down under this note in the margin, Protestants positions, some were found, which they do not maintain (which whether it be so or no we shall presently examine) for I put the position contradictory to the Catholic, under the title of protestant position for this cause (as I have said before) that if any protestant will deny or impugn the catholic position proved by me, he may see the direct position which he is to prove. If therefore there be any of the catholic positions set down by me, admitted and acknowledged as true and orthodox, then is not the contradictory position enforced or imposed upon them to prove. But if they reject all the Catholic positions as false and erroneous (as they will be found to do) then must they whether they will or Noah, acknowledge the contradictory position to be theirs, unless they will grant that both contradictory positions may be true or both false, which no man ever yet admitted. And thus much sir for your charge of forged positions in general, now we will examine the particular. PILK. POSITIO I. Forged positions. All Articles of faith are contained expressly in holy Scripture. CHAMP. Of this position thus set down it is true, you say, that it is forged, but it is by yourself, not by me: for it is no where set down by me. The position of mine which you aim at being this page 20. under this note: Protestant position 1. All articles of faith are so expressly contained in scripture as out of them only full proof may be made thereof. Which position if you will deny to be yours; take here your own words in witness against you. If you Pilk. page 35. mean the sense and substance, and that which may be deduced by necessary consequence, than it is false that full proof cannot be made of all articles of faith out of scripture. I am content to bring your own Testimony only in a thing so manifest, without further proof out of other of your own sect. Only I cannot sufficiently marvel, what complexion you are of, that have so little care and feeling of your own credit, and of the cause you would defend, that you commit so many fowl fails in so few lines. Certainly if you hold on in this manner, you shall have the prize of all either fall or foolish fellows that ever blotted paper, but let us proceed further. PILK. POSITIO II. All places of holy scriptures containing articles of faith are easy to be understood. CHAMP. You fail in putting down this position also, (so hard it is for you to deal honestly) which in the Manual is set down thus. All places of holy scripture containing articles of faith, the obstinate misbelief where of is damnable, are easy to be understood, and therefore require no rule to be interpreted by. Which proposition you cannot deny to be yours without denying yourself. For do you not remember that in your third Antithesis, you say I contradict S. Epiphaniu▪ for saying that the scriptures are dark and difficult to be understood? why do you therefore deny this position, All places of scripture contain 〈…〉 matters of faith, are easy to be understood, here set down by you to be yours, unless you will also contradict that holy Father, which you falsely object unto me? but it is is a bootless thing to tell you of contradictions, they are so frequent with you. Therefore to let that pass that you may know if you were so ignorant in your own doctrine as you knew it not before, that it is good protestant doctrine, hear your Father and founder Luther what he saith of his matter. We must give Luth in prafat. assertionis art. à Leone damnator. De seruo arbitrio. this sentence the scripture being judge that it is of itself most certain, most easy, most open or apparent, interpreter of itself, proving all things, judging all things, and illustrating all things. And in another place. I say of the whole scripture. I will have no part thereof to be obscure. And this shall suffice for the present to purge me of forgery in this matter, having more to say thereof hereafter when we shall come to speak of the article itself if we go together so far. PILK. POSITIO III. The true church of Christ is not necessarily Catholic or universal neither in respect of time nor place. CHAMP. This position you set down truly, which I marvel that you deny to be yours. Because the contradictory position being admitted for true, as it must necessarily be, if this be false, your protestant church, which no wit nor coninge can ever show to have had either kind of universality, must of necessity be a forged or counterfeit church. And for what other cause think you did Luther in the Creed, turned by him into Dutch, in steed of the Catholic church, thrust in the Christian church, but to avoid the force of the word Catholic? which he did so dislike, that his disciples in the conference at Altemberge rejected a certain proposition Colloquium Altemb. fol. 154. ascribed to him wherein was this word Catholic, ●lleadginge for a sufficient reason of their so doing, because that word Catholic did not savour Luther's phrase. And for full proof that this position is truly protestantical, read the laborious book De authore & essentia protestanticae Ecclesiae authore Richardo Smitheo, printed this year containing ten inevitable demonstrations taken out of the protestants own doctrine, that Luther was the author of the said protestants church, whence it necessarily is concluded, that in their doctrine the true church is not necessarily Catholic, neither in respect of time or place. PILK. POSITIO IV. The true church of Christ may be without a lawful personnall succession. CHAMP. If you deny this position to be true in your doctrine, then must you necessarily grant the contradictory to be true; which if you do your newly reformed church, will evidently appear no lawful church. And for further proof of the want of succession of pastors in your English Church, I refer you to my book in answer to Mr. Mason, which till it be answered (I say answered indeed, and not only replied unto in a heap of words as you have done to my Manual) I shall ever hold as a sufficient proof, and as for your Sister churches of France, they make profession in their very confession of their● faith, that the state of the church Art. 31, having been interrupted, it was necessary that God should raise up men by extraordinary means to repair his church a new which was ruined judge you therefore whether they deny the position which you say is forged by me against you. PILK. POSITIO V. The lawful succession of pastors, may be without Consecration or authentical mission by any ordinary power residing in the Church. CHAMP. If you hold your Sister churches of France to be lawful churches you cannot deny this position to be true in your doctrine, as appeareth by their confession even now alleged whereunto I refer you. And as for the consecration of your pastors of your new church of England, it is so far from being ordinary, that it was never heard of before King Cap. 12. Edward the sixth his reign, when first it was devised as I have evidently proved in my book against Mr. Mason. And therefore though you would seem to deny this position in word, yet must you necessarily admit it in deed, unless you will grant freely (that which is true) that you have no true pastors at all. PILK. POSITIO VI It is not necessary for every man's salvation that he be baptised. CHAMP. It seemeth you have not yet learned the rudiments of your religion, seeing you number this position amongst those that you esteem forged against you. See therefore for your better instruction in this point of Catechism, your grande master in reformation john Calvin in Antidoto Concilij ad Sess. cap. 5. and lib. 4. instit. cap. 16. §. 24. 25. Peter Martyr another of your masters upon these words of the Apostle. Alinqui filij vesiri in mundi essent. 1. Cor. Fulke Marci 1. Sect. 5. with the whole crew of Puritans or Caluinistes. Or if you will not look so far, see the first day's conference of Hampton Court, and see what you find there of this point. And either blush at your ignorance in the principales of your religion, or if you like not the doctrine, leave the company where it is taught, and unite yourself to the Catholic Church where it is abhorred. PILK. POSITIO VII. Matrimony contracted between Christians is but a civil contract. CHAMP. You are soon weary of honest dealing, and quickly return to your accustomed falsifications. I do blush in your behalf that I am forced to tell you so often of it in so few lines. The position in the Manual addeth to the words set down by you; And not Sacrament properly. Which if you had added, you would have been ashamed to have said the position to be forged. If you will cavil & say that though it be no Sacrament, yet is it not a bare civil contract: I, will not stand here to debate that question with you being not material to my purpose, which was to prove Matrimony to be a Sacrament, according to the catholic doctrine, above and beside the civil contract therein contained, and if you should be urged to show in the precise nature of matrimony, any thing more than a civil contract, seeing you deny it to be a Sacrament, you would I know be troubled, and would not easily quit yourself of that bussines. And Calvin whose authority is of some weight with you, compareth it to the art of husbandry, barbinge and weaving lib. 4. Instit. cap. 18. §. 34. PILK. POSITIO VIII. Baptism and the lord's supper are not instruments of Grace, but only signs of gods good will towards us, or means to stir up faith in us. CHAMP. here again I am constrained to tell you of your false dealing. The position set down by me is this. Neither Baptism nor the other Sacraments of the new law give grace as cause thereof, but are only signs of gods good will towards us, or means to stir up Faith in us. What material diversity you will find betwixt this position and the 25. article of your church, I know not. It saith thus. Sacraments be not only badges or tokens of christian mens profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace, and gods goodwill towards us, by which he doth work invisibly in us, and not only quicken, but also confirm and stregthen our faith in him. And your master in reformation Calvin speaketh yet more conformably to the position set down by me; hear his own words. This only office is enjoined to the Sacraments to Instit. li. 4. c 14. § 6. & 17. witness to us and confirm in us gods good will. And again. The Sacraments are to us from God, as are messengers of glad biding from men; or as an earnest penny in striking covenants; as not giving any grace of themselves, but declare and show, and as they are earnest money or tokens) do ratify in us those things which by god's liberality are given unto us. And for more clear explication of his meaning he useth in the 18. Section following the examples of the rainbow, and of gedion's fleece. And this shall suffice for this present to clear me of forgery, and to prove you ignorant in the principales of your own erroneous doctrine, unless peradventure you be ashamed of it and therefore deny it to be yours. PILK. POSITIO IX. justification is only remission of sins. CHAMP. You are as obstinate in false dealing as if you had sworn never to deal truly. The position in the manual is set down in these words. justification is only the remission of sins without renmation of spirit or interior Sanctification. which position if you dare to deny to be truly protestantical, all those of your sect that have written of justification will condemn you of ignorance in their doctrine. PILK. POSITIO X. By justification sin is only covered and not quite taken away. CHAMP. Why did you omit to say as I said, seeing the position set down by me is so brief in these words. By justification sin is only covered or not imputed; and not washed or quite taken away? Surely for no other cause I think, but to keep yourself in custom with clipping and gueldinge, as he did that did steal straws to keep his fingers in we with filching; but peradventure you feared the word not imputed, so often abused by your masters; and the word washed, used in the holy Scriptures. Howsoever your error in imputing to me sorgerie in this position is not pardonable. Cannot you utter one position but with manifest falsification or palpable ignorance or both? Read only the seconde article of Luther (for I will trouble you with no more Luther in aser. 2. ar. referrences at this time and see his doctrine in this point. His words are these. It is another thing that all sins are remitted, and another that all sins are taken away. Baptism doth remit all, but it taketh none quite away, but beginneth only to take them away Again your known doctrine of imputative and not inherent justice, doth it not necessarily enforce you to say, that our sins are only covered or not imputed, but not washed and quite taken away? PILK. POSITIO XI. Man though holpen by God's grace, hath not free will, either to fly ame evil, or to do good availing to his Salvation, but in both is forced to do that which God hath ordained he should do. CHAMP. This position have you truly set down. But why do you say that it is forged? The sole title of your first master Luther his book de seruo arburio. might have taught you that it is his professed doctrine. Read further his 36. article where besides many other things to this purpose he hath these express Luth assert. àr. 36▪ words. I said ill that freewill before grace is a mere rule: But I should have said that free-will is a fiction or a title without the thing. Because it is in no man's power to think either good or bad, but all things (as Wicleffe his article condemned at Constance ri helie teacheth) do happen by absolute necessity And thus you see Sir your Catalogue of antithesis and roll of forged positions which you muster in the beginning of your book, to deceive your l●sse wary reader, and disgrace your adversary, is blown away more easily, than a Cop-webb is broken with the wind, to your own irrecoverable disgrace and dishonour, unless you prove more solid and sincere in the rest of your book. Which if you do not, I shall much marvel if ever you be more employed by your Metropolitan, either to defend your own, or impugn the Catholic doctrine. And before I go any further with you, I would have you to understand, that when I put down the position contradictory to the Catholic, I do not distinguish betwixt this or that sect of protestants, but include them all that hold or teach against the Catholic doctrine, whether they be Lutherans, Zwinglians, Anabaptists or Parlamentarians, all which with the rest of all there malignant brood, I understand by the name of protestants. Now I will go forward with you in this order; I will first set down the words of the Manual in sections as you have divided it, than I will put down your answer in your own words, and lastlie I will add mine own reply. THE PREFACE TO THE READER. MANVALL. SECTION I. THis brief treatise (courteous reader) being at the request of a friend speedily compiled, may serve to convince them of manifest calumny, who no less untruly, then boldly do affirm the doctrine of the Catholic Roman Church, to be either against holy scriptures, or at least to have no ground from them. And it may also give satisfaction unto such, as more upon the confident boldness of them that affirm the Roman Religion to be destitute of scriptures, then upon any other reason, are drawn either to think this to be true, or at least to doubt of the truth of the contrary. PILK. He that advisedly shall read your Manual of Controversies, will easily believe you were in haste when you contrived it, forgetting that wise speech of Cato, reported by Hierome (Sat Epistola 26 ad Pammachium. cito, si sat been) For whether it were your great celerity, which is the mother of many slips, or whether it be the badness of your cause, that admitteth no just, scarce probable proof, so perfunctorily and lightly (tanquam canis à nido) you have touched these matters, as if of purpose you would have settled in the minds of men, that which you labour to overthrow. So that if popery have no surer footing in the sacred word of God, than this which you have found for it, than it will appear no calumnnie, but a manifest verity, that the Roman religion is without ground of scripture. CHAMP. Mr. Pilkinton though your words be many, & as empty of substance as they are full of falsities, and therefore will neither quit labour nor cost to relate them, yet will I sustain so much pains, as to set them down as they lie, so far as I shall go with you, I say so far as I shall go with you, because I intent not to lose so much time as to look thorough your whole book. As for the slips therefore you speak of, if you shall make good but one quarter so many in my whole book (notwithstanding the the celerity I used in compiling it) as I have already marked gross and flat falls in three pages only of yours (after four whole years study in the work) I promise you faithfully I will commend it to the fire, to be forged a new. And though Catholic religion (which you disdainsullie call popery) had no other footing in holy Scripture, then that which I have set down in proof of it, yet will it be better grounded, than your protestantisme, even by the judgement of your own friends and mine adversaries, if they will but with one spark of judgement and indifferrencie parallel your proofs and mine together. PILK. First you confess that the Scripture is not the total but the partial rule of your faith, therefore that part of your faith, which is with out the compass of this rule, hath no proof or ground from it, for the rule is that whereby every thing is proved. Now the things without the Hosiut confess 92. pag. 38●. post principium. compass of this rule, yourself acknowledge to be many, yea the greatest part of the Gospel, for the least part is come unto us by writing as others teach and yourself accord: therefore a small part of your faith can claim this birthright from the Scriptures, but is avouched by your teachers, believed by your hearers only on the credit of tradition, which every one might know if any of your divines would consign unto us a catalogue of your traditions; A matter that in conscience they ought to do, sith Conc. Trid. sess. 4. your counsel chargeth to give equal reverence to traditions, as is afforded to holy scriptures. And yet none of you have performed this task, lest your adversaries should see the poverty of your religion, how naked it is of the protection of scriptures; And yourselves have a starting hole to fly unto unwritten verities and traditions, when you cannot derive your doctrine from the written word of God. CHAMP. I confess the Scriptures to be a partial rule of our faith, if we speak of those thing which are expressly contained in Scripture, and therefore I say there must necessarily be a more universal rule of saith than the express Scriptures, by which rule we receive and believe the Scriptures themselves to be such. And this is true by the judgement of many most judicious protestants. notwithstanding the Manual expressly teacheth that all articles of saith are contained in scriptures, so fair as they testify the authority of the church and verity of traditions. In which sense the scriptures may truly be said to be a total rule of our faith. Where you say that others teach and I accord, that the least part of the Gospel is come to us by writing: For myself I answer with as much modesty as I may, that you sowlie belie me. For I never so much as dreamt any such thing. If you groonde this ficton upon that which I say, I here must Hooker li. 3 pa. 146. & lib. 1. p. 86. with many more cited in the protestant Apol. p. 620. needs be a more universal rule of faith then the scriptures, understanding me that more things in number are taught us by tradition alone, then by the written word, (which interpretation you seem to make of my words) I cannot truly blame my manner of speech, but either your dull or captious understanding; my words are plain, that because we believe some things without express scripture, as that there is a holy scripture, and that it is contained in these and these books, which is no where expressed in holy scripture, there must necessarily be some other rule more universal, that is, which teacheth some things besides that which is directly expressed in the holy scripture. You cite in the margin Hosius whom it seemeth you understand in the same manner (I say it seemeth, for whether it be for negligence or fraud, you make no reference for what purpose you cite him, neither do you put down his words, for so might you have been taken tripping) but I find nothing in him sounding to this purpose. He hath this indeed, that the scripture commanding us to hear our pastonrs with whom Christ promised to be always until the end of the world; it is found true that S. Hierome saith, that the scriptures contain all things. Our divines you say are bound in conscience to deliver unto you a catalogue of our traditions, seeing the Council of Trent chargeth to give equal credit to traditions and to holy Scripture. But you are foully deceived; For our divines are bound to receive those traditions which the church delivereth unto them, and to descend them against your Cavils, and not prescribe unto the church what traditions she should receive. This pride and arrogance pertaineth properly to you Sectmaisters, who prefer your own private opinions before the judgement of the whole church, which pride is the very root and cause of all heresy and error that hath been in the world. PILK. Nevertheless the most of these positions here Linda 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 doubt not but you have chosen the clearest) are confessed by your own side not to be of its kindred, but bred and believed only upon tradition S. Peter's being at Rome, the Pope's Supremacy and succession, prayer to Saints, relics, images, purgatory, seven Sacraments, Exorcisms, exufflations, & unction in Baptism, real presence, transubstantiation, communion under one kind, sacrifice Soto con●. Brentium. lib. 2. cap. 68 of Mass, confirmation, penance, orders, extreme unction, matrimony, merit of works, monkery, with very many more not expressed by you: so that when you and your sellowes brings the scriptures to patronise these points, you fairly imitate the ancient heretics, who Athan●. orat. 1. cont. knowing their opinions to have no communion with the scriptures, yet allege them to seduce the simple sort. CHAMP. You are resolved I perceive to be shamelessly impudent; not blushing to write that the most of the points proved by me out of Scripture to be confessed by catholics to be believed only upon tradition, and namely all these set down in your words now related. Why do you deal so underboarde as not to set down the Author's words whose names you put in the margin? you fear the trial and therefore you walk in obscurity. So many falsities as you have been taken with already, will make your reader wary enough to believe you no further, than he seeth proof of your sayings. And whether you and yours, or limitate more fairly the ancient heretics in alleaginge Scriptures for their errors to deceive the simple, it will appear by the progress of our dispute. PILK. And how can you persuade the world that Cusan epi. 2. & 7. Bellar. de verbo lib. 4. c. 7. Baron anno. 53. num. 11. you purpose in deed to make the scriptures the ground of your faith, which are branded by your men to be inconstant, and mutable, fitted to the time, and variably understood, to be insufficient and imperfect, and explicated by a council, they firmly prove that which before they did not, that herein they are overtopped by Stapl. l. 9 de princip doct c. 1. Hosius de auth scrip. l 3 p. 530 Greg. valent. traditions, for that without traditions they firmly subsist not, but without them traditions have their strength, that the authority they have towards men is derived from the church, and without it they have little force, which church 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 any of our men to be inconstant, mutable or fitted to the time, is your own slanderous fiction; or if it be not, bring forth your author and justify yourself of so shameless a slander. That the scriptures may be diversslie understood if you deny, who is he of all your fellows that will believe you? Surely no man that is awake, but will think rather that you dreamt when you wrote this, than he will think that the scriptures cannot be understood diversly, which being so evident by daily experience, that no man in his senses can deny it, who seeth not the necessity of some judgement to determine which is the true sense and meaning thereof. But that is the thing you fear, which rather than you will grant, you say that which a drunken man would be ashamed to have said. The insufficiency of the scriptures to instruct the church in all matters of faith, standeth right well with their sufficiency to prove those things which are contained expressly in them; And therefore your argument whereby you would conclude against me, the insufficiency of scriptures to prove any article of faith, because I say it is not sufficient to prove all the Articles of faith is more than childish, and like unto this. The first chapter of Genesis is no● sufficient to prove all the articles of christian faith, therefore it is not sufficient to prove that God created the world. Would you (I pray you) admit this argument as good? I think not, though I know you impertinent enough; why therefore do you go about to conclude your purpose against your adversary by the like argument? leave for shame to make yourself so ridiculous, seeing you write yourself so doctor of Divinity. As for the word imperfect, I do not know any catholic that doth use it; yet if it have no other meaning then insufficient to prove all the articles of faith, it is not reprehensible & helpeth your cause nothing at all. The authority of the church, council, and tradition in explication of scriptures, is as frivolusly alleged by you, to impugn the authority of the same scriptures, as if you should say the authority of the judges or customs in England or any other kingdom, to interpret or expound the Law doth violate and impeach the authority of the Law. Your impertinencies are without measure or number. The Pope is not the Church as you more then childishly term him, but he is the head & chief pastor of God's Church militant here upon earth, malgree all your spite and malice, and therefore are you bound to hear and obey him, if you would hear our Saviour Christ, who hath expressly said of all the pastors of his church, he that heareth Luc. 10. you, heareth me: but because you depise to hear our Saviour Christ, who addeth in the same place, he that despiseth you, despiseth me, therefore you scorn to hear your pastor. MANVALL. SECT. II. But before thou proceed to view the thing itself, I desire thee to consider well these few points following. First that no proof of any point of christian belief 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 heretics could interpret all places of holy scripture, brought by the catholics against their heresy, in such sense, as being so understood, they make nothing against it: yea that no less silly than perverse heretic Legate (burned in Smithfielde not long since for Arrianisme) could not be convinced of heresy by only scripture. Such proofs therefore of catholic doctrine as cannot be deluded by any interpretation, are not to be expected out of holy scripture. PILK. An unskilful pilot that maketh shipwreck ere he gets out of the haven. You will prove your faith out of holy scriptures, and presently you will tell us that your prooses are not so direct and full, but your adversaries may delude them, and that none such must be expected from you: much like the soolishe or at our who usually propounding three or four points to speak of, ever forgot one of them, and then charged his adversaries that they had bewitched him. So the weakness of your arguments, is imputed to the delusion of your opposites. CHAMP. A blind adversary that doth not see what he hath to impugn. I proposed in my Manual to show the catholic doctrine to have true ground in the holy scriptures, and this Parallelist would have such convincing testimonies, as may not be deluded by any false interpretation: we shall belike see that he will play the man egregiously when it shall come to his turn, to prove his own doctrine, and will bring such testimonies for himself as he requireth of me, In the mean time let us hear the rest of his learned discourse. PILK. But to your bold and rustic assertion, that no articles of faith are so fully proved out of the scripture; but may be deluded by false interpretation, the Fathers shall answer, nothing can delude them that search the scripture. CHAMP. Which of the fathers say this? why do you not name them? you put in the margin Theophilact and Chrisostome, but not as authors of this your senseless assertion, that none can be deluded that search the scriptures. but you give a reason thereof out of the fathers, let us hear it. PILK. For they (the scriptures) are the candle whereby Theophil. in l. the thief is espied. Chrisostome saith that Manichees and all heretics deceive the simple; if we have the senses of our minds exercised to Chrisost. hom. 8. ad Hebr. discern good and evil, we may be able to escape them, But how may our senses become practised? by the use of the scriptures and often reading. CHAMP. What is all this to prove that any testimony of scripture may not be deluded by a false interpretation? that is, that a peevish or a perverse adversary, cannot understand or interpret it otherwise then it is meant. These father's sayings (be they truly related by you or Noah, which I list not now examine) have this manifest sense, that a catholic man, conversant in scriptures, who understandeth them in the sense of the church, cannot be deceived by heretics, but espieth quickly their thievish drifts, which is true, but far▪ from that which you should prove: to wit that no heretic can so interpret the testimony of holy scripture, but that he must necessarily remain convinced of his heresy by them. PILK. S. August avoucheth that all articles of faith Aug. de doctr. christ. li. 2 cap. 9 are plainly set down in holy scriptures, and that so evidently that diverse of them need no interpretation at all: as that Christ must suffer and rise again the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins must be preached in his name in all nations beginning at Jerusalem as it needeth no interpreter; this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world and then shall be the end as it needeth no interpreter; ye shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all judea & Samaria and the whole earth as it needeth no interpreter; suffer both to grow until the harvest: and when it needeth an interpreter the Lord himself did interpret it, whom no man dare contradict. Your own Lib. 6. in princip. praefat. Stapleton affirmeth the Pope's Supremacy, which is no mean article of your faith to be fully and abundantly proved out of the scripture. CHAMP. Conclude out of all these words (be they truly related or otherwise for it importeth not to examine them) that the testimonies of scripture for any one point of faith, may be so convincing that they cannott by any false interpretation be deluded, and you shall say something to the purpose, otherwise all your words are but idle and impertinent babbling not worth the reading. PILK. But let it be granted that the scriptures may be thus deluded as you would have them, it neither helpeth you nor hurteth me. Sith whatsoever you add to bring fullness unto them, whether traditions or counsels, is equally subject, if not more to delusion then the written word of God. CHAMP. I would you wist that I disdain to take any thing of guyfte or grant of you; that pertaineth to the defence of the catholic truth; deny therefore hardly that which you can without blushing, and grant me no more than that I extort from you by force of argument, and after good deliberation shape me answer to these demands following. First is it not a chief article of Christian belief that the son of God is of equal or one substance and glory with his father? and secondly is not this article as clearly and as often set down in the scripture, as any other articles of our belief? And thirdly did not the Arrians delude by false interpretation all the proofs of the said article, so that they remained not convinced by any of them, nor all of them together? which of all these three propositions will you deny? you will not as I suppose find any probable ground to deny any of them. And yet if you grant them all (as they are all most manifestly true) that is clearly concluded which I affirm, and you deny; to wit that no testimony of holy scripture can be so direct, and convincing, but that it may be eluded by false interpretation. You say be it so, what doth this either help me or hurt you. But you are very short sighted or rather stark blind, if you see not this, For it helpeth me in that it delivereth me of the charge or obligation to bring such testimony of holy scripture in proof of the article of our catholic belief, as cannot by any tergiversation or false interpretation be misconstrued or misunderstood by you, which you would seem to tie me unto, it hurteth you, because it evidently showeth that the sole scriptures are not sufficient to convince any wilful or obstinate heretic in any article of faith, as you affirm it to be. The reason that you allege why it should not help me, nor hurt you, that all criptures may be misinterpreted, is altogether misapplyed, proving not that for which it is alleged, but rather disproving the proposition itself. But this is a small oversight in your discourse, you say therefore; that whatsoever is added to the scriptures to interpret them, whether traditions or counsels, is equally, if not more subject to delusion: whereunto I answer. First that neither counsels nor traditions, are so subject to misinterpretation as the scriptures are; And the reason is, because they express more particularly their own sense and meaning than the scriptures ordinarily do, and consequently leave not so much liberty of misinterpretation as they do. Secondlie I answer that whensoever the testimony of counsels or traditions are drawn into doubt, and difficulty as often they are; (heretics serving themselves of them, as they do of the scriptures) they are to be understood according to the judgement of the present church, which as a lively and living judge and interpreter, hath power to interpret aswell the counsels and traditions when there is doubt of them, as it hath to interpret the scripture; which being added they are not subject to any farther doubt or delusion. PILK. Euseb l. 5. Hist. Eccl. c. 19 20. Concerning Tradition, Eusebius will inform you, that in the City of Rome, the rule of Ecclesiastical Tradition, was vexed with diverse novelties: and as for counsels how shamefully your Popes would have corrupted that of Nice, the fathers of the first council of Carthage, have formerly manifested unto the world, and how vainly at this day, your divines delude the sixth Canon of the same council, purposely made to give equal honour, unto the Patriarche, to patronise your Pope's Monarchy, every blear eye doth easily perceive. CHAMP. Your intention by inculcating these old and overworn objections, I mean these of counsels, have been answered an hundred times, being only to deturne your reader from the subject in hand, and to draw your adversary into like confusion of matters with you, I will pass over those words of yours, expecting your confutation of the answers already to these same objections, before I will trouble myself to answer them again, before the first answers be confuted by you. That which Eusebius saith of vexing traditions is true; marry it was by such as yourself and your fellow hetetikes, whose endeavours were frustrated by the catholic pastors: see him reader and marvel at Mr. pilkinton's wit in citing him. PILK. Now when you cannot fully prove your faith out of scriptures, you fall presently to wound them with your slanderous accusation, that they are not able to convince heretics, Noah not such silly ones as Legate, not perceiving how evenly you jump with old heretics, who when they are convinced by the scriptures, fall to rail on them as though they were not right, nor sufficiently authorized, but various and not full to find the truth by them without tradition. CHAMP. Why do you not I pray your answer the instance made in Legat? ● know well the reason; you can as well answer it, as you can beat down Paul's steeple with your fist. You call it in this same section, a sheepish objection, but that is only a caluishe solution. And that heretics cannott be convinced out of scripture only, harken I pray you to ancient Tertullian who was better conversant in these conflicts then either of us, yea then both of us put together, thus he writeth. The conflict with the scriptures profiteth nothing but to turn either the stomach or the brain. For which he giveth this reason. This heresy receiveth not certain scriptures (as the Tert. de prescript. cap. 17. 18. 19 protestants for examples) and if it receive any, it araweth them to her purpose by additions and detractions. And if it receive the whole scriptures, it depraveth them by diverse expositions. Whereas the adulterous sense, doth no less destroy the truth than doth the corrupted letter. What wilt thou gain then that art cunning in scriptures, when that which thou defendest is denied, and that which thou deniest is defended? Thou shalt indeed lose nothing but thy voice with contending, nor shalt thou gain any thing but choler, hearing blasphemies. The heretics will say that we adulterate the scripture and bring lying expositions, and that they defend the truth; Therefore must not appeal be made to the scriptures, nor must the conflict be in them, by which the victory is either uncertain, or little certain, or none at all. But let us now go forward. PILK. But let this be the first issue betwixt you and me, whether scriptures only will fully convince heretics, wherein the negative, is yours, the affirmative mine, and thus I double it out of the word of God. That which doth perfect the man of God to every good work, enableth him fully to convince heretics: for this is one main duty of his calling, to convince contradictours. But the scriptures do perfect the man of God to every good work, and particularly S. Paul expresseth conviction, therefore they teach him fully to convince heretics. CHAMP. I very willingly accept of your challenge and am content to join issue with you in this point, desiring no other judge or umpire of the victory than your own patron of Canterbury. To your double therefore out of the word of God, I answer, that the minor or seconde proposition of your argument is not out of scripture, nor in itself true. For the place of scripture which you aim at is this. All scripture 2. Tim. 3. inspired by God i● profitable to teach, to argue, to correct, to instruct, in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, instructed to every good work. Out of which place if you would conclude any thing by lawful argument, you should argue thus. That which is profitable to teach, to argue, to correct and instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, instructed in every good work, is sufficient so fully to convince heretics of their error, 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 fully to convince heretics, that they cannot delude it by false interpretation. The conclusion of which argument is the issue betwixt you and me. The medium you use to prove it are the words of the Apostle, which if you had put down simply and wholly and not doubled (as you say) by curtayllinge them, you would easily have seen (if you see any thing) that they are as far from concluding your affirmative, as the argument following is from concluding that which is put in the conclusion thereof. Mark it I pray you, and learn to argue better; especially when you dispute for the victory in a matter of such moment as this is. That which is profitable to nourish, to exhilarate, and comfort or strengthen man, that he may be able to exercise all manlike functions and actions, is sufficient to defend him from his enemies, and to vanquish them. Butt all wines are such. Therefore all wines are sufficient to defend a man from his enemies; & to vanquish them. By which argument, which is the very same in form that yours should be, if you would have form it out of the Apostles words, you see (if you only are not blind) how ridiculously you double your affirmative out of god's word. Besides your argument is for diverse other respects either foolish, or fraudubent. For S. Paul saith that all scripture, that is every part & parcel of scripture is profitable to teach &c: yet you will not I hope say that every parcel of scripture is sufficient to convince heretics. Again the Apostle speaketh manifestly of such scriptures as Timothy had learned from his childhood, which without controversy were only the scriptures of the old testament, of which you will not affirm that they are sufficient to convince all heretics. And so you see the living wherewith you would double your affirmative to be so poor stuff, that were your cloak doubled with no better lyninge, you would feel the winter could, no less then if your cloak were simple: but let us see, peradventure you have better stuff behind. PILK. That way which Christ and his Apostles took to convince heretics is a full and direct way: but they convinced them by scripture only. The Saduces that were heretics amongst the jews, denying the resurrection, werethus' by Christ put to silence, so were the false Apostles that urged Circumsion, by the council at Jerusalem, and thus Apollo confuted the jews, sheweinge by the scriptures that jesus was Christ. CHAMP. These examples of Christ and the Apostles do clearly convince your affirmative, wherein is our issue, to be false. For otherwise all these that heard them should have been converted from their errors, which they were not. And assuredly if you take those places of scripture used by our Saviour Christ and the Apostles to be of themselves convincing, abstracting from the authority of those that used them, you will convince yourself to be a mad man and not a doctor of divinity. The way therefore that our Saviour Christ and the Apostles then used, and which all the Doctors of gods church have ever since exercised to convince heretics by scripture, is doubtless most convenient, and good, which is not in controversy between you and me: but only whether it be such as by no false interpretation it may be avoided, deluded or frustrated of the effect, which these very examples brought by you, and the experience of all times do demonstrate to be true against you. And this might fully suffice for that which you add, but lest you may complain of your words concealed I will set them down. PILK. Lastlie the fathers thus taught that heretics might be convinced solely by the scriptures, Matt. 22. 32. Act. 15. 16. Act. 18. 28. Take from the heretics their heathenish learning that by scriptures only they must prove their opinions, & they cannot stand saith Tertullian. See how ne'er unto danger they be that refuse to exercise themselves in scripture, for of them only the judgement of this trial must be known. CHAMP. How impertinent always you are? you should prove that heretics may be convinced by scriptures only; and you bring Tertullian to prove that heretics cannot prove their erroviss out of scriptures; speaking of one particular heresy against the resurrectio, which article of the resurrection being not to be proved by natural discourse, but out of scripture only, therefore those heretics that neglect to read them were in danger to continue in their error. But if you make any esteem of Tertullian his judgement in this matter, see his words cited a little before, and judge yourself whether he favour your affirmative or my negative more. PILK. Athanasins writing to Serapion against th●se Epist ad Scrap. heretics that taught the holy ghost to be a creature, chargeth him to learn only these things that are in the scriptures. For the documents contained therein about this point, are of themselues sufficient and do satisfy. S. Aug: Chargeth Tom. 2. de unitate cap. 16. the Donatists to prove their church only by the canonical scriptures, and removing all other things, to demonstrate their church, if they were able, not in the words and rumours of Africans, not in the councils of the Bishops, not in the letters of any disputers, not in signs and lying miracles, because we are forewarned & fore-armed against these things by the word of God: but in the prescript of the law, the predictions of the prophets, in the songs of the psalms, in the voice of the shepherd himself, in the Sermons and labours of the Evangelists, that is in all the canonical authorities of the holy book. Innocent. i. bishop of Rome saith, Aug. epist. 193. that by the sole testimony of holy scriptures the heresy of Pelagius might be refuted. The testimony Theod lib. 1. cap. 7. of the fathers are infinite in this kind, which to avoid prolixity I pass over, and conclude with that charge of Constantine to the fathers of the Nicene council, where Arrianisine received its death's wound (to satisfy the sheepish objection of silly Legate) the books of the Evangelists and the Apostles, together with oracles of the ancient prophets do plainly teach us, what we are to think of divine things; or as Bellarmine readeth it of the nature of God. Therefore laying a side all contention, let us out of the divine inspired scriptures, take the resolution of these things that are in question. CHAMP. Many words & nothing to the purpose Which of all these testimonies (be they truly related by you, which I list not examine, because they are nothing to the purpose) or of those infinite others (which you more prudently omit, than you have related these) say that the heretics may be so convinced by only scripture, that they cannot delude them by any false interpretation, which is our issue as you know? The charge of Constantine (as you ridiculously term it) doth sufficiently evict my cause against you, so wisely you plead for yourself, and so solidly you satisfy the objection of silly Legate (which you esteeming sheepish, show yourself to be more than a sheep in not soluinge it for which of all the testimonies out of the books of the Evangelists, and Apostles, or the oracles of the ancient prophets, did so convince the Arriaus, that they had not some answer for it? not one surely. Therefore all these words of yours contain nothing but an argument of your wilful obstinacy against an evident truth. And therefore to conclude my defence in this issue, I will ask you whether you are convinced of the real persence by these words; hoc est corpus meum: or of Matt. 26. 10. 20. 23. the power to remit sins; by these: quorum remiseritis ●e●cata remittuntur e●s, or of the infallibility of the church by these; quae est co●umna & firmamentum 1. Ti. 3. 15 veritatis; to omit the rest: if you say you are not convinced, as by your profession I conjecture you will say; then I will further ask you, what more clear testimonies of scripture you can bring for any one article of our faith? and because I know you cannot bring any more direct or pregnant, I therefore challenge & conjure you, even by the judgement of your patron of Canterbury (whose arbitrement I do not refuse in this cause) either to confess yourself convinced in these points of Catholic doctrine, or to confess that heretics cannot be convinced by only scriptures, and so shall I gain mine issue against you. Which being evicted, the note of the Manual remaineth entire and untouched, notwithstanding all your tedious and prolix wrangling against it. MANVALL SECTIO 3. secondly that though the protestants may allege texts of holy scripture for the proof of some points of their doctrine, yet that alone is not sufficient to make it true; both because the same points are proved false by other places of scripture, and also for that all heretics have ever brought scripture for their heresy; and none more apparent or frequent then the damned and blasphemous Arians. To say nothing of the devil his citing of scripture even against our blessed Saviour; by all which it is more than evident, that the sense of holy scripture, besides the words is necessarily required to make sufficient proof of true doctrine: For which reason I often bring the incorrupt testimony of some holy father for the sense of the place alleged by me, who having lived at least a thousand years before these controversies began, cannott be esteemed partial one our side. PILK. We adore the fullness of scripture and prove from thence not some, but every point of our doctrine (which you jesuits neither can do, nor profess to do, but the contrary, charging them with insufficiency and imperfection) which how manfully you can desproove by other texts will appear in the discourse ensuing. CHAMP. As you are more redound in words in this section then in the precedent. so are you more impertinent. Your flaunt out of Tertullian shall be answered in the pag. 45. controversy of scripture where you repeat it again. And for your vain and windy brag to prove every point of your doctrine out of holy scripture, I know already how it will be performed; to wit by filling your margins with quotations of scripture, to delude the ignorant; which being examined and compared with the article to be proved, have as much resemblance with it as an apple with an oyster. The ministers of France being of late detected of this fraud before the king himself and provoked by his preacher to justify their citations of scripture quoted in the margin of the confession of their faith, though they seemed to take heinously the accusation, yet till this day have they not justified their quotations, nor ever will. How you will quit yourself in this point, we shall see when we come unto itt. PILK. In the mean while it is untrue that all heretics alleged scriptures, which they love as well as dogs do whips: but just as you papists Canus loc. come lib. 3. cap. 3. Text. de I. cap. 47. Idem de prescript. say there is more force in tradition then in the written word, for they are owls that cannot abide the light of the scripture, they massacre them as Martian did, that they may build up their own matters, they allege Apostolical traditions as Artemon did, who said that all the ancients, yea the apostles taught and said like himself, and laid hands on the scriptures irreligiously, saying that he had reform them. CHAMP. You affirm boldly but prove nothing, a fowl fault in a doctor. That all heretics universally allege scriptures, which you say is most untrue, hear the testimony of one that is not partial to either of us, and of more judgement in this matter than us both. I mean Vincentius Lirinensis of equal standing with S. Aug. who writeth thus. Some will Lirinensis contra propha. haeresum novationes. peradventure demand here whether heretics do use the testimonies of scripture? They do● truly and that vehemently For you shall see them run through all the books of holy scripture: through the books of Moses of the kings, of the psalms, of the Apostles, Evangelists, and prophets. For whether they speak with their own fellows or with other, whether privately or publicly, whether in Sermons or in books, whether in banquetts or in the streets, they never utter any thing of their own, but they will seem to shadow it with the words of scripture. Read the works of Paulus Samosatews, of Priscilian, of Eunomius. (of Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius) and of the rest of the plagues, thou shalt find almost an infinite heap of examples, no page that is not painted with the passages ' of the new testament. Now judge yourself, whether your saying or mine is the more untrue. Yea which is more, do not (I pray you) the fantastical Swinkefildians a younger brood of your grande father Luther, allege scripture for their reiecting of all scripture, and adhering to their dreams and revelations? yea and such scriptures as if you had the like for any point of your misbelief, you would think it fully proved by them. You say that heretics hate scriptures as dogs do whips; which is true when they are understood in the sense of the church, and not according to their own interpretation, and after the same manner do you love them, and not otherwise. They affirm, say you, as papists do●, more force to be in traditions then in scriptures. What papist can you name that ever affirmed this? name one at least or say you belie them? and do not invert the question, but compare the received scripture, with an approved tradition, for so are they to be compared to find out whether of them hath the greater force: where I would have you further to note, that the heretics their alleging of traditions, doth prove the authority of traditions even with catholics. For no man of common sense will allege an authority which he knoweth to be not received of his adversary, or could prove that it ought to be received. You say. Mar●ion did massacre the scriptures. But did he massacre the them more than your Master's Luther and Calvin do, who cut out of them many whole books; besides many notable parcels of those books which they seem to receive? Artemon, you say, affirmed that all the ancients yea, the Apostles taught as he did and yet laid irreligious hands upon the scriptures saying he had reform them. And do not (I pray you) your masters, say, and do the very same? where, for the love of God were your wits when you wrote these things, that you saw not all these sayings of yours to be bloody stripes to yourself? let us see the rest. PILK. Yea Arrius himself began thus his book Eusebius li. 5. c. 28. Athanas. ●rat. cont. Arrianos. Thalia. After this manner have I learned of the elect of God according to faith, the knowers of him and the right walkers after him. And of his followers whom you esteem to have stood so much upon the scriptures, Athanasius reports, that when they could not prevail by them, they fled to the Fathers, as thieves usually pretend honest and modest men to be their companions, like the wicked jews which claimed Abraham for their Father, when they were convicted by the scriptures. Against all which as against your traditions, we oppose that worthy saying of Hierome. All things that they pretend Heir. in c. 1. Aug. without authority and testimony of scriptures, the word of God thrust through. CHAMP. You go still forward in your impertinences, having either forgotten what you should prove, or wittingly wandering up and down to dazzle the eyes of your less skilful reader, and to weary your adversary with following your idle steps. What I pray you doth all this you have said, make to prove that heretics allege not scriptures, for their errors which is that you undertook to prove? nothing at all. If you would prove that Arrius and his sectaries alleged not scriptures for their heresy because in the first line of his book Thalia (which seemeth to have much semblance with the style of your elected brotherhood) he allegeth none, you are too silly a disputer to bear the name of a doctor. But S. Athanasius saith, they fled to the father's seeing they could not prevail by the scriptures Be it that S. Athan: saith so, it is evident thereby that they alleged scriptures contrary to your assertion. S. Hieron whom you draw in by the ears saith as little to your purpose, put case you cite him truly which I will not stand to examine. For he saith no such thing as that heretics allege not scriptures; which you should prove; but because you imagine his saying to make against traditions, which if you had but one spark of judgement you would see how unseasonably you impugn here) I will answer it by putting you in mind that catholics pretend not traditions without the testimony of scriptures, butt according to the express testimony thereof, which you know and therefore is your impertinency in alleging S. Hierome his words less excusable. PILK. What then? though Satan the Father, and heretics his sons abuse the letter of the scripture, as you papists now do, yet with no other weapon did Christ conquer him and them, to teach us that they only are the sword of the spirit, wherewith the devil and all his adherents must be put to flight; but this you say is the sense and not the words only. CHAMP. Whether you or we abuse the scriptures as Satan did, is in controversy between us, and must necessarily light upon one side. In the mean time whilst it appear whether you or we be the scholars of Satan, hence it is clearly manifest that it is not enough for the proof of any doctrine to cite scripture for it, which is my position, against which you have hitherto wilfully wrangled. And if you will stand to that ignorant paradox of yours, that with no other weapon than the scriptures our Saviour conquered the devil and his children, and that to teach us, that they only are the sword of the spirit, where with they are to be put to flight; blot out of your Bible's the whole new testament as you have done many books of the old; for no word of the new testament was written diverse years after our Saviour's Ascension into heaven, and triumph over the devil and hell. Would you have me conclude this in form of argument against you? Here take it. That scripture only is the sword of the spirit which our Saviour used. But he used no other scripture than the old testament, ergo the old testament only is the sword of the spirit. The mayor is your own, the minor is evident, the conclusion followeth directly upon the premises. Whence clearly followeth this consequence. Therefore the new testament is not necessary. So that you see how well you argue for the authority and dignity of holy scripture. But qui ambulat in tenebris nescit quo vaait. PILK. Mad Orestes would swear he were out of Hierom in cap. 1. ad Galas. Tert de prescript. his wits, that could imagine otherwise: For the the Gospel lieth not in the words of the scripture, but in the sense, not in the rind, but in the pith, not in the leaves of speeches, but in the ground of reason saith the same Father. Wherein it followeth that god's word foolishly understood, is not his word, which consisteth not in reading but in understanding, and that adulterating the sense, hurteth the truth as much as maring the sentences of scriptures. The sense than is the Garland we strive for; which whether it be with you or us, you refer your self unto the incorrupt testimony of some holy Father, that lived a thousand years a go, as if you meant to stand to the Father's verdict▪ whom your good masters as scornfully contemn, as if they were school boys, when once they contradict the sense of the Roman church. CHAMP. I willingly join with you in this issue also; that the sense of the scripture is the garland you ought to strive for. And if you dare, the Fathers shall be the judge of our plea; but you dare as well eat hot coals, as stand to their verdict. PILK. When we prove out of Tertullian that lived 200. years after Christ, that Pope Zepherinus favoured the heresy of Montanus, contrary to your new Roman Sense, that Popes cannot err, we must not at all believe Tertullian in this point saith Bellarmine. For he was a Montanist, yea an evil spirit so carried him, that of evil being made worse, and worse, and most filthy, he spewed out most horrible blasphemies saith Barronius. CHAMP. What is this to the purpose of trying the true sense of the scriptures! have you so quickly forgotten the thing in question? But to follow you in your extravagances, lest you should think your objection not to be answered. Tell me I pray you in the small honesty of a minister, whether you give more credit to Tertullian now a confessed heretic, in a matter advantageous to his error, then to all antiquity, testifying Zepherin Pope to have been an holy Saint and Martyr? Are you so malivouslie bend against the Pope and sea of Rome, that to fix some fault upon them you will put Saints out of heaven, make martyrs heretics, and that for the bare testimony of a professed heretic? let the judicious reader judge what spirit you are guided by. PILK. When we urge S. Aug. to prove that in the Lib. de i●stificat. cap. ult. state of corruption there is no free will in man to that which is good, contrary to your sense, Stapleton saith he went beyond all good measure in his dispute against Pelagius, with like usage do they entertain the rest when they cross their gross errors. CHAMP. This objection is as impertinent as the precedent. For be it that the Fathers have some hard speeches which heretics abuse to their own hurt, what marvel? sith the holy ghost testifieth the like of the 2. Petr. 5. 16. holy scriptures themselves. Stapleton speaketh never a word directly of free will in that chapter, nor yet of S. Aug. opinion thereof. But having showed S. August: to have taught that gentills and others not justified do not sin in all their works, objecteth to himself certain places out of S, Aug. where disputing against julian the Pelagian, he seemeth to incline to the contrary opinion. Which having answered and explicated by other of his sayings in the same places, he concludeth▪ Sed vt●unque in hac disputatione moaum for●asse excesserit Augustinus, ut propter adversarij putuiantissiman impudentiam, etiam peccata esse diceret quae vere & perfect bona non essent, tamen nusquan alibi id dixisse aut scripsisse legitur, ubi sine adversario non agonostice, sed dogmatice scripsit. Which are the words of Stapleton you carp att, but why, if you consider them a little better you will not easily show. PILK. For howsoever your council of Trent make a semblance to decree that the scriptures must be interpreted according to the sense which the church holdeth, or the unanimous consent of the fathers approveth, yet it is plain, that as when Caesar and Bibulus were consuls together, whatsoever was decreed and done, was ascribed to Caesar, Bibulus was a cipher. So whatsoever interpretation the Roman church, that is the Pope giveth, that must be intertayved, the fathers set behind the door. This your Cardinal that was present at the counsel under Pius the fourth telleth us. Whatsoever the Hosius de express Dei verbo. pa. 642. church teacheth us is the express word of God, whatsoever is taught contrary to the sense and sentence of the church, is the express word of the devil. CHAMP. I marvel whither you will wander at length▪ what is all this to the trying whether you or we have the true sense of the scriptures? The council of Trent decreeth expressly that which you seem to approve, and yet you are not content with it, your example of Caesar and Bibulus in a grammar scholar had been tolerable, but in a D. of divinity it is too ridiculous. And if you dislike the doctrine which you ascribe to Cardinal Hosius, why do you only mumble and grumble at it, with in your teeth, without disproving it either by scriptures or fathers? But your malice will not permit you to embrace the truth, nor your courage or strength, serve you to impugn it. PILK. And another more ancient than he. It is no Cusanus ad Boh●mos epi. 7. maruelle if the practice of the church at one time interprett the scriptures after this manner, and another after that: for the understanding runneth with the practice; for that sense which is concurrent with the practice is the quickinge spirit, therefore the scriptures follow church, not convertibly. If then the sentence of the Fathers runne not with the modern Roman church, they are not the messengers of God, but in this manes opinion instruments of the devil. CHAMP. You still wander out of the way, and stray from your purpose. But I will yet follow you though not without some patience. Cusanus speaketh expressly of the use or sense of scriptures so far as they pertain to the rite, order or manner of administering the Sacraments, and namely of Communion under one or both kinds; which rites or Ceremonies because they may be divers and changeable without any prejudice either to the nature of the Sacraments or to the verity of holy scripture (as indeed they are at this day different in the Greek and Latin church, the one consecrating the holy Eucharist in leavened bred, the other in unleavened, and yet neither of them contrary to the scriptures) they may be altered and changed according as the wisdom of god's church seeth just occasion, and yet according to the sense and meaning of the holy scriptures, which to the church is never unknown, and this is Cusanus his plain doctrine, which you could not have been ignorant of, if you had read him yourself. But it is your good nature, to make always the worst sense of your authors to deceive your reader thereby. For he speaketh not of scriptures so far as they contain articles of faith, which ever are the same, but as they appertain to matters of practice, which may be different according to the diversity of circumstances occurring. In setting down his words, you use your accustomed art and fraud. For his words where upon you would make your chief advantage are these. Therefore the scriptures follow the church which was before them and for which the scriptures are, not contrary: That is, the church is not for the scriptures. Whereas you leaving out some part of his speech, make his words to sound that the sense and meaning of the scriptures, follow the understanding of the church, and not the understanding of the church the sense of scriptures, but might be contrary unto it: which neither he nor any other catholic man ever dreamt of. PILK. And in very deed though the Pope hath devised a solemn oath whereunto your prosessours are sworn, that they shall admit of the holy scriptures, according to that sense which the holy mother the church holdeth, and they shall not at any time take or interprett them, but according to the unanimous consent of the fathers, yet it is manifest that they do not only leave the sense, which the fathers follow, but follow that which no father within. 500 years after Christ did ever dream of. CHAMP. seeing the council of Trent hath decreed as you say, and the Pope hath appointed an oath to bind men to follow the sense of the scriptures, delivered by the church and consent of the fathers, you have small reason to say it is manifest that catholics do leave that sense, without some manifest proof of your assertion, which I will expect and exact of you under pain to esteem you a rash and slanderous impostor. In the mean time whilst you perform this task, you may for your erudition understand; that it is one thing to give an interpretation of a place of scripture, which the fathers have not given before, and another to interpret it contrary to the uniform Consent of fathers. The church of god being no less assisted now by the holy ghost which teacheth her all truth according to the infallible promise of our aviour Christ, then was the church within the first 500 years, she is no less able to interpret the scripture according to the true meaning thereof, than she was then: yet she never ga●e-saith the interpretation of the ancient church, or of the uniform consent of the holy fathers▪ but let us hear how you prove your saying. PILK. Your late divines interpreting that place: there shall be one flock and one shepherd, forsake the fathers which understand it of Christ, and cleave to the sense of their mother, who will have it to be the Pope. CHAMP. Are you a master in Cambridge and know not that these two senses may be both true without any contrariety? neither modern nor ancient divines ever understood this place otherwise then of our Saviour Christ principally and for himself, or per excell●ntiam. But that it is not truly understood of him to whom 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 lawful successor in the same charge, secondarily and by participation, none but contentious heretics, who will see nothing in the scriptures contrarie to their error, do, will, or can deny. PILK. Do this in remembrance of me, that is sacrifice; this is now the sense of the Roman church, show one father that took it so, and you shall wear the garland. CHAMP. Stand to your word, and the garland will be mine by any indifferent man's judgement. Hear S. Ireneus who lived above. 1400. years ago; ●um, qui Ireneus lib. 4. c. 3● ex creatura panis est, accepit, & gratias egit dicens: Hoc est corpus meum, & calicem similiter; qui est ex creatura, quae est secundum nos, suum sanguinem confessus ect, & novi testamenti novam docuit oblationcm, quam Ecclesia ab Apostoli● accipiens in universo mundo offer● Deo. When he took that which is of the creature bread, and gave thanks saying. This is m● body: and likewise the chalice, which is of the creature which is with us, he confessed it to be his blood, and taught a new oblation ' of the new law, which the Church receiving from the Apostles doth offer it to God, through the whole world: These are his words: you will peradventure say that here is no mention of these words (do this) the exposition whereof is now in question,. It is true that here is no express mention of them. But S. Ireneus epreslie saying that our Saviour Christ when he said hoc est corpus meum, taught a new oblation of the new Testament, declareth plainly in what words he taught this oblation. For it being clear in S. Ireneus his doctrine, that our Saviour Chr. sacrificed his body and blood at that time, it cannot be called into doubt, but he gave to his Apostles by these words do this, power and authority to do the same. PILK. What father ever conceived, drink ye all of this, to be understood only of priests, and not of the people also, which now is the sense of your holy mother▪ CHAMP. No man saith these words; drink ●ee all of this, so to have been spoken to the apostles and consequently to priests, that the laiety is by divine precept excluded; but that they may if the church (which all that will not be as publicans and heathens are bound to hear) think good, also drink thereof, as they have done in some times and some places. But that these words are so spoken to the laiety, that they are commanded to drink of the Chalice, you cannot I think show any one father that affirmeth it, much less the uniform consent of the fathers. And therefore your objection is altogether impertinent to prove, that we leave the interpretation of the fathers. PILK. Again psalm the. S. God put all things Anton. in sum. part. 3. cap. 5. in initio. under his feet, that is of the Pope, beasts of the field, that is men living upon the earth: fishes of the sea, that is souls in purgatory: fowls of heaven, that is souls of the blessed, which by Canonization the Pope may propose to be adored: name any father if you can, that so dallied and played with gods sacred word. CHAMP. Name you any one catholic Doctor that giveth this interpretation of this place for the literal sense thereof, or if you cannot, blush at your impertinencies; bringing the moral or mystical interpretation of one author, to prove that catholics leave the uniform literal interpretation of the scriptures given by the father's▪ yea though this were given for the literal sense of this place, yet would it not prove that we leave the father's interpretation of the same place: one passage of scripture, being capable of diverse literal interpretations: so that your impertinency appeareth yet more gross. PILK. As then the jews tied themselves to their Rabbins, that they must receive whatsoever they teach, though they say the right hand is the left: so have you captivated yourself in such manner to the▪ sense of the Roman church, that one of yours is not afraid to teach, Hosius d● expresso Dei verbo. is any man have her interpretation of any place of scripture, though he neither know or understand whether or how it agree with the scriptures, yet he hath the word of god. CHAM. We do not imitate the jews in adhering to the church's sense of the scripture, as you idly imagine, Matt. 1●. but we follow therein the express doctrine of our Saviour Christ, who tell'eth us that he that will not hear the church is to be esteemed as a publican or heathen. whose doctrine if you did esteem more than your own fancy▪ you would not carp at that saying of Hosius, which is true if the gospel itself which teacheth the like doctrine, be not false. PILK. As for the fathers we read their works, and give God thanks for their labours, who have cleared many obscurities in the scriptures, descended the ancient doctrine of the church against the novelties of heretics, yet with their good leaves we pass by their interpretations, when they are dissonant from the scriptures, and willingly embrace them when they are consonant, trying their expositions by them, not them by their expositions; and in a word ever deducing the sense of the scriptures from themselves. CHAMP. It is well you here acknowledge some obscurities Obscurity of scriptures acknoledged. in the scriptures. Hereafter if I be not deceived you will come to deny all such thing as shall be noted when we come to the place if we go so far together. The honour you give here to the father's works, is no other than you give to the damnedest heretics that ever wrote, so kind you are unto them. For that which any heretic saith conformably to holy scripture, you willingly embrace. And in one word you deduce the sense of scriptures from your own self-willed fancy, making it say what you list to believe; and not believing that which the scriptures say indeed. PILK. Not without cause is there an healthful ecclesiastical Aug. cont. Cresc. li. 2. cap. 31. Tom. 7. Canon vigilantly constituted, whereunto certain books of the prophets and apostles do appertain, which we do not judge at all, and according to which we judge freely of other letters of the faithful or of infidels, saith S. August. So that being urged with Cyprians authority, that these which were baptised in heresy or schism were to be rebaptised, he answereth we offer no wrong to Cyprian when we put a difference between his letters and the Canonical authority of holy scriptures: for (as he goeth on in the next chapter) I do not account of Cyprians letters as Canonical, but I weigh them by the books that are Canonical; and what is agreeable in them to the authority of divine scriptures, I with praise entertain, and what is disagreeing, with his leave I refuse. CHAMP. We neither compare nor oppose the father's works to the scriptures, and therefore these words of S, Aug. are as impertinently alleged by you as all the rest you have hitherto said. If any one father teach any thing contrary to the scriptures interpreted by the rest of the fathers and the catholic church, as S. Cyprian of humane error, and not of wilful obstinacy did, we receive not his doctrine in that point. As S. August: in the 32. cap. here quoted by you expressly saith in these words. That which b●esse● cyprian thought of the baptizing of heretics and schismatics I receive not, because the church doth not receive it, for the which S. Cyprian shed his blood. Follow you S. Aug: example in refusing the father's interpretation in this manner & no man will find fault with you. PILK. This freedom which S. Aug. showeth, we Nehem. 8. 8. protestants freely maintain against the slavery of your popish spirits, knowing what is due to men, and acknowledging what is proper to gods holy word, which we ever interpret out of itself, wherein we follow the direction of the ancient priests and leuits that read the law unto the people expounding the meaning and gave the understanding according to scriptures. CHAMP. I wish with all my heart (though you give little occasion to hope it) that you would imitate S. Aug: aswell in this particular as in all other things: then would you with all humility and reverence receive and acknowledge the authority of the church in the interpretation of the scriptures, and not diabolically brag of the braveness of your spirits, that dare contemn the same. Harken I pray you unto S. Aug: words to Cresconius in the same chapter cited by you; which seeing you take no notice of, it is an evident argument you have no great desire to learn any thing of him; but to see if you can pick any thing out of him for your purpose, which is to impugn him and the rest of the fathers. His words are these which may as properly be used to you, as he used them to Cresconius. Put yourself (saith he) in the church which it Conc. Cres. cap. 31. is manifest S. Cyprian defended, and then may you allege S. Cyprians authority for your doctrine. The same I say to you concerning S. Aug: example, though you came nearer the imitating thereof then you do. You say you follow the direction of the priests and leuits in expounding scriptures. I find nothing at all in the place quoted by you warranting your usage of scriptures. But were it as you think, you must first prove yourselves to be priests or leuits, before you can take upon you the charge of priests and leuits in expounding the scriptures. How would you answer that old question put unto such as you are well nigh. 1400. years a go? Vnde vemtts? quid in meo ●acitis non mei? or if you will take upon you as priests and leuits to expound the scriptures being no such men, those that desire not to be deceived, will reject your expositions as false and pernicious. PILK. And thus the fathers teach us, as whatsoever Origenes Hom. 25. in Matt. circa medium. gold is without the temple is not sanctified, so whatsoever sense is without the scriptures, although to some it seem wonderful, yet is not holy because it is not contained in the scriptures. The scripture expoundeth her Hom. 13. in Gen. Lib. de Trin. p. 9 self, and suffereth not the hearers to err, saith Chrisostome. He is the best reader, saith Hyllarie, that expecteth rather the understanding of the words from the words themselves, then imposeth it upon them. CHAMP. The sense of the church is never without the scriptures, as the sense of all heretics is which impugn the church, and if the scriptures permit not the hearer to err (as you say) in vain are your expositions: every hearer being aswell able to understand them as you ministers. You said not long since that there are many obscurities in the scriptures. and are they now so clear that they permit not the hearer to err? Do you not see what absurdities you run into, whilst you wrangle against the evident truth? And who I pray you is more like to take the sense of the scriptures from the words themselves, and not to impose it upon them as you say out of S. Hilary, than the catholic church assisted to that end by the holy ghost? PILK. To conclude this point, sith the fathers often Lib 3. d● verbo c. 3▪ rove at the sense of the scriptures, understanding that literally which is meant spiritually, and chose, as your own Bellarmine may inform you, you should have done well, to Distinc 37 cap. relat. have followed the direction of your own Canon law: you must not from without scriptures seek a foreign and strange sense, that so you may confirm it with authority of the text as you can, but of the scriptures themselves you must receive the meaning of the truth. CHAMP. If the fathers rove at the sense of the scriptures (which saucy and unseemly term you falsely father upon Bellarmine) what shall I think you will do? Hitt the mark directly? what senselessness would that be, to think that men impugning violently the church, which the scriptures testify to be pillar of truth, should be true interpreters of scriptures? Know you therefore, that whilst follow the father's interpretations of the scriptures which they either receive from the church, or is approved and not approved and not gainsaid by the church, I seek● not the sense of the scriptures from without them, but in them, by them, and most conformably to them, and so I follow punctually the direction of the Canon Law, as you advice me, maruellinge not a little that you should give so good counsel to another, and follow it so little yourself. And now (judicious reader) would I entreat thee to turn over a few leaves backward, and take review of the short section of the manual, set down as it is in Mr. Pilkinton, and then pass hardly thy censure of us both as thou shalt find cause and ground. And particular note I would have thee to take how pertinently, and directly he impugneth that which h● affirms 〈…〉 and effectually proveth that which I would have thee observe through ou● whole dispute. MANVALL SECTIO 4. thirdly that I expect and exact of him or them that shall go about to answer this teatise, the same round, sincere and direct dealing, which I have here used; remembering before all things, that he set down his faith in direct positions, and proceed in like method as I have done for the rest. To whom I willingly grant this large liberty above that which I have used, that he tie not himself unto the first. 500 years after Christ for the father's interpretations, but that he take boldly. 1500. years, so that he bring not condemned heretics for his authors, and with all observe the point following. PILK. You may boldly sound the Triumph before the victory, if you may prescribe your adversaries how and what they shall answer you, which if any of us should offer to your side, we should presently be vpbrayded with (fortissimi milites) that on no other condition dare encounter with our enemies, except we forbid them what weapons they would use, and take to ourselves what we list. Nevertheless rather than you should complain that you are wronged, if your desire be not accomplished, who carry in your head Ticonius conceit, quod volumus sanctum est, therefore I am content to follow your disorderly order, and for the rest of this paragraph do as Antony the orator did, who when he came to a troublesome point, lapped it up in silence: so on the contrary, for the easiness of this to pass by itt, and proceed to that which is of greater moment. CHAMP. It is not only lawful but very laudable and welbeseeminge for any man to demand equal conditions of his adversary, which notwithstanding I have spared to do; yielding unto you the liberty of 1500. for only 500 years, which is in any indifferent men's judgement, over great advantage. For the rest of this section I will imitate your example letting it pass in silence. For I will not be ashamed to follow you where you go right. MANVALL SECTION 5. Fowerthlie that it shall not be to ani▪ purpose in way of answer, that any adversary bring another interpretation of some father upon the places of scripture alleged by me beside that which I have brought. For it is not denied that one and the same place of scripture, may be and is often diversly understood, not only of divers fathers, but of one and the same father. But if he will say any thing to the purpose in this kind, he must bring an interpretation contradicting that, which I have brought: and withal labour rather to prove his own doctrine, then to impugn that of the catholics. For seeing it is (as all men know) a far more easy thing to impugn any doctrine, though never so true, then to prove the same, (no truth especially of faith, being so evidently clear, but that something with show of probability may be objected against it) it is not now expected that any adversary should stand to answer those authorities of scripture and fathers which I have alleged for proof of the catholic doctrine, or to impugn the same, but rather to bring others in proof of his own. That the judicious reader may compare our grounds in scripture both together, and by the view of his own eye, try whether of them be more conformable to gods sacred word. And when any one shall have produced his proofs for protestantisme, in like manner as I have in the behalf of the catholic religion (if he can so do) yet shall he gain no more thereby, but an evident demonstration against the chiefest grounds of the protestants doctrine, that eitherto the true and full decision of controversies in matter of faith, is necessarily required some other judgement or trial, than the only words of holy scripture, or else, that there is no means at all to end matters of controversies of faith, which latter nevertheless to affirm, is no less injurious to god's wisdom, goodness and power then to say that he hath provided no sufficient means for men to know the way to save their souls. For both parties bringing scriptures for themselves, who shall finally determine whether of them doth apply the said scriptures more sincerely, and according to their true meaning? PILK. Your demands do so cross one another, as if your thoughts had been at wars together. First you prescribe your adversary how he shall answer you, not by bringing another sense of any father upon the place of scripture alleged by you, but a contradictory. And then you forbid him to answer either scripture or father urged by you, but to fortify & prove his own doctrine. But you must be content whether you will or no to suffer your adversary to unmask your fraud, and to open the veil of your cunning dealing, both in your doubtful positions and impertinent allegations, by sheweinge the native sense of the scriptures even from the fathers, to have no concurrence with your imaginations, but to contradict them: and then he will be content to acquaint you with the grounds of his doctrine (which either ignorantly you mistake, or purposely pervert) which being paralleled with yours, the reader may judge on which side the truth standeth. CHAMP. Your head is so full of crotchets that you imagine my words to cross one another; or else you say so only to make your less heedful reader to think so upon your credit. I neither prescribe to mine adversary how he should answer me, neither do I forbid him to answer either scripture or Fathers alleged by me as you are pleased to feign out of your own brain▪ which notwithstanding if I had done, yet had there been no crossing betwixt those things as every man may easily see) but I tell him what manner of answer will be to the purpose, and what will not▪ and further I require he should first set down his own belief with the proof thereof out of the scriptures; which two things do not cross one another in any man's judgement but yours, & beside, the reason which I give both for the one and the other is clearly good and true. For your unmasking of my fraud▪ spare it not in gods name; and I promise you that if you discover but one quarter of those blotttes and blemishes in my face, that I have already done in yours, I will hide it for ever that it never appear in public more. But now I will hearken how you will perform the great things you here promise. PILK. But this is no part of your meaning at all, that your reader should try by the scriptures as the Bereans did, and so rest himself satisfied. CHAMP. My meaning (good Sr.) is that the reader should search the scriptures alleged by me in proof of the catholic saith, and tr●e whether he find them not so as I have cited them; which the Bereans did. Whereby he shall find the chatholicke doctrine to be truly grounded upon the holy scriptures and consormeable unto them, as the Bereans did find S Paul's doctrine to be: though they were bound● to believe his preaching without that research. PILK. But your drift is, after you have set the scriptures together by the ears, to thrust upon him the authority of the Pope, who must finally determine on which side the sense of the scripture bendeth, and then I doubt not but you shall win the day. CHAMP. My drift is to make the reader see that the catholic faith hath true ground in the holy scriptures▪ and if you or any other will show the same for your new doctrine, the reader must necessarily see that he must find sums means to know to whether side the true sense of the scriptures doth truly agree: And if he find that the Pope who is chief & head of all those to whom our Saviour said, he that heareth you, heareth me▪ giveth sentence for the allegations on the catholic side (as you confess, there is no doubt but he will) If he have any true care of his soul, he will believe and follow that part. PILK. For thus you carry the matter, when both parties have brought scriptures for themselves out the letter of the scriptures, not opposing the letter to the sense as you falsely say I mean; but seeking and taking the sense from the letter only? Is not this your doctrine, in this very section? you cannot deny it unless you have a face to say and unsay at every turn. Cast up therefore once more your own cards, and see what other judge you make of controversies besides the only words of scripture. Therefore either blush yourself, or if your face be so brazen that you cannot, bid some other blush for you, that you either understand not your own doctrine, or are ashamed to acknowledge and maintain it. I know to what end is all this flourish of words; to raise up a little smoke before your reader's eyes, that you may steal away and leave the difficulty (which you know presseth you hard) vutouched; you shall not scape so I wisse. PILK. If then there appear a ●arre in the scriptures that some of them are opposed to others, as it fell out between the ancient Bishops and the Arrians, between the Catholics and Donatists, between Pelagians and godly teachers, and now between you and us, that on both sides they are produced, a judge must be sought for to reconcile them. Who is that? not a Christian, for he is party on the one side or the other, not a pagan, he knoweth not the mysteries of Christianity, not a jew for he is an enemy to Christian Baptism: on Earth there can be found Optatus l. 5 c●ntr. Parm. no judgement, saith Optatus. But why do we knock at heaven when we have in the Gospel his testament? for here earthly things may be compared to heavenly. See how we may come to the true sense, not by seeking unto the Pope, not by resting upon determinations of counsels, not by setting on Traditions, but by flying unto the Testament. For as the same Optatus goeth on, Christ hath dealt with us as an earthly Father, who having many children ruleth them all so long as he liveth, no testament so long is necessary: even so Christ so long as he was present upon earth (although now he be not wanting) gave in charge unto the Apostles, whatsoever for the time was necessary. But as an earthly father feeling himself in the confines of death, fearing after his decease; his children will contend● and break peace, calleth witnesses and from his dying breast draweth his will into lasting tables; and if there fall out any contention among the brethren, they go not to his tomb, but seek his testament, and so he that quietly resteth in his tomb, speaketh still from the tables as if he were alive. He whose testament we have is in heaven, therefore let his will be sought for in his gospel as in a testament, for these things which presently ye● do, he foresaw that ye would do. CHAMP. Because these sayings of Optatus, have the same meaning with that of S. Aug which immediately followeth, it shall there appear how little they serve your turn. Here are only to be noted these words of his. On earth there is found no judge: By which words he excludeth not all judgement upon earth, for so should he exclude the testament also itself, but he excludeth all earthly or humane judgement as unfit and unable to decide differences of faith, of which sort the judgement of the church is not. For she is the pillar and ground of truth perpetually I●. 16. 13. assisted by the holy Ghost, which teacheth and suggesteth to her all truth. PILK. S. August: runneth the very same course & In Psal. 21. expo. 2 prope finem. almost useth the same words as if he had taken them out of Optatus? we are brethren (saith he) why do we strive, our father died not intestate, he hath made a testament, and so died; men do strive about the goods of the dead, till the testament be brought forth, when that is brought, they yield to have it opened, and read; the judge doth hearken, the counsellors be silent, the crier biddeth peace, all the people are attentive that the words of the dead man may be read and heard, he lieth void of life and feeling in his grave, and his words prevail. Christ doth sit in heaven, and is his testament gainsaid? open it, let us read it, we are brethren, why do we strive? let our minds be pacified, our father hath not left us without a testament, he that made the testament is living for ever, he doth hear our words, he doth know his own word, why do we strive? CHAMP. S. Aug: by these plain words of the spalme▪ Reminis●entur & convertentur ad Dominum omnes fines terrae. Et adorabunt in conspect● eius universae familiae genti 〈…〉: as by the confessed testament of the father, proveth that the Donatists have no right to the inheritance of the church (which they contrary to the testament of God expressed in the psalm) say was only in a corner of the world amongst them. Who notwithstanding were not come to that degree of senclesnes, as to say the church was invisible as the protestants do. justly therefore did S. Aug: provoke the Donatists in this point to the trial of the testament; as also the catholics do the protestants in the point of the real presence, and diverse others. Which trial notwithstanding is not sufficient where either scripture is opposed to scripture, or it is not agreed upon which is the scripture itself, as it happeneth between the catholics and protestants, as shall ●ore amply appear by and by. PILK. And S. Ambrose more ancient then both, to Ambr. de fide ad Gratia. l. 1. cap. 4. Gratian the Emperor; Believe not Emperor our Argument, and our disputation, let us ask the Scriptures, let us ask the Apostles, let us ask the Prophets, let us ask Christ, what should I add more, let us ask the Father, of whose honour they say they are jealous. CHAMP. Sr. you always speak beside the purpose. The question between you and me, is not whether the scriptures understood in the sense of the church are not sufficient to decide any controversy in faith; and namely that whereof S. Amb. disputeth, which is not denied unto you: but whether the scriptures left unto the interpretation of either party contending, are a sufficient judge to end all controversies in faith. In which question I defend the negative, and you the affirmative if you will yet contend any more. These testimonies therefore of the fathers aswell of S. Ambrose as those that went before and also that follow, are alleged beside the question, and altogether impertinently as all the rest of your sayings for the most part are. PILK. A Gentile cometh and saith I would be a Christian, but I know not which side to cleave Chris. 33. in acta prope finem. unto, many dissensions are among you, and I cannot tell which opinion to hold, every one saith, I speak the truth, and the scriptures on both sides are pretended, so that I know not whom to believe. To this Chrisostome replieth; truly this maketh much for us, for well might you be troubled if we should say we rely upon reason, but seeing we take the scriptures which are so true and plain, it will be an easy matter for you to judge; if any consent unto them, he is a Christian, if any go against them, he is far from this rule. CHAMP. This allegation of S. Chrisost. is not only impertinent as all the rest are, but fraudulent and proceeding of a mind not willing to find out the truth, but to deceive the reader For the words immediately following and left out by you (Mr. Pilkinton) propose directly the question which now is in hand, and the answer thereof followeth also consequently. Quid igitur (saith S. Chrisost.) What therefore if he say, that the scripture hath in this sort: and thou sayest another thing, explicating the scriptures otherwise, and drawing their sense to favour thee? Lo here the question in controversy between Mr. Pilkinton and me. How doth S. Chrisostome answer it? doth he send us to the scriptures for deciding thereof? no such thing, but he giveth divers rules or marks whereby he that is in doubt whether part to follow, may judge who hath the true sense and meaning of the scriptures. And after one or two rules he addeth this: Vt autem manifestius dicam: But that I may speak more plainly; they (to wit heretics) have certain men of whom they are named▪ for the sect is named of the author, but we (to wit the catholics) have not our name of any man And a little after answering to the same question more fully he addeth. What? are we cut off from the church? have we Archeheretickes? are we surnamed of any man? have we a captain (any particular man) as these have Martion, these Manicheus, a thirde Arrius, and other heresies have their sect masters. (As Lutherans have Luther, Caluinists have Calvin and the like). And though we have the name of any one, ●et is is not of the father of any heresy, but of those who are our pastors and do govern the church. We have not Masters upon Earth (as all heretics have) God forbid, we have one in heaven. Thou wilt say that they pretend the same. But they have a name that accuseth them, and giveth them their names. Thus far S. Chrisostome, whereby it appeareth not only how impertinent or fraudulent Mr. Pilkinton is in his allegations; but also of what moment the ancient fathers esteemed the argument taken from the surnames of sects, for the discovery of their heresies and false doctrines. PILK. Lo in these cases wherein scriptures were produced on both sides the fathers fled for resolution unto other scriptures, where it appeareth your inferrence to be without coherence, that if there be not a judge without the scriptures, God hath not provided sufficient means to save men's souls, seeing that composing of controversies, reconciling of differences, clearing of doubts, manifestation of truth, is not from without to be fetched, but in the testament itself to be learned, that we may know scriptures, and them only to be the supreme judge from whence decision of doubts in matters of faith is to be derived. CHAMP. Mark judicious reader whether this be any other thing, then that which I said in this section. One chie●e ground of the prosestants doctrine to be, that the words of the scripture are the judge of all controversies. For the which Mr. Pilk: hotly reprehendeth me of fraud and falsehodde. See his words a little before at this mark † in the margin, and marvel at his wit, judgement and memory: Now to the purpose. No one of all the testimonies alleged by you doth say, that where scriptures are produced by both parts, they are sufficient to decide the controversy. Though I do not deny, but for the most part the inequality is so great in the catholic party (as it also falleth out in the cause between the protestāns and catholics at this day) that any man of indifferent wit, judgement and desire to find out the truth, may see on whether side the scripture standeth. But that they are not absolutely sufficient where there is obstinacy on any side, I shall make yourself to confess (though perverse enough) or else I shall much marvel; & that by the very example used by S. Optatus and S. Aug: and approved here by yourself. Put therefore the case, that the children of a deceased father contend about the inheritance, every one of them challenging it as appertaining to himself, & in proof or confirmation of his claim allegeth the testament and will of his father, which he protesteth to be clear for him, and against his competitors, being rightly understood, persisting most stiffly in his opinion and in defence of his right claim, as he is persuaded. The case being put thus (which is the very same with ours in the controversy of religion) will you say in the sincerity of your heart, that the sole will or testament of the father is a sufficient judge to decide this difference and to bring the parties to an accord? And that there needeth not any other judge or arbiter to determine upon the true sense and meaning of the father's will, whereby they all pretend to make their claim, and to ground their title? you will not I think say, yea, to this question. And well I wot that were the case your own betwixt yourself & your brethren concerning a temporal inheritance, experience (which though she be the mistress of fools, is not for all that a foolish mistress) would teach you that it is a mere Paradox to maintain that the sole testament of your deceased father, could in this case decide the controversy amongst you his disagreeing children. So that the example brought by yourself out of the fathers, is proved to make manifestly against you. Which will yet be much more clear, if the case be put as it is indeed with us, that these brethren do not only contend about the true sense and meaning of their father's testament, but also about the testament itself; the one contesting the whole writing contained in the book under the title of his will to be his true testament, another not receiving the whole, contendeth diverse parts and parcels not to belong thereunto. And another yet reiecting more; as it falleth out between us and the protestants, Calvin casting out of the testament of God, five whole books besides some large parts of other books, which the catholics believe to appertain to his true testament. Luther reiecting besides these, divers other whole books. The case therefore being thus, how is it possible that the sole written testament of God should decide the controversy between these competitors, and bring them to an accord? who do not agree so much as in what books or writings the testament is contained, so far are they from being at accord of the true sense and meaning thereof. It is therefore no other thing to say in this case, that the scriptures must judge all controversies, then to say that the controversy itself, must be judge of the controversy, which is more than madness to think. For the controversy being not only what the scripture saith, or meaneth, but also what is scripture, it is all one to say, that scriptures must judge and decide all controversies, and to say the controversies themselves must decide all controversies. Again seeing you Mr. Pilkinton, seem to give so much to holy scripture as to be able and sufficient to decide all doubts and determine all differences in matter of faith, Why do you not hearken unto them when they send you to the church and to the pastors, and doctors thereof, as to lively judges, having the keys of knowledge to understand the scriptures? But you desiring nothing less than to come to a just and competent trial of your cause, hold yourselves close to that principle, by which the most detestable, vile, and contemptible heretic that ever was may maintain his heresy, without being convinced thereof; as I told you before of Legate, which instance you can never answer not satisfy, and which only is sufficient if you were not obstinately perverse) to make you ashamed to maintain so senseless a Paradox, and so evidently contradicted by perpetual experience in all ages. Your last shift or evasion of interpreting scripture by scripture, unless there be some agreement, or certainty of the scripture interpreting, more than of the scripture interpreted, which abstracting from the judgement of the church cannot be had, is a mere mockery, and like as if a man would measure one piece of velvet the measure whereof is as uncertain as that of the former. And to conclude this section, it being in question between the catholics and protestants who is to be judge of controversies in faith (yea the root and key of all controversies, which being ended or decided all the rest would have easy decision) you affirming the scriptures to be this judge and pretend to prove this by scripture, as all other things to be believed, you are bound by your own doctrine, to show it out of scripture, which when you shall do, we will yield unto you in all the rest of the tontroversies between us. But seeing you can never do this, why do you not yield to us, show you out of manifest scripture the authority of the church to decide controversies? You say the church is a party and therefore no competent judge. But this having been the cavil of all condemned heretics, and as truly alleged by them as by you, this plea is no more receiveable in you then in them. And tell me I pray you, the king is he not party in all pleas of felony or treason that are brought into his courts? yes verily. And yet none ever yet thought of any such plea, as to appeal from the judgement given in his name, and by his sovereign authority in such cases: Albeit the judgements given in his courts are far from being so assuredly just & equitable as are the judgements of the church, which hath the infallible promise of the holy ghosts assistance in her decisions and determinations. You are therefore fast taken which way soever you turn your self; and this inference of mine: That if there be no other judge of controversies besides the scriptures, God hath not provided sufficient means to sa●e men's souls, which you say is without coherence, doth nessarilie follow upon that supposition, that heretics and namely protestants, do produce scriptures, in proof of their false doctrine, as catholics do for their orthodox belief, if there be no other judge to decide the controversy but only the scripture, which inference you have laboured (but all in vain) to overthrow as the indifferent reader will easily judge. MANULL SECTION 6. fively that whereas before I can prove any point of Christian belief by scriptures, I should first by good order prove that there is an holy scripture, and secondly in what books of the Bible it is contained: yet because neither of these two can be proved by scriptures, unless we believe some scripture without proof, therefore that I may prove these points of faith wherein the Roman Catholic church doth differ from the protestants, by holy scriptures (which our adversaries urge me unto) I must necessarily to satisfy their disorderly desire, proceed disorderly, and suppose that for truth without proof, which requireth most to be proved. I say without proof, if no proof 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 worthy of punishment or lacketh sense. For if any demand whether God is to be worshipped, or our parents to be loved, he deserveth stripes, or whether snow be white, he lacketh sense. This question of yours, whether the scripture be gods word, tendeth to Atheism and deserveth punishment, rather than answer. CHAMP. In the precedent question, to avoid the authority of the church's judgement expressly testified in the scriptures, you laboured to maintain this paradox, that notwithstanding scriptures were produced for either party of any controversy, yet the controversy might be fully ended and decided by the scriptures alone, without any other judge deciding or determining whether party used the true sense and meaning of the same scriptures. Now in this section to avoid the Authority of Traditions expressly also taught in the scriptures, you go about to maintain another paradox no less improbable, to wit, that it is so clearly manifest not only that there is a written word of God, or holy scripture, but also in what book it is contained, that to move question in either tendeth to Atheism, and deserveth punishment rather than answer, let us see how you make good this your paradox. PILK. But lest you should triumph before the victory, I answer, that as in all humane arts there be certain principles, which are known of themselues, without any farther demonstration: So the verties that are contained in the Cannon of the Bible, are the principles & foundations of divinity, and receive not authority by other things In 1. S●ns. q. 1. art. 3. whereby they may be demonstrated, saith Cameracensis. CHAMP. Ignorance in the rudiments of Philosophy maketh you abuse your terms egregiously. For what principles of arts or sciences (I pray you) are those that are believed for themselves? none certainly. For the principles of all natural knowledge, are either evidently known by the light of nature, and not believed, or they are believed for the authority of a higher knowledge, and not believed for themselves. The verities contained in the Bible are believed, not for themselves but for the authority of God reveilinge them, who only is truth itself, and believed for himself, of whom and from whom they receive authority, and have it not of themselves as you falsely affirm. But you say they cannot be demonstrated by other principles. It is true for ●●●e but the frenetical or fanatical Manicheis did desire or expect demonstration in matter of faith. Which as S. August. saith, is grounded upon De utilitate credendi. authority, as knowledge is upon reason, we demand therefore of you some authority whereby we may reasonably believe the verities contained in the Bible to have been reueiled by God, without which authority we cannot securely believe them to be gods word. PILK. Then if the scriptures be principles, as it is confessed on both sides, it followeth that they are immediate & indemonstrable, as all other principles are in their sciences, where of they are principles, but these more than others, because they are primae veritatis. And as the first good for itself is to be loved, so the first truth for itself Prologue. in magist. q 3. art. 2. Aug 6. confesses. cap. 5. is to be believed saith Aquinas. And therefore it is so far from being requisite to prove the scriptures, that S. Aug. saith they are not to be heard, who should say, how dost thou know these books to be ministered unto mankind by the spiritie of the only and most true God, for this thing is especially to be believed? Whereupon in another place speaking of Cont. epist. Funda. cap. 14. the faith wherewith we believe the scriptures, he willeth us to follow those, who invite us first to believe that which we are not able to conceive, that being made more strong in faith, we may attain to understand that which we believe, God himself confirming and inwardly inligthenninge our minds and not men. This is sufficient to show that neither art nor order requireth at your hands to prove the scriptures, as you disorderly imagine. CHAMP. The scriptures or verities contained in them are confessed to be principles in respect of all Theological conclusions deduced from them, and therefore in respect of them they need no farther proof to any christian divine that believeth them to be the word of God. But they are not principles in respect of the articles of our faith in general, but are themselves to be believed for the same authority of God revealing, as all other articles of faith are. And that they are not necessary principles of the articles of our ●aith, it is manifest by that, before the scriptures were written, the church of God believed many of the same articles which now it believeth. Therefore when you say the scriptures or verities contained in them, are primae veritatis, if ignorance (though gross and not to be excused in a doctor of divinity) doth not excuse you, you will make the scriptures not only to be gods word, but also to be God himself. For besides him there is no prima veritas which is to be believed for itself, as upon better consideration (I think) you will not dare to deny. seeing therefore the scriptures are not primae veritatis or first truth, but the testimonies words or verities reueiled by the first truth, they are not, even by your own ground to be believed for themselves, but for the truth and authority of the first verity God himself, of whose revelation we must have sufficient ground before we can securely and prudently believe the scriptures to be his word. That which you bring out of S. Thomas, maketh evidently against you (so judicious are you in your allegations.) For the scriptures being not God, they are not the first truth, and therefore not to be believed for themselves. S. Aug. in the first place maketh also against you, saying that the scriptures are to be believed to be of god's spirit and not to be known. For to believe this he recurreth not to the scriptures themselves, but to the authority which they had obtained through the whole world. The second authority of S. Aug. is wholly impertinent to your purpose, as the reader though but of mean judgement will easily discern. He saying nothing that soundeth as if the scriptures were to be believed for themselves, or without other authority. And therefore thus far have you said nothing that may satisfy this assertion of the Manual, that in the orderly proceeding in this present point, the scriptures should first be proved: but you will peradventure satisfy better hereafter. PILK. Yet further to satisfy you I answer, that the scriptures do sufficiently prove themselues, and these and these books to be the scripture, both by that inward light that is contained in them, and that outward operation that they have in us. For first they are a lantern to our feet, and a light to our path, a candle that shineth in a dark place. And as a light doth Psal. 119. 105. 2. ● Pet. 1. 19 Tract. 35. in joan. discover those things that are in darkness and demonstrateth also itself unto the eyes (saith Aug.) so doth the holy scriptures by that connatur all light that is in them, manifest themselves unto those, whose understanding is enlightened to behold them. Which if you cannot perceive, desire God to remove the scales from your eyes, as he did from Paul's; for this is a case so clear that Stapleton granteth it, credenti, scriptura seipsam probat & commendat. CHAMP. All this proveth no other thing, then that to christians and catholics who believe the scriptures to be the word of God and understand it in the sense of the church, they have all these properties of light, lamp, and lantern, and this is it which Stapleton expressly saith, if how had taken but very ordinary heed to his words. But to say that either to a Pagan who believeth not the scriptures to be God's word; or to an heretic, who understandeth them not in the sense of the church but according to his own fancy, they are such as do manifest themselves to be the word of God, is a most senseless Paradox contradicted by manifest experience, not only in Martin Luther and all his disciples, who as you know reject divers books received by Calvin, and his followers: but also of the ancient and holy fathers, who did not universally receive as Canonical Scripture, all such books of the new testament as now are received by you. And yet none of all these I suppose you will say, wanted light to see that which is manifest of itself. PILK. Again they are known by their operation in us, for the word of the Lord is pure, and converts the soul, a two edged sword Heb. 4. 12. a very fiery word psal. 119. 14. which purifieth the souls, inflameth the affections, enlighteneth the understanding, and so softeneth the heart of the hearer, that it frameth it sit to all goodness. Which no other word or work devised by the wit of men or Angels can do. Where upon Lactantius speaking of the difference between the doctrine of the gentills & of the church, saith, that the wisdom of the Philosophers doth not root out vice, but hide it: whereas a few precepts of God, so change the whole man, and mould him a new by casting away the old, that one would not think him to be the same. Geue me a man that is wrathful, evil tougued, unbridled, by a few words of God I will make him meek as a lamb. Geue me a covetous, avaricious and tenacious man, I will restore him liberal, and distributing his money with his own hands. Geue me a man fearful of sorrow and death, he shall contemn crosses, fires, dangers, bulls etc. By one laver shall all malice be expelled, such is the force of divine wisdom that being powered into the breast of man, it expelleth folly at one blow that is the mother of all vices. What man then that hath his heart thus mollified, his will rectified, his understanding cleared, and his whole course suddenly altered, can deliberately doubt of the scriptures, seeing Christ himself teacheth us thus to know them. Is any will perform the Io. 7. 17. will of his father, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be good or Noah. CHAMP. In whom I pray you doth the scripture work these effects you have here so industriously numbered up? in those that believe them not to be true, or to be the word of God? you will not say so I suppose. Why do you therefore bring these arguments to prove the scriptures to be easily known to be god▪ word, that they are manifest of themselves, and need not to be proved? Because you will ever be impertinent not knowing what you say, nor what you should prove, and yet are you so full of babble that you will still be be talking. If one should ask your advice, how he might know good Physic and you should say unto him, it is an easy thing to know that. For that physic which comforteth nature, expelleth disseases, and restoreth health is certainly good physic; do you think he should be much wiser for your advice? whatsoever you think. I know he should be as wise as he was before. Such is your directions to know the scripture, unto such as do not already know or believe them. And seeing our Saviour himself prescribeth as a necessary rule to know the scriptures, the performance of his father's will, before his doctrine can be understood (as you well note but still against yourself) it is evident that they are not so clear of themselues nor yet so easy to be known, as you pretend. For that doctrine which must first be practised by humble obedience, before it can be understood or known to be of God as our Saviour saith of the scripture, no man that is not devoid of all judgement will say, is easy to be known even by itself. PILK. I might add all those arguments which both the fathers and schoolmen produce out of the scriptures themselves to prove them the offspring of God, which if they be strong against gentiles, I know not how they should be weak against you, vid. the majesty of the doctrine, the simplicity and purity of the style, antiquity of the books, truth of oracles and predictions that many ages after held their compliment, with sundry other to the like purpose, but I pass by them and shut up this point with that speech of your Stewchus. CHAMP. You were well advised to pass by all such arguments of the fathers and schoolmen as would nothing serve your purpose, I would you had been so advised from the beginning, for so should I not have had the labour and pains to transcribe so many impertinencies of yours as I have been forced to do hitherto. The arguments which you here mention taken by themselves, are far from making any sufficient ground to build our faith upon, though they are probable and prudent considerations and joined with the authority of the church and tradition, whereby ●e receive the scriptures, they are not without some force to persuade the books of the holy Bible, to be gods word, and to be written by his inspiration. But take you experience of them in yourself, and see whether they are sufficient to persuade that the books of Wisdom, Ecclesiastious and the rest received generally by the whole church, and namely by the fathers and schoolmen whose authority here you seem to urge) for canonical, are truly gods word and written by his holy spirit. And if you find them not sufficient grounds for these, why would you intrude them upon us as sufficient for the rest▪ But let us hear what you bring out of our Stewchus. PILK. They which think the authority of holy Stewchus ●●●mopera in princip. scriptures, whereunto all the world now assenteth, to depend upon the reader's faith, and not to bring with them certain divine and most potent reasons, that draw unto them the judgements of great minds, are therefore deceived, because they are not of their number, whose minds both by natural goodness and continual exercitation of wisdom, do prudently apprehend the highest and truest things: whereas if any have that wisdom given him to esteem the greatness of things as they deserve, he shall feel the weight of divine oracies to be so great, that the pronunciation of them only would suffice to beget a most firm and sudden faith. CHAMP. The whole space of a thousand and five hundred years given you to take your testimonies out of, might have sufficed without alleging of modern writers, and those o● small note and less authority. Stewchus is an author not wholly received, and the book cited by you is put in the index of books to be amended or corrected: and therefore the testimony thereof though it were otherwise most formal (as it is not) is of no authority against us. And truly I wonder you are not ashamed to bring such stuff for the proof of your faith and doctrine. And that in such sort as you have let pass all other and made choice of this as of most strength and force. Let the judicious reader now judge by that which hath been said both by you and me, whether the scriptures are so clearly known by themselves and by their own light, that they need no other proof to be gods word and written by his spirit. And whether it he a needles or disorderly thing for him that pretendeth to prove all the points of his faith by holy scripture, to prove first that there is a holy scripture, and then to prove in what books it is contained. And lastlie whether because you (refusing traditions and the church's authority, by which only the holy scriptures are known cannot prove the scriptures to be such, and therefore receiving them upon the credit of your own fancy, which consequently must be the fundamental rule of your whole Faith, do not recurre to that shift, to say that the scriptures are so evident of themselves, that they need no other proof or testimony but themselves. MANVALL SECTION 7. And here occur by the way two things worthy of note. The one that the scripture cannot be an universal rule of our faith, seeing somethings are to be believed without proof of scripture, as are (for example) that there is an holy scripture, containing gods word and revelation, and that these & these books be such, therefore of necessity must there be some other rule of our faith more universal than the scriptures, and consequently before the scriptures. And this cannot be but the authority of god's church, which is clearly S. August: doctrine, who was not a frayed to say: I would not believe the Gospel, but that the authority of the church doth move me. seeing therefore the authority of the church is a sufficient motive for us to believe what is scripture, why should it not have the like authority with us in other points of faith? which is also S. Aug: argument in the same place: but I will notwithstanding satisfy our adversaries in their own humour. PILK. Your former ground being a bed of sand, that scriptures cannott be proved by scriptures, these conclusions that you do build upon it, do of themselves fall to the ground. CHAMP. When you shall, following your principles, prove out of the scripture, either that there is a scripture or in what books it is contained, without supposing some scripture without proof, then may you term my ground, to be a bed of sand, and I will also believe it so to be. But till then, I will esteem it a rock that breaketh all your batteries like as if they were balls of sand cast against a brazen wall. And therefore the conclusions built upon it, will neither of themselves, nor yet by all your forces, fall to the ground but will stand firm and strong. PILK. First that the scriptures are not the universal rule of faith, a position so derogatory to the Deut. 4. 2. Re●e 22. 18. 19 testament of Christ, and so contrary to the doctrine of the ancient church, that I wonder how you durst venture upon it; For the rule whereunto nothing must be added, nothing Aqui. in 1. Tim. 6. lect. 1. detracted, is an universal and persecte rule, such is the scripture, which is Aquinas collection. ●. Tim. 6. For if any addition or detraction might be made in the scriptures, they could not be the rule at all. As in a rule saith Photicus if ye add or diminish any thing, ye corrupt the whole. And a rule saith Theophilact neither hath augmentation nor diminution, so is it in the scriptures, which Chrisostome termeth the most expert rule, Canon, and Gnomon that can be, if it admit any supply, it could not be the rule at all. And if we must not be wise in matters divine above that which is written, then that which is written is the rule of our wisdom and faith: But S. Paul forbiddeth 1. Cor. 4. 6 that rankness of wit to inquire further than that which is written. This S. Aug. collecteth out of this place; The holy scripture doth prefix De bono vi●luitatis cap. 1. unto us the rule of our faith, lest we should presume to be more wise than behoveth, but as he saith let us be wise unto sobriety as God hath divided unto every one the measure of faith. Finally if our faith doth lastlie resolve itself into the scriptures only, than they alone are the rule, and nothing can be found more universal, but this is granted by your best divines. CHAMP. Till it be proved by express scripture, that the scriptures are the universal rule of our saith, or that nothing is to be believed but that which is proved by scripture. you cannot truly say that my position is derogatory to the Testament of Christ. And because it can never be proved by scripture, that nothing is to be believed but that which is proved by express scripture, your position is heretical, the contrary thereof being clearly testified by the scripture, as shall appear in the first and seconde controversy; unto which places I will refer you for answer to your arguments, (which you there repeat) as the more proper place. Only I will not omit to tell you here, that you lose your credit. with all men by uttering such known untruths as, that the best of our divines do grant the ●ast resolution of our faith to ●ee into the scriptures only You should have named some one author at least, to have given credit to your assertion. PILK. What then is the rule that is more universal? The authority of the church say you; Traditions saith Bellarmine, the faith of the Bellar. de verbo lib. 4. cap 12. church that is written in the hearts of the faithful saith Stapleton: so friendly do the patrons of this error accord, as if that curse Staplet. l. 7. princ. cap. 1. wherewith God threatened the Egyptians had fallen upon them. I will set Egyptians against Egyptians, they shall fight every one against his neighbour. For if the authority of the church doth make up the rule, traditions do not being two things, as different as the fountain & the stream, the fruit and the tree. For traditions flow from the authority of the church, saith Stapleton; Authority of the church is the church's testimony, tradition is doctrine not a testimony only. This therefore is neither a more universal rule, nor yet before it, which is your seconde conclusion, and which if it were true, the church should be summa & prima veritas: for that for which we must believe the Gospel, and it for itself, is the highest and first truth, but you papists, say so of the church: therefore you have deified and changed it into the deity, and so made it of Beth●●●● and house of God, to be Bethanan, the house of iniquity. CHAMP. There is as much diversity or discord between all these sayings of ours, as a good Logician would find between vivens, ●en●●●ns, 〈◊〉 in●e●●●●ns, which being ●ubalterna, are not in any man's brain dispara●a or opposita unless in yours, which is often contrary to itself. Both tradtions therefore and the authority of the church, are more universal rules than the scriptures; And though the one of them is more universal and before the other, yet neither of them is summa or prima veritas, as you most ignorantly affirm in the precedent section, of the scriptures, for the which intolerable ignorance you are justly reprehended there) nor either of them is believed for itself, but for the testimony of God reveling their verity who only is believed for himself, and his own essential truth and verity. And therefore your childish inference of changing bethel into Bethanan, is a ridiculous conclusion of your own ignorant premises, or a dream of your own idle and empty brain. But you will bring more solid stuff hereafter, let us hear the rest. PILK. Besides, if it be demanded from whence the church hath an●e such authority, it is answered from the scriptures, for which are produced sundry testimonies; He that heareth you heareth me, Go teach all nations. If then the life of this authority be maintained 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 believe the scriptures (as you make show to do and yet deny the church's Authority, as you heretically do, what proof there is of the church's authority, the scriptures are rightly produced, for the proof thereof, not that thee hath her authority from the scriptures (as you either ignorantly or negligently say) for her authority she hath from God. The author of all power and authority; but that this authority i● testified by the scripture. And marvel it is to me, that you yourself finding and feeling such testimony of holy scripture for the church's authority as you cite in this place, do not yet cease to impugn it. But the truth is, you believe and follow the scriptures, so far as yourself list only, and no farther. On the other side when it is demanded by such as believe neither scriptures nor the church, but yet seek some grounds of christian belief, it would be a ridiculous thing to prove the church by the scriptures seeing they are written, taught, and preached, by the ministry of men, whereof the church consisteth, and did consist many hundreds of years before there were any scriptures at all. In this case therefore it is clear, that the church hath other proof then from the scriptures, and before the scriptures, which in that case must be proved by the church. But what this proof is and whence it is taken, pertaineth not to this place to say. Yet whatsoever it be it is manifest that in this case, the proof & knowledge of the church, must go before the proof and knowledge of the scriptures, as being before it, and leading unto it, and not the contrary. PILK. This is yet more clear by the very proposition granted by Papists, that the scripture is the rule, whereof the sense is, that the sense and doctrine, not the letters and characters are this rule. Now let our adversary's judge whether is more ancient, the doctrine of the church which is the seed of the church, or the church which is begotten of it. CHAMP. You either ignorantly mistake, or wilfully invert the question, which is not whether the holy scriptures be a rule of faith, which no christian denieth, but whether it be the first and most universal rule thereof. And this none but heretics that deny the authority of the church and verity of traditions (both which notwithstanding are expressly testified by holy scripture▪ did ever affirm. And whether the church be more ancient than the scriptures, if you doubt, as you seem to do, yea and to affirm the contrary, I shall esteem you either very senseless, or very wilful and perverse; the scriptures having been written by the church, unless peradventure by the scriptures, or doctrine of the scriptures, you understand the word of God written in the hearts of men, by the immediate revelation of the holy Ghost, and by them delivered by word of mouth the one to the other, until Moses, who was the first that ever committed any thing to writing. If you take the scriptures in this sense, that which you mean is true; and if further you acknowledge the authority of the church and verity of Tradition, in delivering this doctrine and teaching it one to another by word of mouth before it was written, our controversy is at an end. The authority of the church and traditions being evidently proved to go before the scriptures, and consequently to be a more universal rule of faith then the scriptures. PILK. So that as your first conclusion is a manifest untruth, that there is a more universal rule of faith then the scriptures; So the second is a dull and heavy conceit, that the church should be more ancient and before them. CHAMP. If either my first conclusion (as you term it) be a manifest untruth, or my second a dull conceit, why do you doombelie deny it, without any proof or reason at all? Especially seeing I proved the first by clear instance, as you may see, and the seconde is but a sequel or necessary deduction of the first? If it be enough for you to say that your adversary's conclusions though proved by manifest instance, are manifest untruths, you may well hope to carry away the bucklers from a far greater clerk than ever I shall pretend to be. For you know that Aristotle's ass is able to deny more, than his master is able to prove. PILK. Peruse the fathers in whose works you seem to be conversant, and nominate one that hath taught, either that the authority of the church is a more universal rule, or that she was before their doctrine; which are the two chiefest stoops of your religion, whereas in them I find that the scriptures is the rule, and they nominate nothing else. CHAMP. If you had weighed S. Aug: testimony which the manual setteth down in this place (and which you vainly struggle to avoid) with equal judgement, you would not have put me to further search of the fathers for proof of that which I say. You shall either deliver yourself better from S. Aug: authority then here you have done, or else you shall be forced to swallow it down as a bitter, but a wholesome pill against your heresy. Neither will I take the tax at your hand to search further the fathers for this purpose, till I see this one better satisfied. And you fight against your own shadow when you labour to prove by the fathers, that the scriptures are a rule of our faith, your adversaries denying it not, as I told you before. But you love to show your strength when none resisteth you. And that the fathers nominate no other rule, is as true as the rest of your sayings. For seeing they avouch so plainly and frequently traditions, and the church's authority as you know they do, how can you say that they name no other rule? PILK. The Ecclesiastical rule, is the consent and Lib. 6. Sto. conspiration of the old and new testament saith Clemens. The holy scripture doth prefix unto us the rule of our faith saith S. Aug. Aug. supr. CHAMP. I know not whether I should attribute the citing of this authority out of Clemens, to your ignorance or to your fraud and desire to deceive by it your reader, it is so impertinent to your purpose. He saying only that it is the Ecclesiastical rule of interpreting scriptures to make the prophets and law to accord with the testament of our Saviour Christ. Which what it maketh to prove the scriptures to be the sole rule of faith I cannot conceive. S. Aug. you cite so at large that I know not where to look for the place by you alleged, to see whether it be not as pertinently alleged as the other is. And seeing the scriptures do send us to our pastors to learn our faith, and to the church commanding us to hear it, it may well be said to prefix unto us the rule of our faith, and yet exclude not the church's authority, for the which we now contend. So that this place is as fit for your purpose as the other. PILK. The church goeth not out of her bounds, Vincent. cap. 41. that is the holy scriptures saith Jerome. And lest you might think it is the rule, but not the only rule; Vincentius addeth the sole rule of the scriptures is sufficient to all things. CHAMP. The church following the authority of tradition, and the judgement of the church in all matters of saith and manners which the scriptures do expressly give testimony and warrant unto, doth not go out of the bounds of the scriptures. In citing Vincentius you use your accustomed fraud, leaving out the words going before. Which are so expressly against your purpose, that had you set them down, they had been sufficient to confute your errors in this point, they are these. We have said before, ha● this always hath been, and is also at this day the custom of Catholics, to prove the truth of faith by these two means. First by the authority of divine Canon; then by tradition of the Catholic church, not because the Canon alone is not sufficient of itself to all things; but etc. Now let the judicious reader judge whether this holy father make the scriptures the sole rule of faith or Noah. When he saith, the sacred Canon is sufficient to all things, he meaneth that it is sufficient to all things that is necessary to every man's salvation, or to every man to believe. For these things are not many and sufficiently expressed in the holy scripture. Or it is sufficient being left in the hands of the church to expound and interpret it; but it is not sufficient for every one to pick his faith and belief out of. And consequently another rule, to wit the church's authority in understanding and interpreting the scriptures is necessary, as the same father teacheth in these express words. Some man may peradventure In the book before c●●ed. ask, for as much as the Canon of the scriptures is persect and in all points very sufficient in itself, what need is there to join thereunto the authority of the Ecclesiastical understanding, for this cause surely, for that all take not the holy scriptures in the same sense, because of the deepness thereof: but the sayings thereof some interpret one way, and some another, so that there may almost as many senses be picked out of it, as there be men. For Novatian doth expound it one way, and Sabellius another way, otherwise Arrius, Eunomius, Macedonius, otherways Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillianus, otherways jovinian, Pelagius, Celestus, lastlie otherways Victorius. Thus far he who as you see expressly admitteth as necessary the rule of Ecclesiastical authority, besides the scriptures which is that we contend about. PILK. This clearly is S. Aug. doctrine, and the rest of the fathers & not your crooked inference, that the authority of the church is a more universal and more ancient rule then the scriptures, for where hath he any word to this purpose? I would not have believed the gospel, except the authority of the church had moved me, are too weak to inserr any such like conclusion, though we admit them in your corrupt translation. For it is plain, he speaketh not these words of the present time, when he was a Bishop as you read them, but of the time past when he was a Manichy. Being a Catholic & a Bishop when he writ that book, he had far other motives to believe the Gospel than the authority of the church which here he alone nameth. Take one place for a thousand, I take my conscience to witness (Honoratus) and God that dwelleth in pure minds, that I think nothing more wise, chaste, religious, than all these scriptures, which the catholic church retaineth under the name of the old and new testament, I know thou wounderest, but I cannot dissemble; I was otherwise persuaded. Howsoever then being an heretic, he thought of the scriptures, yet now become a catholic he believed them, for that prudence chastity piety which he found in them. CHAMP. Now let us see how you will quit yourself of the authority of S. Aug: set down in the Manual; you say it is too weak to serve our turn, because he spoke not of the present time when he was bishop and wrote that book, but when he was a Manichie (A poor and silly shift God wot) let his own words witness what his meaning is. Ego Euangelio non crederem, nisi me Ecclesi 〈…〉 s commoveret I would not believe the Gospel, but that the church's authority did move me; He saith not non credidissem nisi commo●isset I had not believed had not the authority moved me, as you corruptly translate, or if I do produce your copy, for mine hath crederem & commoveret which if you will translate had believed and had moved, you shall be put to your Accidence again. But beit that he spoke of himself as being a Manichie, (which is as true as that he was a Manichie when he wrote this) this is so far from favouring your cause, that it maketh it much worse. For if the church's authority had force to move an heretic to believe the gospel, what man not deprived of common sense will deny, but it hath at least the like force with a catholic? But you say that S. Aug: being a catholic, had other motives to believe the scriptures than the authority of the church beit so, what will you infer thereof for your purpose, or against me? nothing at all, yea the testimony alleged by you out of him, doth sufficiently witness that the authority of the church did still move him to believe the scriptures, seeing he restraineth himself to those scriptures which the catholic church receiveth and retaineth. PILK. Again if by the church you mean the present Bell. li. 〈◊〉 de Sacra. cap. 25. church, and by the present church her rulers and guides as your consorts usually do, then is it most absurd to think that S. August: and the rest of the Bishops of his time believed the gospel for the authority of the church, for that had been for their own authority, and so they had believed the gospel for themselves. CHAMP. If you had but one dram of good Logic, you could not but have seen your argument to have been most idle, and not beseeming a doctor of divinity. For no novice in logic but knoweth, that an argument taken from all the parts together, or collective to every one in several or particular, concludeth nothing affirmatively. Such an one is yours being this is substance. S. Aug. and the rest of the bishops believe the Gospel for the authority of the present church; but S. Aug. and the rest of the Bishops are the present church, ergo they believe the Gospel for themselves. Or if you do not yet see your own seelines in this argument, compare it with this and peradventure you will espy it. Richard Pilkinton and the rest of the ministers of the church of England believe the 39 articles to be good and lawful for the authority of the church of England. But Richard Pilkinton and the rest of the ministers are the church of England, ergo they believe the 39 articles for themselves. PILK. But if diverse papists be not deceived S. Aug. meaneth not the present church, but the church which was in the Apostles time, that saw Christ's miracles, and heard his preaching, and so this speech of S. August helpeth you nothing, except you can prove that the present church, hath the same authority with the Apostles, Driedo l. 4. c. 4. de dogm. Aug. con. Faust. lib. 2. cap. 5 Hieron. in Psal. 86. which your own Driedo flathe denieth. Ecclesia primitiva propter collegium Apostolorum, ad tradendam novam nostrae fidei Doctrinam, maioris erat gratiae, maiorisque authoritatis quam Ecclesia quae nunc est. According to the Doctrine of S. August. and Hierome. CHAMP. Though S. Aug. should mean the church in the Apostles time excluding the present church (which is false) yet would this overthrow your cause. For whence could he receive the testimony of that church, but by authority of the churches present and precedent? And yet this serveth sufficiently my turn to prove some other rule of belief beside and before the scriptures, which is our controversy here. That which you allege out of our Driedo doth not prove the present church to be less infallible in her judgement in matters of faith, than the church in the Apostles time, neither doth any catholic say so. For seeing it is governed by the same spirit of truth which was promised should remain with her for ever, she cannot be more subject to error now, than she was at that tyme. Therefore that which Driedo saith is, that the primative church by reason of the college of the Apostles. had power to deliver new doctrine of faith which the succeeding church hath not; but hath infallible authority to teach that faith which she received of the Apostles. And this you might easily have seen to have been Driedoes Doctrine, if you had taken but any ordinary heed to his words. PILK. Nevertheless to pass by this & to grant that S. Augustin, a Catholic and a Bishop, would not believe the Gospel, but that the authority of the church moved him; is every motive to believe, a rule of faith? Nothing less. For the rule is that whereunto faith is lastlie resolved, which is not into the authority of the church, as your best divines teach, but into the scriptures. CHAMP. You might well have passed by all this indeed, and also that which followeth, had you not rather chosen to fill your paper with your impertinencies, to the publishing of your own small judgement. If you take the rule of ●aith so strictly as it containeth only that whereunto faith is lastlie resolved, you will make only God reveling his verities to be the rule of faith, and then you must exclude not only the church but the scriptures also. But if you take it for a true ground of belief, than that testimony which so moveth to faith as it engendereth faith in us, may truly be said to be a rule of faith, & such a motive S. Aug: saith the church is. PILK. And there upon Cameracensis speaking of In 1. Sent. q. 1. art. 3. this place of S. Aug: saith, that it proveth not that he believed the gospel through the church's authority, as by a Theological principle, whereby the gospel might be proved true, but only as by a cause moving him to credit it, as if he should say, I would not believe the gospel unless the holiness of the church or Christ's miracles did move me. In which saying though some cause of his believing be assigned, yet no former principle is touched whose credit might be the cause why the gospel should be believed. CHAMP. It appeareth well you understand not what Cameracensis saith, or else that you care not what you say, so that you say something. He saith the scriptures are not proved by the authority of the church as by a Theological principle or argument ab intrinseco but as a motive from authority or ab extrinseco, which is that all men say, and which I only desire to prove by S. Augustine's testimony. For if the church be a motive, to believe the scriptures, it must necessarily be before the scriptures, and consequently be a more universal rule, cause or motive of faith and belief than the scriptures. PILK. Bellarmine saith, that S. Aug. speaketh these words of the authority of the church, as of a cause propounding what is to be believed, and not of the foundation of faith. But the proposition of the church is not the rule and resolution In 2. 2. q. 1. art. 1. 〈◊〉▪ of faith, but only a condition requisite of believing as Valent. teacheth in 22. tom. 3. de obiecto fidei. CHAMP. It is a most irksome and importunate thing to have to do with with an ignorant adversary, that knoweth not what he should either prove or deny. Such an one you show yourself to be. For if you take from the scripture which you truly teach to be a rule of our faith, the authority to propose, manifest, and testify articles of belief, see how you will make it a rule of faith. seeing therefore you give to the church these things without which the scriptures are not a rule of faith, why should you deny it to be also a rule of faith? But the church (you say) is not the foundation or resolution of faith (I speak in your own phrase though improperly that you may understand) and therefore is it not any rule thereof. If this argument conclude any thing, it will also prove the scriptures to be no rule of faith. For it is neither foundation, nor resolution of faith, if you understand the first and chief foundation, or last resolution (as I told you before) unless you will make it to be God himself. But if you take foundation for that which doth ground our faith in a certain and sure kind of infallible testimony, in which sense all men speak, that know what they speak, them are both the scriptures and the church also foundations and grounds of our faith. PILK. And surely if. S. Aug, had meant that the authority of the church had been this rule which is your inference, he had excluded all other rules. For he that saith, I would not believe except the authority of the church moved me, establisheth one cause, removeth the rest. But this none of you dare accord unto, & is as far from S. Aug. meaning as your next words are from truth. If therefore the authority of the church be a sufficient motive, for a motive it is, which none of us ever denied, but that it is a sufficient motive, neither can you prove, nor yet S. August. any where avoucheth. CHAMP. S. Aug. words (which are to be believed before your bare negation are most clear, that without the testimony or authority of the church he had not believed the Gospel, and consequently that the church was cause, rule, and motive of his belief, not in that degree that God is the rule or foundation of our faith; for so we should make S Aug. as senseless as Mr. Pilkinton, but in the like kind or degree that the scriptures are, but yet before the scriptures, because he believed them for the church's authority. And therefore you see S. Aug. to say that which the Manual saith; that there is some other rule of faith before and more universal than the scriptures, seeing that for it, and by it the scriptures are believed. MANVALL SECTIO 8. The second thing to be noted is, that they which believe nothing but that which is proved by scripture, are evidently convinced to believe nothing at all. For they that cannott believe that there is an holy scripture, or what books be holy scripture, cannott believe any thing, because it is proved by scripture: for it is evident that before they believe any thing, because it is proved by scripture, they must first believe that there is a holy scripture, and what books are scripture. But they that believe not any thing but that which is proved by scripture, cannot believe that there is a scripture, nor what books are holy scripture. For neither of these two can be proved by holy scripture. Therefore they that believe not any thing but that which is proved by scripture, cannott believe any thing at all. This argument is a plain demonstration and compelleth the protestants either to confess that they have no faith at all, or to acknowledge this their position to wit, that nothing ought or can rightly be believed, but that which may be proved by scripture, to acknowledge I say this position, to be false: which notwithstanding is one main ground of all their religion. PILK. When a soldier that killed Marius came to cut of his head, he drew out his sword and told him (hie est gladius quem ipse fecisti) for Marius formerly had been a cutter. The grounds that you have laid, cut the throat of your faith; but raseth not the skin of the protestants. For I have showed before that scriptures do sufficiently prove themselves to be the word of God, and these and these books to be such, whereon it followeth your convincing demonstration that protestants believe nothing at all, to be a windy frivolous discourse, whereas such conclusions may be drawn from your principles, as will prove (vulnera in capite canis) you will not easily lick them hole. CHAMP. Remove the sword first from your own throat whi●h●● presseth to hard, and after may you attempt to piety your adversary with it. You have hitherto made a 〈…〉 able show of any proof, but of your own in re●lible ignorance and impertinency, joined with wilful stand to de●e●●e your reader. If you defend your protestants no better than hitherto you ●●●ue, they will be evidently concluded to believe nothing at all by the argument proposed, which 〈…〉 e you cannott tell where to begin to solve o● answer, you make a Thrasonical and glorious sh●we of contempt of it, as many of yours 〈◊〉, and 〈…〉 ely your grand master Calluine when 〈…〉 most pressed and hath least to say for himself. Are you n●● ashamed to let mine argument stand as a ●●●phey against you & your heresy without saying one word in answer of it, idly supposing that you have said something to it before? But seeing you dare not set upon mine argument to satisfis it, which you should first have done, let us see what incurable wounds you give unto me out of mine own principles. PILK. For they that rely their faith upon humane testimonies originally, are convinced to have no faith at all: for faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God: But you papists rely your faith upon humane testimonies originally, when you ground it on the authority of the church, which you say is a more universal rule and more ancient than the scriptures. Now then make the conclusion as pleaseth you. CHAMP. I grant your proposition or mayor, and deny your minor. For where learned you to term the authority of the church, humane testimony, seeing the holy ghost styleth the church the house of God, 1. ad Ti. ●. the pillar and ground of truth? your conclusion therefore is blown away like a feather. So that the wound which you thought would prove so grievous, is not so much as the blow of a little child. Spit therefore upon your hands, take better hold, and strike more manfully or else give your bill to another. But so hoodewinkt you are either with ignorance or malice, that striking at your adversary, you hit yourself. For whilst you say with S. Paul, that faith cometh by hearing & hearing by the word of God; you prove that the scripture or the word written, which is not heard but read; is not the first means of our saith; but the word of God preached (as S. Paul saith in the same place) which was before the scriptures. PILK. From hence cometh all this war that we will not ground our faith upon the tottering wall of humane authority as you do, but cleave fast to the sacred scriptures believing nothing (as Paul taught) but that which was written in Moses and the prophets, which we rejoice to have made the mean & ground of our religion. CHAMP. A stout Champion I wisse, that after the first blow. and that a very weak one, casteth down his arms, and thinking to overthrow his adversary with words, falleth to railing, as if he hoped to gain the victory, rather by his stinking breath, then by strength of hand strokes. You having been at the school of the father of all falsehood, have learned to call the church of God and the infallible authority thereof, the tottering wall of humane authority, which the holy ghost by the mouth of this Apostle, styleth the pillar and ground of truth; whereby as by many other passages you show what honour and respect you bear unto the holy scriptures, seeing you dare so disdainfully debase the house of God, which they so highly prize and extol. You farther glory in that you believe nothing but which is written in Moses and the prophets, whereby you prove yourself to be a jew and no Christian. Either retract this jewish proposition of yours, or blot, out of your Bible's the whole new testament, that you may be known to be no Christian, and that you may fill up the measure of your grande master Martin Luther who hath long since cast out diverse books out of the new testament, besides those he hath rejected out of the old. You seem to father this your fowl doctrine upon S. Paul (though you deign him not the honour of S. Paul) but why do you not point at the place where he teacheth it! If S. Paul had been of this mind that you would seem to make him of, in vain did he write his Epistells, & in vain did the rest of the Apostles and Evangelists write their works. Again suppose S. Paul had written any such thing in his letters or Epistles, how would you make any man believe that Epistle to be his, and therefore to be canonical scriptures, unless you will use the authority of tradition and the church's testimony? All the wit and cunning you have, yea though you borrowed all that of the rest of the ministers in the world, will not shape a sufficient answer to this question. PILK. And which if we could not prove, yet can we not be convinced to have no faith, because they are principles against which none dare open his mouth, that any way would have himself to be counted a Christian, as S. Tract. 2. in Epist. 10. Aug. spoke. For as other arts and sciences are sufficiently known & credited without proof of their principles, so matters divine are perfectly and demonstratively persuaded unto us Stroma. lib. 7. from this indemonstrable principle of the holy scriptures, saith Clemens, and are not proved by judgement but comprehended by faith. CHAMP. Why do you say, (which i● we could not prove) as though you had some mean to prove it without traditions and the church's authority? But they are principle, (you say and therefore not to be proved. The scriptures are principles of faith in deed in a certain degree; but they are not prime principles which only are to be believed for themselves without any further proof, unless (as I told you before you will make them to be God, who only is to be believed for his own proper verity 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 would a●ke you what you esteem of your father in reformation Martin Luther, whom some of his disciples as you know style the seconde Elias, the fifth Evangelist, the second or thirde person in heaven after Christ, who with a great troop of his scholars, doth not only open his mouth to call into question diverse of the Apostles writings, but absolutely casteth them out of the Canon? will you censure him to be no christian? if you do you shall be a cursed child of a more cursed father. Yea what will you think of yourself and all the rest of your crew, who cast out of the Canon so many of those books which S. Aug. whose authority you cite, always esteemed to be canonical scripture? See whether you have not pronounced sentence with your own mouth against yourself, and condemned yourself to be no Christian? If you should eat no bread till you quit yourself of this indictment, I dare undertake to find you bread for six pence so long as you live. Howsoever, hereby at least it is clear that the scriptures are not such principles of our faith as being not proved to be written by the holy Ghost, may be doubted of, and therefore necessarily require to be sufficiently proved before they can be grounds of other articles of our faith. When you or any for you shall solve this argument, I shall esteem you not unworthy of a doctors cap. S. Aug. hath good reason to say that no Christian dare to open his mouth against the scriptures received by the catholic church. For so should he be worthily esteemed as a publican and heathen by the Matt. 18. testimony of our Saviour Christ himself. And therefore is Luther and calvin with their viperous generation worthily censured as heretics, though they had no other errors but that of reiecting with obstinacy the canonical scriptures. That which you bring out of Clemens (were it as you set it down) is nothing to your purpose. For we know the scriptures to be indemonstrable by reason, but yet to be proved by authority, as all other articles of faith are. And now look over once more your cards and weigh well with yourself, whether this proposition admitted for true, which is one of your principles; That nothing is to be believed that is not proved by scriptures, whether (I say) the Manual doth not directly convince the protestants (who profess that they cannot prove the scriptures to be scriptures) to believe nothing at all. MANVALL SECTION 9 But now having showed the absurdity of their doctrine in this point, I will join with them in the scriptures, as they themselves do desire, observing this method. First I set down the Catholic Roman belief in direct and plain positions: then I bring in proof of it one two or more places of holy scriptures, citing the ancient vulgar translation and often times I add the testimony of some ancient father of the first five hundreth years, understanding such scriptures as I cite in the same sense and meaning that I cite them for. Furthermore those few places of scripture, which seem to sound directly against the catholic faith, I show in brief how they are to be understood. And last of all I put down the position contradictory to the Catholic doctrine: to the end that the indifferent reader (be he catholic or otherwise) may more easily judge whether doctrine hath better ground in holy scriptures. And further that he that will impugn this treatise may see what he hath to prove, if he will prove any thing to purpose. PILK. Zebull judged men to be shadows of mountains; and you Christian verities novel absurdities. But as Nicomachus the painter answered a skilful fellow, that judged the picture of Helen drawn by Zeuxes not to be beautiful; take mine eyes saith he, & thou wilt th●nke her to be a goddess: So if you look with spiritual eyes, you would easily conceive them to be divine verities, which you imagine to be palbable absurdities. For lack whereof you proceed to beat your adversaries with their own weapons of holy scriptures, and you tell them how you will marshal your forces. CHAMP. Zebull (if you say true) imagined men to be shadows, and you chose imagine shadows to be men: I doubt not but if I should take your eyes to look upon your work, I should think as you do, a ●rogge to be as fair as Diana. You say I proceed to beat my adversaries with their own weapons. But the scriptures are not mine adversary's weapons, but as they steal them to impugn the truth with: as thieves do true men's weapons. PILK. First you will set down your saith in direct positions. and that you have done as straight as a Ram's horn. CHAMP. Mark you the crookedness and discoverit, that others may see it beside yourself. PILK. Secondly you will prove it by holy scriptures which you cite to as good purpose as the devil did against Christ. CHAMP. Note you the impertinencies when they occur, and discover them that other men may see them as well as yourself. PILK. thirdly you will produce them in the ancient Bibl. complut. in prefat. vulgar translation: no marvel, for that hangeth between the greek and the Hebrew, as Christ did between the two thieves in your friends opinion: whereas it hath been the Cameryne that hath vented from it many of your errors. Hence you have marriage to be a Sacrament, because your translation readeth, magnum hoc Sacramentum, and in greek it is Mysterion. Hence alms to be meritorious because huiusmodi sacrificijs promeritur Deus, and in the greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hence definitions of counsels to proceed from the holy ghost, because in this corrupt false version it is read, the holy spirit shall suggest unto you all things, that I will say, whereas it is in the original that I have said. Infinite almost are the additions, detractions, depravations, wherewith this sweet translation of yours hath corrupted the fountains. That Isodore Clarius wondered at the negligence of learned men that have not purged it from these innumerable errors, wherewith it swarmeth and wherein himself had observed and rectified eight thousand places, and yet this is the apparel wherein you will set before us the holy scriptures. CHAMP. Take you here the counsel the painter gave to the unskilful censurer of Zeuxis work, which you spoke of not far before, and look upon the vulgar translation with S. Ambrose. S. Aug. S, Hierome and S. Gregory's eyes, with the rest of all the Latin fathers, who lived a thousand years before your heresy was hatched, whose judgements are of more authority than many Clarius, and you will find it to be entire, perfect and good. Your exceptions against it with many more are already answered by Bellarmine, which answers shall stand for good till you confute them. This is all your learning, to repeat old overworn objections, and to conceal their answers; a great piece of wit I wisse. PILK. Fowerthlie you will add the testimony of some ancient father, whom nevertheless you regard no further, than you can make them speak your language, which if they do not, you can shave their locks, and scrape their tongues, and make them pronounce Siboleth for Shiboleth as your purging indices do proclaim unto the world. CHAMP. This art of shaving and scraping I leave to you and yours, who are so accustomed thereunto that they cannot deal otherwise. Your industry in this kind hath been sufficiently showed in the few precedent pages. Our Indices do not corrupt the father's words and sentences, as you foolishly or maliciously insinuate, but they note plainly the faults of later writers; which plain and open dealing if you would use, no fault would be found with you. PILK. fively you will answer, these scriptures which seem to contradict your faith. Then if the same right belong to Accius that is to Titius, you will afford your adversary the like liberty. CHAMP. You are not prohibited to use it to your best and most advantage. PILK. Sixthly you will set down the contradictory positions, that the reader may judge, and the answerer find what he hath to prove, if he will prove any thing to the purpose. But some of these positions you have devised out of your own brain, which no protestant ever allowed, and so you fight with your own shadow, and then triumph as Tereus the poet. Vicimus exclamat, mecum mea vota feruntur. CHAMP. You have your answer to this in the refutation of your roll of forged positions. Look back thither and see whether you or I may be said to be devisers or forgers of false positions. MANVALL SECTION 10. Who is to understand, that though the protestants do maintain the negative part in almost all the positions contioverted between them and the catholics, yet is he not for all that not to be excused from the proof of those points, unless he will withal confess that in them the protestants have no faith at all, but only a mere denial of faith. For faith being not a simple denying, or not believing, but a positive assent, and belief of such articles, as are revealed unto us by God, it hath positive grounds, whereby it may and aught to be proved, even in those points which are negative. And therefore as catholics do prove their faith in these negative points; that only faith doth not justify; that we are not certain of our justification or salvation, and the like: So likewise are the protestants to prove their faith in these: that there is no purgatory: no real presence: no sacrifice of the Mass, and the rest; unless as is said before they will confess, that they have no faith in these points, but only a mere denial of faith. For it is a far different thing, not to believe purgatory to be, for example; and to believe purgatory not to be. The first being a mee●e negative or denial of any act of faith; the second being a positive act of faith of a negative object. Having thus advertised the good reader of these few things, I leave thee to peruse the treatise itself, desiring thee to expect only the bare positions proved with the self text of holy scripture, and some few fathers, without any flourish of words at all. The work being such as it doth rather resemble the bones of a great body tied together, with dried sinews, than a body througlie furnished with flesh and other habiliments of friendly nature. For which cause though to such as rather respect fashion then substance, it may hap to appear hideous, yet to others of contrary appetite, (for whose contentment it is specially intended) it will not peradventure be judged altogether without form. PILK. If non credimus quia non legimus, bea Hier. cont. Heluid. cap. 9 sufficient argument, as both the scriptures and the fathers teach us, we shall with no great difficulty prove our faith, as well in the negative as in the affirmative. CHAMP. Non credimus quia non legimus is not a sufficient argument of faith, but in such points only as are proved neither by tradition nor by scripture, of which sort was the heresy of Heluidius; denying the perpetual virginity of the blessed virgin; which falsity being contrary to the received tradition of the whole church & not proved by holy scripture, was sufficiently refuted by S. Hierome saying; non credimus quia non legimus. Which saying is not any argument for the denial of such articles of faith as are proved either by scripture or traditions, & much less for them that are proved by both. PILK. For S. Paul proving Christ to be above the angels in regard of his original, that he is the son of God. Heb. 1. 5. and in regard of his majesty, that he sitteth at his right hand verse 13. taketh his argument from the scriptures negatively. To none of the Angels he said etc. CHAMP. S. Paul taketh not his negative argument from the scriptures only, but absolutely from all divine testimony saying. Cui Angeloru● d●●● Or if you will have S. Paul to argue out of the scriptures only, tell me out of what scripture he concludeth this. Nun omnes suns administratoris spiritus in ministerium missi propter eo●. ovi hereditatem ca●iun● salutis? unless you will suppose that for granted unto you, which is in controversy, to wit that there i● no other divine testimony but that which is written, this instance of S. Paul's argument serveth you for nothing. PILK. S. August. often chargeth the Donatists to Cap. 12. prove their church out of the scripture, and he will believe, if not he will reject them, specially in his book de unitate Ecclesiae, if they cannott (saith he) read these things in the scripture but persuade them by their contentions, I will believe those things that are written in De carne Christi cap. 7. Orig hom. 1. in lere. cir medium. De vocat gent cap. 3 libr. 4. Mat. c. 23. the scriptures: I believe not those things that are spoken by vain heretics; I receive not that which from without the scripture (saith Tertullian) thou producest of thine own; without the scriptures our senses or expositions have no credit saith Origen. Who will speak when the holy scriptures speak not? saith Ambrose. Many saith Hierome think Zacharie to be the Father of john and that he was slain because he preached the coming of Christ. This thing because it hath no authority from scripture, is with like facility contemned, as it is proved. CHAMP. All these sayings of the fathers how truly soever cited (which I will not stand here to examine) do prove (if they prove any thing, that you are bound to produce positive testimonies out of the scriptures for your negative faith, if you will be thought to have any faith at all in them, and not a mere denial or negation of faith. For you must understand, that it is one thing to believe that there is no purgatory, for example, and another thing not to believe that there is a purgatory. The first being a positive act of faith, requiring also a positive testimony and revelation of God, though of a negative article; the other is a mere denial or negation of faith of a positive article, and is as well in horses or asses as in men; only with this difference, that men are capable and may have the contrary positive act; but horses and asses cannot. If your faith therefore of the negative articles which you hold, be of the first kind, you are bound to prove it by positive testimony of holy scripture If it be only of the second kind, then have you no more faith in these articles than have horses, asses or other brute beasts. Now to the father's testimonies so far as they may seem to make any thing against the catholic doctrine of traditions or the church's authority, I answer (supposing they sound as you set them down, which I will not stand to examine Lib 1. con. Crescon. cap. 33. Epist. 1. ad Sympron. here) that whatsoever is proved by traditions or the church's judgement, is warranted by the scripture, which giveth testimony to the church and traditions. Which answer is S. August. lib. 1. cont. Crescon. cap. 33. PILK. Therefore concerning the proof of our faith in the negative points of purgatory, Real presence, Sacrifice of the Mass; sith there is no footing for them in the word of God, we answer with Basill, that it is not faith, but a manifest defection from faith to deny that which is written, or to bring in any thing that is not written, where as Christ JESUS our Lord saith, my sheep hear my voice. CHAMP. The judicious reader shallbe judge whether these catholic articles have not much faster footing in the holy scriptures, than your contiarie negatives. Neither doth S. Basill any ways favour you. For he confirming his saying with these words of our Saviour, my sheep hear my voice; excludeth not that word of our Saviour which is more properly his word then the scripture. For he saith not my scriptures, but my sheep hear my voice; therefore he speaketh of the voice as it is delivered by word, and not as it is written. PILK. And yet to satisfy you, we shall find sufficient weapons out of the scriptures to lay these Anekims on the ground. Now as the Roman Emperor that meant to subdue Germany, brought out his army, and put them in array upon the sea shore, and presently charged them to gather shells, telling them that they were spoils of the Ocean, due to the capitol: So you having marshaled your forces and put them in order, tell your reader, that the whole body of them is but a Skeleton, bare bones, tied together with dry Sinews, and then without question you will attain a glorious victory, and bring spoils fit for the vatican. Yet you doubt not but your treatise will please some men's appetite, and I am of your mind, for like lips like lettuce. Thus from your prolusion I come to your main battle, which thus you begin. CHAMP. What sharp weapons you will find in the scriptures, for▪ your negative faith, or no belief, I will with patience expect, and having with all indifferency pondered them, I will tell you with all sincerity, what weight they are of, in my judgement. In the mean time I must tell you, that your conclusion seemeth to me as little witty, as all the rest of your discourse is learned, and therefore finding by the little experience I have of you, that such lettuce suit well with your lips, I leave them wholly to yourself. Manual. The first controversy. It is known that the catholic Roman church doth admit more books and parcels of holy Bible for scripture then the protestants do, and consequently acknowledge a larger Canon than they, and yet notwithstanding she teacheth. PILK. The Grecians are ever children, rightly fitteth you Romanists that still lisp like little children, and excellently speak without sense For to say the catholic Roman church, is as good sense as the universal particular church. CHAMP. It is your dull understanding, and not our lisping language that maketh these words the Catholic Roman ●hur●h without sense to you. For the attribute Roman doth not restrain any whit the amplitude of the signification of that word catholic or universal either in respect of time or place as you ignorantly imagine; but doth only distinguish it from all such sects as falsely and presumptuously term themselves catholic, but dare not call themselves Romans or Roman Catholics. As in former ages the word catholic was added to the name christian for the same purpose as ancient Pacianus signifieth Therefore when we say a Roman Catholic we would say no more but a true, and not a falsely termed catholic. And because you are a member of one of those sects which are descried by this word Roman, you hate it as thieves hate the light, whereby they are discovered. PILK. For who can conceive the catholic church to be Roman, which was in the world before Rome itself was, for it is the general assembly of the Saints Heb. 12. ●3. from Abel the first just, unto the last that shall believe in Christ, as S. Aug: speaketh. Moreover all the nations in the world, not the Romans were promised to Christ psal. 2. Ask of me and I will give thee the gentiles for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession, and so S. Aug: writeth, that God promised to the seed of Abraham, not the Romans, but all the gentiles, and sealed it with an oath, by which promise it came to pass, that many nations not contained under the Roman jurisdiction received the Gospel, and were joined unto the church. CHAMP. Reed Pacianus of the a●dition of this name to the church in the epistle cited. Matt. 16. There is no greater difficulty to conceive how the catholic church may be called Roman, then how the christian church (which denomination began first at Antioch is called Catholic. And if you would know he reason why it is denominated of Rome rather than of Antioch or Jerusalem, it is because S. Peter, who was Bishop of Rome received promise of our Saviour Christ, that his church should be built upon him, as upon a firm rock, and that hell gates should never prevail against it. Which promise our Saviour Christ having performed, it is come to pass that the church of Christ which was first called christian, than Catholic, is now called Roman, and thus much for the name Roman. Now I would have you mark, that whatsoever you say in proof of this attribute catholic, you say in condemnation of your own protestantical assemblies, which were never heard of before Martin Luther, no more than the Arrians were before Arrius, and the rest of the sects and heresies before their masters and authors. Which one argument had you but any indifferency, joined with any mean judgement, would be sufficient to make you detest the fellowship of such new masters. PILK. Besides the modern Roman church hath made a defection from that which the primative Roman church maintained, in so much that S. Paul's Epistles written to the ancient Romans, may justly be called an antilogy of that Religion which now is professed in the city of Rome. CHAMP. Some substantial proof of this your assertion, would assuredly get you the victory in all the rest you contend about, without all further dispute. But the manifest falsity of your affirmation, doth not only make your cause desperate, but also deeply woundeth your credit, having no care to affirm so apparent untruths without the slenderest show of proof or probability at all. PILK. Besides we do not find in any ancient creed either that of the Apostles or of Nice, or in any other of the ancient counsels, that the church was styled the catholic Roman. Finally how can a part be the whole? Now the Roman church (though she were pure) in her farthest extent, is but a part of the universal church. CHAMP. Have you not yet learned how vain a thing it is to argue ab authorita ● ne●a va? Produce you some auncient creed, where the church is called the christian church, which though you cannot do; yet I hope you will not deny the catholic church to be rightly so called. Neither is the Roman church taken for a part of the catholic church, as you either falsely or foolishly surmise, but for the whole: as the king of England is not taken only to be king of England but of the rest of his kingdoms also, the whole taking name of one part, as is ordinary even in common speech which you cannot be ignorant of. PILK. Yet you say this universal particular church admitteth a larger Canon than the protestants, you mean the Apocryphas. And so it standeth her in hand, otherwise she might bid a dieu to divers profitable points that help her to uphold her Monarchy. But the church of God before Christ received them not, but the same which the protestants do embrace. Neither read we that Christ or any of his Apostles did cite any testimony out of them, to confirm any doctrine by them, which they did out of all the canonical books. Besides if we follow S. August. de consen. Euang c. 1 August. judgement, whereby we may discern suspicious writing from canonical, than these will easily appear to be conterfaites. First saith he they are not such as the church credited, & received into canonical authority. secondly there be many things embarked in them which Apostolical rule of faith and sound doctrine doth contradict, both these are verified of, the Apocryphas. For neither the church of God before Christ received them, to whom were committed the oracles of God. Rom. 3. 2. (which Christ would have reproved them for, if they had without just cause rejected them, as well as he did reprehend them for the misinterpreting of the canonical books) neither yet long after Christ, did the Christian church embrace them. And beside in the books themselves: there are certain brands, whereby they may be discerned from the canonical. First the addition Hest. 12. 5 unto the book of Hester saith, that Mardocheus had received rewards for the detection of the conspiracy of the king's Chamberlains; the true Hester saith he received none. The suppositius Hest. 6. 3. Hester saith, that Haman intended the the destruction of Mardocheus for detecting the eunuchs. Hest. 12. 6. The true Hester saith for Hest. 5. 2. Hest. 15. 7. Bar. 1. 2. jer. 52. 12. 2. Reg. 25. denying him worship Hester. 3. 5. The true Hester the king looked graciously upon her: the counterfeit, he looked angerly. The book of Baruch saith that the city of Jerusalem was taken and burnt at the same time: jeremy teacheth the contrary & the books of the kings. The additions unto Daniel say that when Danyell delivered Susanna he was a child: the true Daniel saith that he with two others made by ca 13. 45. cap. 2. 48. the king were chief over 120. princes, that they might take all the accounts of the kingdom, and the king might not be troubled. But children use not to be set over such affairs. Commentitives Daniel saith in the story of Bell, that he was fed by Abacuk. 14. 36. whereas Abacuk prophesied long before the captivity 1. 6. In the book of Toby cap. 12. 15: the Angel calleth himself Raphaell the Angel of the Lord; but chapter the 5. 12. he is of the kindred of Ananias and Azarias the great, if he be the Angel of the Lord, he cannot be the son of a man. As true is that medicine wherewith the devil is driven away: but corporal creatures use not to make any impression into a substance simply intellectual as devils be. In judith the cruel murder committed by simeon and Levi is propounded to be imitated cap. 8. 23. which Genesis the 49. is reprehended and accursed. The book of wisdom is falsely entitled, as it had been composed by Solomon, whereas the author of it was Philo the jewe. Ecclesiasticus craveth pardon if he come short in some words, which the penmen of the holy Ghost used not to do. In the books of the Maccabies a parricide is commended that laid hands on himself, which is forbidden by the law. So your long Canon hath but certain inches that are true and perfect; the rest are but leaden and crooked; yet for all this you say. CHAMP. That the catholic Roman church admitteth a larger Canon, that is (as the Manual saith) more books and parcels of the Bible for holy scripture, than the protestants do, is so manifest that you dare not deny it. Now whether these books, and parcels of books be apocryphas or Noah, is in controversy, you affirming them so to be, and we denying it. Which question cannot here be disputed or discussed for confounding of matters. Only this I say by the way to your objections made against them; that if you do stand to S. Aug judgement in this point (to whom you make show to appeal) the cause is lost on your part, and if you will not See what is noted of this before in my answer to your second Antithesis believe me, read his seconde book de Doctrina Christiana cap 5. & 6. and be your own judge. Again your exceptions against the books in controversy are such, as if they were admitted for sufficient to prove them Apocryphas, I dare undertake to prove all or the most part of the books in the Bible to be Apocryphas. And this I will make good whensoever you dare upon equal conditions to challenge me thereunto. See therefore I pray what a friend you are to the holy scripture, that open such and so wide a gap, to take quite away all scripture. And this shall suffice for answer to all your tedious discourse in this section. Manual Catholic position the first. That all such articles as by her (the Catholic Roman church) and the protestants, are believed and holden for articles of faith, are not so expressly contained in the holy scriptures, as out of them only full proof may be made thereof. PILK. This position is so doubtfully set down as if of purpose you would walk in a cloud, that your reader might not perceive you. For if by expressly, you mean words and syllables; than it is true that all articles of faith are not contained in holy scriptures in so many words: but if you mean the sense and substance, and that which may be deduced by necessary consequence, than it is false that full proof cannot be made of all articles of faith out of scripture. In the former sense, there is not any protestant, that hath taught that the scriptures expressly contain all articles of faith, and this you papists know. For Eckius reproveth the Lutherans, for that they will have nothing believed, but which is express scripture, or can be proved out of scriptures. So that your own side perceive we believe things that are not expressly set down in scriptures, but nothing which hath not a just proof out of it. CHAMP. The cloud is in your own brain, and not in my position, which is neither dark not doubtful but to you; who perceiving it to press and pinch, would gladly find some doubtefullnes therein. For if you had not been either blind or blind folded, you would have seen that the position denyeth full proof of all articles of faith out of scriptures, in the same sense and meaning that you profess to maintain the affirmative; and not only the express containing them in so many words or sillabels. Manual, proof of the Catholic position. The articles which protestants believe to be of faith as well as Catholics, and yet are not contained expressly in holy scripture, are many, but we will give instance but only in a few. First that there are three distinct persons and one only substance or essence in God. secondly that the second and thirde persons are of the same substance, and of equal glory with the first. thirdly that the thirde person proceedeth from the second and from the first. Fowerthly that there are two distinct and complete natures in our Saviour Christ, and but one only person. fively that there are in him two wills and two operations, to wit of God and man, about all which have been divers heresies as is well known to the learned. And though all these articles have most true ground and proof in holy scriptures, yet are they not so expressly contained therein, as they may be fully proved by them alone. One example shall serve for all; to prove the son of God to be consubstantial or of one substance with the father, the catholics do allege (and truly) this testimony (I and Io. 10. 30. the father are one) yet because there are more means of being one, them in substance, as namely, to be of one will, desire, & affection, of which sort of unity specially the Arrians did expound this place, alleging for themselves that testimony (I pray that Io. 17. 〈◊〉. they all may be one as thou father in me, and I in thee, that they also in us may be one) Which cannot be understood of unity in substance. Therefore this testimony without the interpretation of the church (which is the pillar of truth) doth not fully prove the father and the son to be one in substance. The like may be said of the other articles here mentioned. PILK. What a gap you open to Gentilism, judaism and Heresy, when you deny the main grounds of christianity to have a full proof from the scriptures, but require the help of tradition and authority of the church, as if the authority of the church would prevail with them, with whom the scriptures will not. CHAMP. Are you a doctor in divinity, and think a great gap to be opened to Gentilism and Iudai●me by denying the mystery of the blessed Trinity, to be fully and clearly proved out of the scriptures only? would you if you had to do with them go about to prove that mystery, either out of the new testament to the jews, or out of the whole Bible to the Gentiles? It would well become your judgement indeed, and suiteth well with the rest of your learned discourses. But whatsoever you would do in that case, I know that no man endued with one dram of wit, would think that kind of proof to have any force with them that receive not the scriptures, though they were as clear and express as you could desire them to be. And a for the gap opened hereby to heresy: Let the world that seeth so many sects of heresies sprung out of one Luther, judge whether your paradox of the sufficiency of only scripture, without respect to the church's authority and judgement, hath not brought them forth and begotten them. Let the example of Legatt testify whether your position or mine open the gap wider to heresy. Finally let all the heresies in the world witness, whether the contemning of the church's authority in expounding of holy scriptures, hath not been the mother of them all. Take away therefore your paradox of the fullness of scriptures, and put my position of the necessity of the church's judgement in declaring the true sense and meaning of the scriptures in practice, and the gap to all heresy will quickly be so fast shut, that she will never more appear in the world. PILK. But in defence of that royal and holy faith, we are very confident that all these articles expressed by you, have both a true and full proof from them. The trinity of persons in the unity of one essence is plainly taught: otherwise what man or Angel durst pry into that majesty lest he were oppressed of glory. There be three that 1. Io. 3. 8. bear witness in heaven, Father, word & holy ghost and these three are one saith S. john: And Mathewe 28. Baptism them in the name of the Matt. 28. Father, the son, and the holy Ghost. Which places as they prove the unity of the essence in trinity of persons, so likewise do they, their common glory, because to be, and to be glorious in the God head, is all one as S. Aug. argueth. The procession of the holy ghost from the father and the son is fully taught. Io. 15. 26. where he is termed the, Spirit of truth that proceedeth from the father, which very word S. joh. useth of the to w-edged sword, proceeding out of the mouth of Christ, which is nothing but the spirit of his lips, wherewith he shall strikes the wicked, as Esay prophesieth. cap. 11. 4. And with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked. And to show his procession, as well from the son as from the father, Christ breathed upon his disciples and said. Receive the holy ghost, and for that he is called the spirit of the son. Gal. 4. 6. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the spirit of his son into your hearts which crieth Abba father. That there be two destinct natures in Christ & one only person Esay prophesied, cap. 1. 14. Behold the Virgin shall conceive and bear a son and she shall call his name Immanuell. And like jerc. cap. 23. 6. In his days juda shall be saved, and Israel shall will safely, and this is the name whereby they shall call him, the lord our righteousness: which S. john fulfilled. Io. 1. 14. And the word was made flesh and dwell among us, and we saw the glory thereof, as the glory of the only begotten of the father, full of grace and truth, of which two distinct natures there be two wills and two operations as S. Luke showeth, not my will but thy will be done; Loc 22. For he that hath two perfect natures must needs have their natural properties & operations, but to will & work are natural proprieties & operations, following both natures in Christ: therefore he had two wills and two operations. All which places are urged by the ancient Fathers and late writers protestants and papists to confirm these several points, in so much that you are forced to grant that they have a true proof 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 have nimbler wits than the fathers, for you are not content with truth but you must have full proof, as though that proof which to a man is true, were not full. For there can be no fuller proof, then that which doth convince and satisfy, the understanding, but a true proof doth so: For what is truth but adaequatio rei & intellectus. And yet if there be any difference between true & full, these articles are fully concluded out of the scripture. For being articles of the Apostolic creed, they are plainly set down as Bellarmine confesseth out of S. Aug. And some of them questioned by the Arrians, as the consubstantiality of the son (which in the next place you except against) he saith that of these questions which then were moved, clarissima extabant in scriptures testimonia, quae sine dubio anteponenda sunt omnibus conciliorum testimonijs. These things than that have most clear testimonies out of scriptures, and to be preferred before all testimonies of counsels, have a full proof from them, but such are some of these articles, yet you proceed to fight against scriptures, and wring from Christians, one of the strongest Bulwarks they have against Arrians. I and the consubstantiality of the son, because the Arrians interpreted it of unity of concord and will. But if the mist of popery had not blinded your eyes, you might easily have seen unanswerable arguments out of the text to prove the son consubstantial to the father, and so to be understood of the unity of substance. For the jews require him to tell them plainly whether he be that Christ, he answereth directly he is, there fore the natural and consubstantial son of God, as he proveth. Matt. 22. 45. out of the Psalm. 100 If then David called him Lord, how is he then his son? secondly he that giveth eternal life to his sheep, so that none can take them out of his hand, is of the same power, and consequently of the same nature with God; For what is it to be God, but to be of the highest and greatest power, than which none greater? but the son doth so; ver. 28. & 29. And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of mine hand. thirdly the jews took up stones to stone him, as a blasphemer as one that made himself God, this cause they set down in plain terms. verse 33. Because thou makest thyself God, being man; but it is no blasphemy to be of the like will, desire and affection with God: plain therefore it is by Christ's argument, that he did preach God so to be his Father, as the jews understood he would have himself the natural son of God. See now except you be blinder than the jews, how plentifully this scripture proveth the consubstantiality of the son, and as for the place of Io. 17. it helpeth not the Arrians at all, as S. Aug. showeth to Pascentius Epist. 174 the Arrian. For that wheresoever the scripture speaketh of two that are one, as in this place, they are ever of one substance. And therefore he chargeth both Maximianus their Bishop, and Pascentius a noble man of their opinion, to trauers the scriptures, if any where they could show two, said to be one that are not one in substance; But let this be granted that (I and the Father are one) proveth only unity of will, not of substance, is there not an army of scriptures besides this to prove the son of the same substance, that we need not call in the authority of the church? CHAMP. You have bestowed all this labour most idly, going about to prove to me, that these articles are true, and to have true ground in the scriptures, which no catholic ever doubted of. That which you should have laboured in (if you would have spoken to the purpose) is, that these articles have so full proof out of scriptures only, that an heretic might be convinced thereby without judgement and interpretation of the church upon the same places. Which is evidently proved to be false by the many and divers heresies which have been maintained against all these articles. For the authors thereof, heretically refusing the understanding of the church upon those places of scriptures, and diverse others, as you also do in the places condemning your heresies, and following wilfully their own judgement therein as you in like manner do▪ could not be convinced of their errors▪ but interpreted these places and all others brought against them, in such sort as they made not against them at all. And as for the particular authorities proving diverse of these articles, consult with your Grand Master Calvin, and see what weight he putteth in them for the proof of the said mysteries. Or if you like not to turn his books, read the little book written by Egidius Hunnius a professed protestant entitled Caluinus judaizans, and you shall see whether he was convinced in these articles by all the passages of holy scripture alleged for that purpose. Yet would I not have you to think that I approve his wicked doctrine herein (which I detest as most heretical) but only produce him as an irreprooveable instance of my position. Therefore all the long, lose and imperfect discourse which you have made in this paragraph (wherein are many paralogismes and impertinencies) so far as it proveth any thing, proveth Calvin to have been a wicked miscreant, but proveth nothing against my position; which denieth not these verities, to have most true ground in holy scripture, according to the true sense and meaning thereof, but not in such sort as the evidence thereof cannot be avoided by an heretic. And you yourself that wrangle so much here against all experience, as well of the present as all precedent ages, will not acknowledge the catholic positions now in controversy, proved by more, or at least by as plain and express scripture as these are, to be sufficiently proved. So that I need seek no further confirmation of my position, than the experience of your own perversity. PILK. Yea to stop your mouth, I add that S. Aug. doth evidently except against the authority of the church, in his polemical books against the Arrian Bishop in two several counsels, the one of Nice, the other of Arriminum, the former of which had ratified the consubstantiality of the son, and the other revoked it, and tieth both himself and the Arrian only to the scriptures, as knowing this point of faith fully to be proved of them. CHAMP. Your mouth meriteth well the stopinge that doth so far and foully overflow, as to say that S. Aug▪ doth evidently except against the authority of the church. What, have you so soon forgot that he protested he would not believe the go pell but that the authority of the church moved him? you have be like some as evident and express words of his exception against the church, authority as this is for it, or else your assertion is most shameless: let us here I pray you what he saith. PILK. Neither ought I (saith S. Aug.) to urge the Libr. ●. cont. Maxim. c. 14. council of Nice, nor thou that of Arriminum, I am not tied to the authority of the one, nor thou of the other, but out of the scriptures that are not parties, but common witnesses unto us both; let matter to matter, cause to cause, reason to reason be indifferently opposed. CHAMP. How willingly you deceive yourself and wilfully labour to deceive others? I must needs think that it is malice or perversity, & not ignorance that maketh you abuse this place of S, Aug: who having said that the word homoousion. being by the catholic fathers in the council of Nice by the authority of truth, and truth of authority established▪ was after in the council of Arriminum under the heretical Emperor Constantius by the fraud of a few disliked, but afterwards acknowledged, he cometh to say. But now neither I ought to use the authority of the council of Nice, nor thou of the counsel▪ of Arriminum, but such testimony of scripture as are common to both. Where S. Aug. is as far from excepting against the authority of the church in the council of Nice, as I am now from excepting against the authority of the council of Trent, in that I do not use it against you, but am content to deal with you by the scriptures, which being received by us both, are irreproveable witnesses. In this therefore & no other sort doth S. August: omit to urge the authority of the council of Nice against his adversary Maximian the Arrian, and tie himself to the scriptures, than I do now tie myself to the scriptures omitting to urge the authority of the council of Trent against you a protestant. And tell me I pray you, did S. Aug: (think you) esteem His majesty estsemeth himself Catholic because he receiveth the four first general counsels. less of the Nicen council than you do? you will not say it I suppose. And do not you give unto it that authority to define matters of faith against heretics? and admit of the doctrine thereof as orthodox and catholic, and which ought to be received of all christians? you will not deny it. Why therefore do you say S. August evidently excepteth against the authority of the church, because he would not tie his adversary in that dispute to the authority of the Nicene council, which he professeth to have been decreed by the authority of truth and truth of authority? But you delight not only to err yourself, but also to draw others into error with you. PILK. Where then is your inference, that this scripture without the interpretation of the church doth not fully prove the Father and the son to be one in substance, as if the scriptures before the church's interpretation prove only probable; after her interpretation fully. This I gather to be your meaning, because Bellarmine Lib. 4. de verbo c. 7. affirmeth (from whose harvest you have gathered these gleaninges) that the scriptures expressed by a council, do firmly and certainly prove that, which before they did not firmly prove. And of S. August. he saith, that he bringeth certain conjectures out of scriptures, which after the definition of a council and trial of written traditions, have some force to confirm truth, which of themselves are not sufficient. CHAMP. My inference standeth good, nor is it any way impeached by S. Aug: even in this place by you alleged as already appeareth. Besides in his book de vera religione cap. 1. he hath these express words▪ who is not stark mad and easily understandeth not, that the exposition of scriptures, is to be sought from them who profess themselves teachers of the same? He meaneth the pastors and doctors of the church. And concerning this place. Ego & pater unum sumus, read S. Athanasius his Epistle ad Episcopos Arrianos, and see how they were convinced with it, or if you will not look so far, make a little inquiry of Legates answer unto it. That which you say of the scriptures before and after the church's interpretation, and likewise of S. Aug: out of Bellarmine (though I find no such thing in the place of Bellar. by you cited) in the catholic sense is true. That is, Mr. Pilkinton would turn the state of the question. the scriptures before the judgement of the church of the true sense and meaning thereof, make no full proof unto us of the articles of our faith. Not because they receive any truth or force in respect of themselves from the church, they being the infallible word of God, but because they being capable of divers senses and subject to be understood diversly, as you yourself will not deny of these few and plain words hoc est corpus meum, without some authority to interpret them, the true sense and meaning of them cannot assuredly be known unto us. And therefore hath God placed in his church pastors and doctors to deliver unto his people, the true meaning of his word, and hath promised to be with them always, & that to hear them is to hear Matt. 28. himself. PILK. Let this be marked. For when we say that the scriptures do prove fully articles of faith, we take not away subordinate means whereby we may see and learn the fullness of the scriptures: but we exclude all outward and adventitious authority, to supply the supposed weakness in them, and to add strength and firmness unto them. CHAMP. Necessity and the very evidence of truth forceth you to confess some means to learn the true ence and meaning of the scriptures; but your own perversity and obstinacy will not permit you to speak plainly. What do you I play understand by subordinate means which you say you exclude not? and what do you mean by adventitious authority? do you mean the authority of the church? so your words following do insinuate. But show you as clearly out of the scripture the authority of the church to be excluded as strange and adventitious, as we will show you that it is ratified, established, and commended unto us as an unfallible guide and teacher of truth, and then we will give some credit to your words; but till than which will be never, know ye that ye are proved to contemn scripture, and all other authority save only your own foolish fancy, which you make to be judge of the holy scripture itself. PILK. Which strength the papists say, they have not of themselves, but receive from the interpretation of the church, and traditions; which is an impious and blasphemous assertion. For the interpretation of a Synod, is but a gloss, the scripture is the text; the interpretation may err, the text cannott err; the interpretation is the word of man, the scriptures the voice of God: to conclude this point, whereas the position of the former Roman church was, that divinity reasoneth from the scriptures necessarily, from other authors and learning probably; the wheel now is turned, and men reason from the scriptures conjecturally, but from the interpretation of the church and tradition, firmly and sully. CHAMP. How often have you been told of your witting belying your adversaries? you know well if you know any thing, that the catholics whom you call papists, do teach the scriptures to be the word of the holy Ghost, and to have their verity from him independently of the church: And therefore that the church addeth no strength or verity to them, no more than the witness or notary addeth truth or verity to the will & testament of the testator. Nevertheless the authority & testimony of the church, is as necessary for the acceptance and acknowledgement, as well of the letter and text itself, as of the sense and meaning of the scriptures, as the witness or notaries hand is to the acknowledgement and proof of the will and testament, or as the sentence of the judge is necessary for the true sense and meaning of the will, if at any time it come to be in doubt or in question. Neither is the interpretation of the church upon the scripture, the interpretation or word of man, as you heretically term it, but of the holy Ghost as (besides other places) you may learn of that. Visum est Spitui Sancto & nobis. But it availeth, like as to teach a wilful mind wisdom. Your conclusion is yet more childish, ignorant, and impertinent. For from the scriptures understood in the sense of the church which is infallibly true, we say the argument is necessary and infallible, whereas from all humane authors taken severally, be they never so learned, the argument is not certain but probable. But when we speak of humane authors, we understand not the church nor yet her received traditions. And thus you see your strongest arguments against the position of the manual, are nothing but frothy calumnies, paralogismes and impertinencies, dispersed and blown away with every small blast of wind. Manual. Catholic position. 2. All such articles as are of faith and so holden by the protestants themselves, are not contained so much as indirectly or implicitly in the holy scriptures: but only so far as the scriptures contain and testify the authority of the church & traditions. Proof. Take all the books of the bible and every part thereof, which are acknowledged for canonical scripture jointly of catholics and protestants, be such indeed. That the most blessed mother of our Saviour Christ, continued perpetually a virgin. That it is lawful for christians to eat strangled things, and blood (which were expressly forbidden them Acts 15. 20.) are not so much as indirectly contained in holy scriptures, otherwise then is mentioned in our position. But this being more amply proved in that which followeth of traditions, this which we have said already shall suffice for the present. PILK. The sun needeth to borrow no light of other stars, nor the scriptures of the church, or of tradition; For without help of either, they sufficiently prove all articles of faith. CHAMP. It is an usual trick of all deceitful and verbal disputers, to invert & change the question in hand; that when they can say nothing to the true question, they may find something to say to the question framed by themselves. The controversy here is not whether the scriptures do sufficiently prove all other articles of faith, for that was disputed in the precedent position, and the negative part there proved against you; but whether they sufficiently prove themselves to be the holy scriptures or Noah, which▪ was▪ the first proof of this position: let us hear how you answer it. PILK. But here you trifle in idle Homonomie of articles of faith. For strictly those things are called articles of faith, which are prescribed in the old and new testament to be believed, and are summarily comprised in the Apostles creed; whereby they are both distinguished from the precepts of the law that prescribe good works, and from the principles of divintie, from which as from conclusions they are derived. CHAMP. I know not what you call trifling in homonomie; but I know that you babble in obscurity. It is be like no article of faith with you, that God is to be adored, his name not to be profaned or blasphemed, that our parents are to be honoured, with the rest of gods commandments, because they be precepts commanding good works. I marvel where you learned this good divinity. But let this pass, yet it serveth not your turn; For the scriptures whereof the question is now, are not precepts as you know. You have therefore another as good a shift. That is, that articles of faith are distinguished not only from precepts, but also ●ro● princeples of divinity. from which as conclusions they are derived; these are your own words, but what you mean by them I cannot conceive. They seem to sound, that the articles of faith as conclusions, are derived from the principles of divinity. Then which you could have said nothing more contrary to truth. For all men know that the conclusions of divinity are derived from the articles of our faith, as from their principles & not the contrary as you dream. It had been good you had taken one year more to have revewed your writings, that you might have made better sense of your ayinge. PILK. Of which sort of principles these are; That the holy scriptures are divine, inspired from heaven, immutabely true. CHAMP. By what other reason I pray you are these things here named by you, rather to be called principles of divinity, than articles of faith, more than for your own bare and ignorant assertion? you should have given some reason for your distinction, that your reader might have seen it had not been merely forged only to delude the argument. Again why are these things to be termed principles, and not articles of faith; God is one; God is omnipotent; God is truth itself and the first truth that revealeth mysteries of faith? you dare not deny these to be principles of the other principles, and yet are they most properly articles of faith as you dare not deny, expressed in the creed itself. You see therefore your distinctions of articles and principles of faith to be vain, foolish and frivolous, invented only to delude your less careful reader. PILK. Improperly articles of faith are called whatsoever is written as the principles themselves, precepts of the law, sermons of the prophets, histories of both testaments, because faith, assenteth to every thing delivered in the word. CHAMP. That is properly an article of faith, that is believed for divine authority, whether it be written or Noah, as were all these things the fathers believed before the law written. And because we believe the books of Genesis for example, and the rest of the holy Bible, to be written by God's revelation, therefore do we believe them to be holy scripture, and to contain gods word. Which therefore is properly, an article of faith no less than the mystery of the blessed trinity, believed for the same authority. PILK. Upon this ground I answer, first in general, that none of these points are articles of faith. CHAMP. Upon such a false ground you are like to build a good answer. Is it no article of faith with you that the book of Genesis is written by god's revelation? Tell me I pray you unto what kind of knowledge or assent you will reduce it? I will confess you a master in divinity if you can make it well appear, by what other act of knowledge or understanding we assent unto this verity, besides the act of faith. Which if you cannot perform, as assuredly you cannott, you must needs see this your first answer to be no answer at all, but a mere supposal of a manifest falsity. PILK. secondly I answer to every one in particular. I answer to the the first. That all canonical books and every parcel thereof be such, is proved out of themselves. For besides that the old testament proveth the new, and the new the old (for whatsoever we read in the old testament, the same is found in the gospel, and whatsoever is found in the gospel that is deduced from the authority of the old testament, as Hierome speaketh) so in special Ad Damasum. every book proveth itself, both by its own light as formerly was showed, and by the testimony of Christ of the Prophets, and Apostles, that were the secretaries of the holy ghost. The testimony of our Saviour Christ. Luc. 24. 44. These are the words which I spoke unto you while I was with you, that all must needs be fulfilled which were written of me in the law of Moses, and in the prophets and in the psalms. Of S. Paul. 2. Tim. 3. 16. All scripture is given by the inspiration of God, and is profitable to doctrine, to reproof, to correction, to instruction which is in righteousness. Of S. Peter the 2. epist. 1. 21. The prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy Ghost, do abundantly prove the books of the old testament, to be canonical, besides that there is not any of them, out of which some testimony is not in the new testament extant. CHAMP. Your second answer is as much to the purpose, as your first. Neither the old testament proving the new, nor chose; unless the one be believed before. Yea you make yourself ridiculous to all men by such a natural or circular proof, unless you suppose the assured belief of some part before. For example if one should demand of you how you know, or why you do believe those words of our Saviour which you cite out of the 24: of S. Luke either to have been spoken by him, or written by S. Luke; would you say that they evidently prove themselves so to be? surely this you must say, both according to your doctrine here, and according to the necessity you put yourself into by denying the authority of tradition and of the church's testimony. And yet in saying that, you shall evidently prove yourself to be senseless. For there is no such evidence of the thing, but any man that is not moved with the authority of god's church, and tradition would esteem it very uncertain and most doubtful. For unless these words, (and that which I say of them, I say of the rest of the scripture) were God himself, and spoke to us as immediately as he did to Moses, and the rest of his prophets, they cannot be said to be known by their own light, nor believed for their own truth. Again suppose you had certain knowledge of this by what means soever, how could you be certain that he speaketh of those books of Moses, psalms, and prophets, which we have under those names? This certainly would be impossible for you to prove, seeing you reject the authority of tradition and the church's judgement, by which only it is assuredly proved. Furthermore you know, that our Saviour speaking in his own person, required not to be believed but by the testimony of his works, joh. 15. saying: Nisi opera in eyes fecissem 〈◊〉 nemo alius fecit peccatum non haberent Much lesse therefore doth he require that we should believe a written book to be his word, without other proof than the self light of the book, which is not so great as that of his own lively worde●. The saying of S Hierome is nothing to the purpose. For he speaketh only of the mutual consent and concord of the two testaments, which to christians that already believe them both to be the word of God, is no small confirmation of the verity of the doctrine they both contain. PILK. The Gospels of the Evangelists the Acts, and Epistles of the Apostles, the revelation of S. john, prove themselves out of themselves, to be theirs whose titles they bear. And if we credit the books of historians and Philosophers, Beware how you attribute any thing to the defluxion of time lest you fall upon tradition. ancient and modern, divine and humane, to be theirs whose names they carry, in their foreheads; what madness were it to think the divine scriptures not to be written by them, who are said to be their penmen, after the defluxion of so many ages, wherein never any good christian called them in question besides wicked jesuits, impure Manichees, Cerdonians, Marcionists, and Ebionites. CHAMP. None of all these books say, they were written by such and such, as is manifest. And though they did, yet were not this sufficient to prove them theirs, unless it were certain this were their testimony, and that they were infallible in their testimony. As for the titles they bear, there is the same difficulty. For it is not otherwise known to be theirs then by faith and belief, of which we seek the ground. And if titles were sufficient proofs of the true gospels, we should have many more gospels than we have, as you cannot be ignorant. Again the Epistle to the Hebrues beareth not the name of any of the Apostles, and how long it was thought by divers not to be S. Paul's you know, unless you be very ignorant. For the works of other humane authors why do you believe them to be theirs, if it be not for the testimony of all succeeding ages brought unto us by tradition? Give some other sufficient ground of your belief in this point, if you can, and if you cannot, say you are senseless to reject ecclesiastical tradition in receiving the books of the Bible, or else that your judgement is foolish and idle. Moreover were it certainly known unto us that S. Mathewe wrote the gospel we have under his own name, as it is now by tradition and the church's authority; yet unless it were further certain that he wrote by divine inspiration (which without some divine testimony we know not) it could not be certain to us that his gospel is the word of God. Now if you had left out of the number of those that have called the scriptures into question (Jesuits) and put in their place, Lutherans or Protestants, your words might have passed for currant. But tell me in the small honesty of a protestant minister, did you ever know that any jesuit called any book of scripture into question or doubt? you cannot, though you burst yourself, give an instance. Whereas you do not only call many books of the holy Bible into doubt, but absolutely reject them as Apocryphas, and your Grand father Luther with his truer disciples, doth many more, even of those which you say is madness to call into question. Hath malice so blinded you, and wilful rage against the truth made you so mad, that you feel not the deadly wounds which you give yourself, whilst you strike, or at least think to strike your adversary. PILK. But what juggling is this? we believe these books to be theirs whose names they carry, for the authority of the church, that is the Pope, who is S. Peter successor, and holdeth all his authority from him, and yet we cannot believe S. Peter himself, that this Epistle is his, but because the present Pope hath so determined it. CHAMP. I cannot say that you juggle here you are so grossly impertinent, and hoodle up so many apparent absurdities in these few words. Where learned you I pray you that the Pope is the church? or that he holdeth all his authority from S. Peter and not from Christ himself? Again where doth S Peter testify that this is his Epistle? have you or any of your reformed brethren heard him say it? no such thing. Seeing therefore neither you nor any man now a live ever heard him testify any such thing, what great juggling is it I pray you, to believe a lively and living witness, assisted by the spirit of truth, and taught by those who lineally descended from S. Peter testifying that these are S. Peter's writings, rather then to believe a doom paper or parchment▪ which might be written by some other as well as other things, that went a broad under the same Apostles name? And by that which hath beme hitherto said on both sides, you may see (if you will not shut your eyes that you may not see) that it is clear▪ (notwithstanding all your childish ianglinge) that all articles of faith are not contained in scriptures, otherwise then is mentioned in the position of the Manual: now let us see your answer to the other proofs of the same position. PILK. To your second instance, we say with Saint August. that we are not willing to move any questions about the Mother of God, for the honour we bear unto her son. Yet sith you stir the coals, we answer that it is an high point of our faith, and sufficiently proved in the scriptures, that Christ was borne of an intemerat Virgin: but whether after his birth she were known of joseph, though the negative Homil de Nativit. Domini. be a seemly and reverend truth; yet we say with Basill, that it toucheth not our faith. CHAMP. You would seem to be religiously affected towards the blessed Virgin, but notwithstanding you mince S. Aug: words lest you should do her too much honour, his words 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 towards the old heretic Heluidius, then to believe with the holy catholic church concerning the perpetual virginity of the blessed Virgin. Where is now I pray you your rule of faith before mentioned, non credimus Look before▪ Sect. 10. quia non legimus? I conjure you upon forfeiture of your honesty and integrity, either to reject that rule as no sufficient ground of faith, in any article, or else to believe that the blessed Virgin was never known of any man. Take whether part you please & you shall give sentence for me against yourself. PILK. Your thirde instance is no article of faith but ● Canon of manners, so in the number not of things to be believed but to be done. Wherein though to the Apostles for the avoiding of scandal, for the eating of things strangled, and blood, yet when the offence was removed the eating was allowed. Rom. 14. 14. 1. Tim. 4. 4. and Saint August. proveth it out of S. Cent. Fab. ●. 32. c. 13. Mathewe cap. 15. 17. 18. CHAMP. Are you so blockish that you do not, or so perverse that you will not, see the difference between the practice of any thing, and the doctrine of the lawfulness of the same practice? Whereby you might be taught, that though the first be not an article of faith, yet the second may be. For example though it be not an article of faith for two single persons to marry together, but a matter of practice, yet is it a matter of faith that they may lawfully marry together, as I hope you will not deny, and so in five hundreth more things. That the Apostles did make that prohibition for a time only and not to continue ever, where is it written▪ or whence have you it, but by the church's authority & interpretation? The places of scriptures by▪ you cited (were they to the purpose as they are not) would be sufficient arguments to make some of the books doubtful as contradicting the one the other, were there not a judge to reconcile them, and bring them to atonement together. And thus you see all the three instances brought in proof of the catholic position in the Manual, to remain firm and solid, and your evasions to be childish wranglings without truth or substance. PILK. Thus you see you fight against God, when you war against the perfection of holy word. Which that you may more plainly perceive in the last place I will set down the protestants doctrine, not in such double terms as you devised, but their own words as they have positively delivered with the several authorities of holy scriptures, whereby they confirm it, and testimonies of fathers, whereby they show the consanguinity of it with the purest Christians. For the positions set down by you, are not by them acknowledged. CHAMP. If you deny my positions to be true as (having hitherto disputed against them) you seem to do, then must you of necessity acknowledge the contradictory to be true, and maintain them as yours, unless you will have both contradictories to be false, which no man yet ever heard of. But why do you not put down the positions which I call the protestants positions, that the reader might see how justly you deny them to be yours? I will supply your defect, that the indifferent reader may judge whether the positions set down in the Manual under the title of protestants positions, be not truly theirs. Manual, protestant positions. All articles of faith are so expressly contained in scriptures as out of them only full proof may be made thereof. All articles of faith are at least so contained in holy scriptures, as without any testimony or authority of the church, or traditions they may thence be plainly and distinctly deduced. These are the positions in the Manual in this first controversy under the title of protestant positions, which you say are not acknowledged by them. And yet if I understand your words you admit them, neither can you iu●l●e deny them as I said before: but let us hear what you say for yourself. PILK. They say not that all articles of faith, are expressly set down in holy scriptures, but either expressly or analogically, and so they have a full proof out of them. CHAMP. Compare this position with that set down by me in the first place, and see wherein they differ. Only you make the first part of your position absolute, as if it had been so set down by me, but this is your own fraud and deceit. For I made it not absolute but modal or comparative, as appeareth by the thing itself. The position therefore set down by me is yours, and therefore to be proved out of the scriptures▪ as the position itself requireth? ●herein if you fasle, your position will be convinced to be false, and your faith accordingly. PILK. secondly they admit of the testimony of the church both concerning articles of faith, and the scriptures themselves; First to discern true from false; secondly publicly to preach them; thirdly to interpret and expound them, but ever according to the scriptures themselves, without any addition of her own, either of sufficiency or perfection unto them. CHAMP. That is in good speech: they admit the testimony of the church so far as it contradicteth not their errors Or they admit of it not to be judged by it, for so all disputes would quickly have an end; but to judge it themselves, for so they know they may wrangle eternally. PILK. Here then is the difference, that the papists say the church addeth sufficiency to the scriptures and fullness. The protestants say she addeth none, but showeth that which is in it. The papists say she brought light unto them. The protestants say she bringeth none, but declareth and manifesteth that which it hath in itself. This then is their doctrine. CHAMP. The catholics do teach and believe that the church of God hath infallible authority to declare what books are holy scripture, and also to deliver the true sense and meaning thereof▪ neither of which the scriptures do perform by themselves; and yet are they both necessary if not to every Christian in particular, yet to the whole church in general. They do not teach or believe that the church addeth any truth or verity to the scriptures, which they immediately have from God himself, whose word and revelation they contain, but she declareth unto us infallibly what are the verities contained in them. To which belief and doctrine you seem to come very near in your last words, if you were constant therein. But you say and unsay at every turn. Now let us hear the positions which you say the protestants acknowledge in this controversy. PILK. ANTITHESIS. All truth concerning faith and good works necessary unto salvation, is sufficiently and fully delivered unto us in the holy scriptures. CHAMP. seeing you voluntarily enter combat, why do you not observe the conditions prescribed? It was required, that in case you would impugn the catholic position set down and proved in the Manual (as hitherto you have laboured to do) you should prove by express scriptures the contradictory, which in that case must necessarily be yours, and not to frame unto yourself another, which may stand with that you impugned, being like a shoe that fitteth every foot. This I say, because the position set down here by you understood with these two restrictons, is not denied of any catholic. The first is, that it include not the scriptures themselves, but suppose them as believed. The second that it speak only of truths or articles necessary to every man's salvation. For these are few and sufficiently expressed in holy scripture. Your position understood in this manner hath no adversary, and therefore needeth not your feeble and weak proofs. Nevertheless because your proofs seem to suppose a further meaning in your position; to wit that all things whatsoever without exception or restriction, are to be believed either by every man in particular, or all men in general, are fully set down in holy scripture, which is opposite to the catholic position of the Manual, I will examine your proofs and try what weight they bear. PILK. Proof of the protestants position. Deuteronomie 4. 2. ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye detract from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. Argument. That whereunto nothing must be added, nothing detracted, containeth a perfect and full doctrine of faith and manners, such is the scripture: ergo. CHAMP. What will you understand▪ by the (word) which God here commandeth? only the five books of Moses which then were only extant? If you understand it so (as truly you cannott otherwise) what will you say to all the rest of the books, both of the old & new testament written since, were they added against god's commandment? you will fear to say so. What then will this place serve you for? to make a poor show of some proof out of scripture to deceive your less skilful reader, and for no other purpose. But peradventure you will contend that it ought to be understood of all that which God should speak, aswell after as before, and so to comprehend the whole scripture. This sense (though not very probable) I am content to accept of, that you may see I do not deal niggardly with you. To your argument therefore I say, you juggle something in itt, but not cunningly. If you would conclude any thing 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 directly against yourself, who detracteth from god's word both written: denying many and sundry books of holy scripture, and also unwritten, reiecting all traditions▪ which the scriptures themselves command us to receive. And so have you concluded yourself a manifest transgressor of god's law and commandment. When you shall answer sufficiently this argument, I will pay you a fee worth your doctor's Cap. PILK. Proof 2. Prou: 30. 5. 6. Every word of God is pure, he is a shield to them that put their trust in him, add you nothing unto his word, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. CHAMP. Therefore what? Therefore all articles of faith are fully delivered in scripture? make this conclusion by lawful argument but of this place, and I shall esteem you a Master Logician. But it is enough for you to quote a place of scripture though as fitly for your purpose as Pruritanus doth many in your behalf. PILK. Proof 3. Revelations ●2. 18. 19 I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book, and if any shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book. CHAMP. What if I should say with your Grand Father Luther that this book is apocryphal, and therefore your proof of no worth? But God forbid I should be so profane as to use such an answer. I say therefore that to conclude any thing out of this testimony against me, you must conclude not only yourself but S. Paul also, and all the rest of the writers of holy scripture to be subject to this curse here mentioned, seeing they have all added many things to this book; that is they have taught and written many things to be believed and observed not contained in this book, which is the sense and force of your argument and which you are bound to solve. So blind hath heresy made you, that you see not what is with you, what against you. PILK. Proof 4. Gal. 1. 8. 9 Though we or an angel from heaven preach unto you beside that we have preached, let him be accursed. 1. Cor. 4. 6. That ye might learn in us not to be wise above that which is written. If neither an Apostle nor Angel from heaven may preach any thing besides that which is written, nor be wise above it, then that which is written containeth a full doctrine both of faith and manners. CHAMP. This argument is like the rest, and as truly deducted from the places quoted. In the first place the Apostle faith not 〈…〉 that which is written (as you fraudulently soist in) but besides that which we have preached. That your argument therefore may conclude, you must show out of scripture that the Apostle had not preached any thing more than at that time he had written; which will be a task impossible for you ever to perform, especially 2. Thes. ●. 15. seeing the Apostle himself testifieth the contrary commanding his disciples. To hold the traditions which they had learned, whether by word or Epistle. Again when he saith beside that we have preached, he meaneth contrary to that we have preached Tract. 98. in joh. as S. Aug: expoundeth him, 1200. years before your heresy was hatched. In the second testimony the vulgar translation, which was received for authentical in S. Hieromes times, hath not these words not to be wi●●. But to do you a favour I will admit of your text; and I answer that your argument is foolish. For he that is wise with the church, teaching or believing with the church, which the scriptures testify to be the pillar and ground of truth, is not wise above that which is written, but conformeablie to that which is written. And thus you see your position, though positive or affirmative to be so far from being proved by express scripture, that it hath not the least ground therein. Whereas the positions of the Manual, though only negative have express instances out of the holy scripture. Let therefore the indifferent and judicious reader judge whether of them hath greater arguments of truth. And if we should follow you rule, non cre●●imus quia ●o● ie imus, how would you persuade us to believe, that all truth pertaining to ●aith and manners necessary to salvation is fu●lie delivered in holy sceipture seeing you cannot show us it written in any place? whereby you see yourself either driven to disavow your rule of belief or to confess this your position not to be believed. But peradventure you will make your proofs stronger out of the fathers. Let us see what you bring out of them. But mark I pray you whether they be expositions of the places of scripture cited in your favour, or sayings uttered upon other occasions. If they be of the first sort, they will be more forcible for you; but if they be of the other kind (as they are they will be of less moment for your purpose. Well these they are. PILK. Proof 5. All things that our lord did are not written, Cyril. Alex. li. 12. in ●o. c. 68 but these things which the writers thought sufficient for faith and manners, that shining both in truth of ●aith and virtuous works we might come to the kingdom of heaven. CHAMP. The scriptures testifying the authority of the church, and of the pastors thereof, with the obligation that every one hath to hear and obey them, are truly said by S. Cyrill to contain those things which are sufficient for faith and manners. For the things that are not directly expressed in them, are learned by the pastors of the church, authorised by the scriptures. I marvel you were not afraid of S. Cyrill, seeing he testifieth so directly the necessity of good works besides faith for the gaining of the kingdom of heaven. But you receive the fathers no farther than they seem to make for you, such is your sincerity. PILK. Proof 6. Whatsoever is sought for unto salvation, all Chrisost in Matt. 22. that is now fulfilled in the scriptures. CHAMP. Your ignorance or perversity in this place is intolerable. For S. Chrisost: speaketh of the institution of the new testament, whereby all things necessary to salvation are fulfilled, and not of the scriptures containing fully all things necessary to believed. PILK. Proof 7. We adore the fullness of scriptures, let Hermogenes Tertull. cont. Hermogenem. show his opinion to be written, if it be not written let him fear the woe denounced to adders and detractours. CHAMP. Tertullian speaketh of the fullness of the scripture in that one point, whereupon he disputed with that heretic, & not in all other articles of faith as is manifest by the place itself, which the judicious reader may see and satisfy himself, for here it cannot without tediousness and over much prolixity be set down. PILK. Proof 8. If any shall preach either of Christ or his Aug cont. lit. Petil. lib. 3. c. 6. church, or of any other thing that pertaineth to belief or life, I will not say, if we but that which Paul addeth, if an Angel from heaven shall show unto you besides that which you have received in the scriptures of the law and the Gospel let him be accursed. That which hath a fullness in it as Tertull. and Chris. speak, and containeth in itt all things pertaining to faith and manners as cyril and Aug. say; that doth fully prove all articles of belief and life such is the scripture. CHAMP. S. Aug. words have the sense and meaning that S. Paul's have, taking be●i●es for against or contrary to the scriptures as S. August. explicateth himself tract. 98. in joh before mentioned. Now your argument out of all these places is showed to be vain and of no force by the particular answer to every authority: And thus far have you brought nothing more, for the proof of your position, them any heretic in the world may, or might have brought for the proof of his heresy. For every heretic can bring single places of scripture, yea and of fathers in favour of his heresy. But to bring scriptures interpreted by the fathers in favour of their heresy, is a thing (if not impossible) at least very hard and rare, being the privilege of the catholic church alone. PILK. ANTITHESIS 2. The scriptures contain in themselves a perfect doctrine of saith and good works necessary to salvation, without testimony authority or tradition of the church, adding unto them or bringing from without them any other doctrine. CHAMP. This position is the same in sense (if either of them have any sense) with the former, and therefore vainly is termed by you, a second Antithesis, unless every time you write a position varying a few words in it, but retaining the same sense, you will say it is a new position. But to let this pass your proofs, so far as they make any thing against the catholic verity are to be pondered. PILK. Proof 1. 2. Tim. 3. 16. The whole scripture is divinely given, and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfectly instructed in every good work. That which perfecteth the man of God to every good work, containeth perfect doctrine, of faith and manners, without addition of any othèr, but the scriptures do so: Ergo. CHAMP. It must needs be obstinacy in error, and not ignorance, as I think, that maketh you abuse this place. For first you cannot be ignorant, that the Apostle speaketh there of the scriptures of the old testament, wherewith S. Timothy was acquainted from his infancy, which if you will say to contain a perfect doctrine, then is all the new testament either superfluous, or at the least not necessary. secondly the Apostle peaketh not of the whole scripture taken together, but of every part thereof severally; meaning that every part of scripture is profitable to teach correct, and instruct, which is true, but nothing to your purpose. And that he speaketh not of the whole scripture in the former sense, but in the latter, it is manifest. For when he wrote this to Timothy, the whole scripture which the church now hath, was not written. Lastlie let it be said that he speaketh it of the whole scripture in the former sense; yet he saith no more but that it Sect. 2. §. ● very willingly. is profitable to teach, instruct etc. which I easily grant you, and yet I say your argument drawn from thence is most frivolous, as appeareth by the like set down before in answer of this of yours, whereunto I refer you. PILK. Proof 2. john 5. 35. Search the scriptures, for in them you think to have eternal life. Luke 16. 29. They have Moses & the prophets let them hear them. That which teacheth how we may come to eternal life and shun, or escape eternal death, containeth a perfect doctrine of faith, and good works; But the scriptures do so: ergo. CHAMP. Make your minor proposition this as it should be, but the old Testament doth so (for of the old testament only these places speak as is manifest) and your conclusion will serve directly to exclude the whole new testament from the perfect rule of faith Fie, I am ashamed in your behalf of such childishness as you show in these arguments. PILK. Proof 3. Acts 1. 1. The former treatise have I made o Theophilus of all that jesus began to do and teach. These things that Christ did and taught contain a perfect doctrine, but these things are written. CHAMP. Conclude, therefore the only gospel of S. Luke containeth a perfect doctrine. Is this your intent? noe, but blind malice against the evident truth draweth you into these gross absurdities. If you have no care of your soul, have yet for shame some care of your credit and reputation, for the gaining of which you have traveled these four or five years to bring forth this miserable heap of unshapen absurdities. A miserable labour I wisse, whereby you gain nothing but the reputation of an impertinent minister, devoid of ordinary judgement. To these few testimonies of scripture so miserable mistaken, you add some passages of the fathers, to as good purpose as you did in the former Antithesis. These they are. PILK Proof 4. Athan de incarnate. cont. Apolinar. If you be the disciples of the gospel saith Athanasius speak not iniquity against God, but walk in those things which are written or done. For if you will speak diverse things from these things that are written, why strive you with Iren cont. heres. li. 2. cap. 42. us without them. The scriptures are perfect as spoken from the word of God and his spirit. CHAMP. S. Athanasius speaketh of such things, as are not only not directly in scriptures, but are against and contrary to scriptures. S. Ireneus saith the scriptures being spoken by the spirit of God are perfect, as the things spoken by men are not, which have imperfections and therefore are subject to corrections and amendments. You abuse therefore your reader with an equivocal term of perfect. PILK Proof 5. The order of this present tecture teacheth, Amb. to. 4 lib de paradis. c. 12 that we must not add any thing to the divine precepts, for if thou addest or detractest it is a prevarication of the precept. Oftentimes when a witness addeth any thing of his own he spotteth the whole credit of his testimony with a lie, nothing therefore though it seem good, must be added. And a little after, if S. john hath said of his writing, if any man add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book, and if any man shall take away from the word of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the book of life, how much more nothing is to be added to gods precepts? CHAMP. That which is taught or commended by the church, which the scripture commandeth us to hear, is not superadded to gods commandments or precepts but is comprised in them, you therefore that will not hear and obey the church, which you are so expressly commanded to hear, evidently and damnably detract from divine precepts. Therefore this authority is so far from proving any thing to your purpose, that it overthroweth it rather. PILK Proof 6. O Emperor dost thou demand what our Hill. ad Constant. faith is? Hear it not out of new papers, but out of the books of God; hear I pray thee the things that are written of Christ, lest, under them those things that are not written should be preached. Open thy ears to those things that shall speak out of the books, lift up thy faith unto God, I will not defend any thing scandalous, nor any thing that is from without the gospel. CHAMP. This authority is like the rest; impertinent to your purpose, and rather against you then for you. For he that defendeth the authority of the church, and these things that are taught by her, defendeth nothing from without the books of God; but he that defendeth the contrary as you do, doth evidently impugn the gospel. S. Hill: willeth the Arrian Emperor to hear these things, that are written of Christ as this, he is one with his father, and the like, and then he should be far from believing that which is no where written, to wit, that he is a creature and inferior to his father. Your cause is most miserable and despicable, seeing it is forced to beg testimony of such extorted witnesses. And now I leave to the judicious reader, be he catholic or protestant to judge, whether the catholic positions of this first controversy set down in the Manual, be not both more clearly expressed, and more firmly and truly proved by scripture, than the protestant position set down by Mr. Pilkinton, which is the chief issue of our controversy and dispute. And further whether the positions set down in the Manual under the title of protestant positions, be not truly and justly ascribed unto them, and more directly pertaining to the controversy here discussed, than the others proposed by him. MANVALL. The second Controversy of traditions, Catholic position 1. The holy Apostles delivered by word of mouth, more things to be believed & observed by the church, then either they found written or wrote themselves. And these things are usually called traditions. PILK. You have gotten a wolf by the ear, when you fasten on traditions, if you let them go they carry with them a great part of your faith, if you hold them fast, you show you cannot prove your faith from scriptures. For you freely and plainly tell us what your church meaneth by traditions; not interpretation of that which is written, but addition and supplement of that which is not. For more things say you, are to be believed and observed then either the Apostles wrote or found written, and these are traditions. Let the reader mark this; for the question here betwixt us, is not of interpretation of scriptures, nor of rites and ceremonies, that have correspondence with them, which here he carrieth under the name of things to be observed, but of doctrines and matters of faith, which are things to be believed all which (saith he) were never written in the old testament, nor yet in the new. CHAMP. You put me in mind of the fable of the fox that having lost his own tail, would needs persuade his fellows to cut of theirs. So you being out of love with traditions, would persuade us to reject them also. But we are not so soon moved, we profess to believe divers things for traditions sake, and that by warrant of scripture. whereunto if you did give so much credit as you would be thought to do, you would also believe the same. And seeing you yield already the one half of the controversy, to wit traditions of things to be observed (for of these things you say there is no question between us) I will not despair to evict the other part, of things also to be believed, from you. PILK. Now this is a manifest untruth. For there is not any article of faith, which the Apostles found not in the scriptures of the prophets, nor which either the evangelists or themselves, did not consign unto us in their writings, which thing any man may find to be true, that will take pains to consider the articles of the Apostolic creed, one by one, which either have proof out of the old testament, or else the Apostles did not double all their doctrines out of the scriptures. Contrary to S. Paul's practice, acts. 26. 22. CHAMP. How manifest an untruth it is that the Apostles taught more than either they found written or wrote themselves, we shall see, in the process of this controversy. In the mean while I tell you that you affirm boldly but prove nothing. And why do you refer us to the Apostles creed for proof of your universal affirmation? Is nothing to be believed but that which is therein contained? what find you (I pray you) in the creed touching either the number or the nature of the Sacraments, of their efficacy or necessity, of original sin, of the fall of the Angels, with many more articles believed by all christians? And yet you confirm your proof far more absurdly, by supposing that the Apostles doubled (that is your word where you learned it I know not) all their doctrine out of scripture: which is the thing in question and therefore most absurdly brought for proof of the same. Again what necessity had the Apostles to double their doctrine (as you say) out of the scriptures? Had they not authority to preach any thing but what they found already in the scriptures? What Christian ever dreamt of such doctrine as you have delivered here? But this was S. Paul's practice you say. But you are either ignorantly or wilfully mistaken and that most grossly. For though S. Paul and the rest of the Apostles preached nothing contrary to the doctrine of the old testament, but chose showed how the ancient prophecies were fulfilled by our Saviour Christ (which S. Paul's auditors at Boerea finding, by conferinge his doctrine with the prophets, were much confirmed in their faith) yet is it no where said, that either he or the rest preached nothing but that they found written. Neither did this paradox ever enter into any man's head but Mr. Pilkinton's. PILK. Reade saith Ireneus diligently the Gospel, which the Apostles have given us, and read also diligently the prophets, and you shall find all the actions and passions of our lord, yea all his doctrine for to be preached, your proofs have as much truth as the Carthaginians faith. CHAMP. S. Ireneus saith no more but that there is a great and manifest conformity or agreement, between the Prophetts and Apostles preaching and doctrine, which as it is most true, so is it as much to your purpose as Paul's steeple is to Charing Cross. And whether my proofs or yours have more affinity with the Carthaginian faith, let the indifferent reader judge. MANVALL. Proof of the catholic position. 1. Having more things to write unto 2. 10. 12. 3. 10. 13. you, I would not by paper and Ink; For I hope I shall be with you, and speak mouth to mouth. PILK. These well conclude, that in this short Epistle S. john did not write all the points of faith, but that others of the Apostles did not write them he saith not a word. What loose reasoning is this? S. john did not write all in these Epistles, therefore the rest did not; For whatsoever is necessary unto salvation, 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. seeing I have by your confession proved out of the scripture, that this Apostle taught more things by word o● mouth than he wrote (which was my Position) it now belongeth to you, either to grant my position to be true, or to prove by scriptures that the rest of the Apostles wrote that which he taught by word of mouth, and omitted to write: For to say it only without proof, yea and such as you require of your adversary is to make your own affirmation à law and rule of your faith. Which though it appeareth well to be so, to yourself, yet will it not be admitted of others. And if I should here again press you with your own rule; non eredimus quia non ●eg●nous; you would find ei 〈…〉 your rule too strict, or your assertion here (that the other Apostles committed to writing, that which S. john taught by word and omitted to write) to be false. Choose whether part you will. You see therefore that my reasoning was not loose, but that your judgement thereon was light. Your reason following, is a miserable begging of that which is in question, and which you should prove, and is more easily and truly denied then affirmed. And for your better instruction I wish you to mark a little more diligently the words of the Apostle, and you will (as I suppose) perceive the argument to be of more force than you took it to be of, unless you dissembled. For he giving the reason why he would not use paper and ink, to make known unto them to whom he wrote those things which he had to teach them, he saith not, that it is for that either he himself or any of the other Apostles had or would set them down in writing, but because he hoped to be with them, and to speak unto them mouth to mouth. Manual Proof 2. And the rest I will dispose when I come. Where the Apostle evidently showeth, that he reserved something more to be ordaineth by word than he wrote. PILK. This is little to the purpose, for the Apostle doth not there speak of matters of faith, which is our question, but of such things as belong to order and comeliness, as it is plain by the word in greek which properly signifieth ordering of rites, and matters of decency, not teaching of doctrines and matters of faith, as appeareth 〈◊〉 the same epist: cap. 16. 1. concerning the gathering for the Saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. The In hunc locum. rest saith Aquinas, videlicet these things that are not of such danger will I dispose of when I come, how you shall observe them. But let it be granted that he meaneth doctrines and matters of faith, it is an inference without coherence, that because he writ them not then, therefore he did omit them for ever, or because he wrote them not, therefore the rest were silent and writ them not. When you consider of these consequences, than you may see that it is as far from your purpose as Gades is from Ganges. CHAMP. Your second answer to this testimony is effectually frustrated in my reply to your answer of the precedent testimony, and therefore needeth no further confutation. Your former answer (admitting it in your own sense) doth expressly grant traditions in matters to be observed, and practised in the church, which seeing they concern the use of the Sacraments, and other holy observations to be kept by all Christians established and ordained by the Apostles by the express commandment of our Saviour Christ. Matt. 28. 20. I would know of you some reason why you deny the authority of traditions in things to be believed, and grant them in matters to be done and observed, will you say that they are more fallible in the one, then in the other? To say this only without some ground or reason, will have small grace or force. Manual. Proof 3. The Apostles were commanded to teach all nations to observe all things which our Saviour had commanded. Which doubtless they fulfilled, but they were not commanded in any place to write all the same: neither doth it appear by any scripture that they did write all things which they taught men to believe and observe. This is a demonstration that they taught more than they wrote, if nothing be to believed but that which is contained in holy scripture. PILK. That Christ charged the Apostles to teach all nations whatsoever he commanded, which they fulfilled also, but he charged them no where to Iren. li. 3. cap. 1. write all; The fathers shall answer. We know not the dispensing of our salvation, from any where, then from them by whom the gospel came to us, which then they preached, and after by the will of God delivered unto us in the holy scriptures to be the foundation and pillar of our De consensu Euang. l. ●. cap. ult. saith. S. Aug. saith, that when the Evangelists and Apostles did write what God showed and said, we may not say that he writ it not; for whatsoever he would have us to read either concerning his words or works, he commandeth them as his own hands to write it. If what the Apostles preached after they writ as Ireneus saith; If what God commanded them so to do, as S. August. avoucheth. Then it plainly followeth, that they writ as much as they preached, and that not only by the allowance, but by the commandment of our Saviour Christ. For they writ nothing but that with which they Lib. 4. de Pon●. were inspired. Now inspiration is a commandment, as Bellarmine confesseth. CHAMP. Stand to your ground and do not flinch from it, you say nothing is to be believed but that which is written. If you will therefore that it should be believed that the Apostles wrote all things they taught, show it written, or acknowledge your ground to be false. The scripture testifieth that the Apostles were commanded to teach all things necessary to be observed, but that they were commanded to write the same, it no where appeareth. If therefore they did it, either they did it by Christ's commandment, and then you must needs confess something necessary to be believed more than is written; for it is no where written that he commanded them to write all things they taught. Or they did it without his commandment. And then it was not necessary they should do it, and consequently was it not necessary there should be any thing written at all in the new testament. And though they writ nothing but that was inspired into them, yea & that they were inspired to write, both which things you believe, though you find neither of them written, yet it no where appeareth, that they were inspired to write all they had by inspiration. You say the fathers shall answer for you; but I receive not their answer as sufficient, unless you will stand to the father's testimony in all other points. You promised scripture for all your positions, perform therefore your promise, or confess your position of believing nothing but that which is written, to be false. Notwithstanding because the testimony of the fathers is venerable with me, I will not refuse it if they say any thing for you. But neither of the fathers cited by you saith, that the Apostles wrote all they preached, which is our issue here. And as fo● the former to wit S. Ireneus, you have his plain meaning laid down unto you before in the beginning of our dispute, to wit, in the answer to your second Antithesis which you frame out of these self same words of S. Ireneus. And as for S. Aug. he saith not that Christ commanded to be written whatsoever he would have us to believe of him, or his works, but only whatsoever he would have us to read; Which is most true. For he could not will that we should read any thing but that which was written. But let us yield yet further unto you, and suppose these fathers to say as much for your purpose as you would have (which you see is far otherwise) yet would I ask, you where they had that doctrine? not from the scripture, for no such thing appeareth therein. If therefore you will admit of their doctrine, though not taken out of the scripture, why do you profess that nothing is to be believed, but that which is written and contained in the scripture. And thus you see yourself so involved with your doctrine, that you can find no way to escape some manifest absurdity. Manual. Proof 4. They (the Apostles) taught baptism given to infants to be good and lawful, or else the Anabaptists are not heretics for rebaptising them. PILK. Bell. li. d. ●ap. c. 8. The Baptism of infants may by good and necessary consequence be derived from the scriptures otherwise your friend Bellarmine hath brought chaffy arguments against the Anabaptists. The first is from the figure of the old testament, children were circumcised, therefore they ought to be baptised: this is so strong saith he that it cannot be eluded. The second is taken out of the thirde of john. Except a man be borne again of water and the holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whereunto may be added Christ's commandment Matt. 19 14. Suffer little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And in how many places doth S. Aug. prove from the holy scriptures, the necessity of Baptism against the Pelagians, who imagining children to be without original sin, thought it unnecessary; whereas he showeth out of john that without it original sin is not remitted, and therefore if it be needful certainly it is lawful. CHAMP. The arguments used by Bellarmine are not chaffy but substantially good, because they are taken from the scripture interpreted by the authority of the church, and the canonical practice thereof, received from the Apostles, which is sufficient to prove the Anabaptists to be heretic denying the Baptism of infants to be lawful. And seeing you confess the testimony of the 3. of S. john to be so effectual to prove the lawfulness of the Baptism of infants, you must likewise confess Calvin and all his followers to be heretics. For he denyeth the necessity of Baptism to salvation which is much more clearly proved out of that place, then is the Baptism of infants. And so whilst you would avoid one evil you fall into a worse. The same inconvenience followeth against you upon the argument of S. August. For if he prove rightly against the Pelagians that Baptism is necessary; he concludeth directly against your Master Calvin. Yea against the doctrine delivered in the first day's conference of Hampton Court. Read it and see whether I say not true. Manual Proof 6. They (the Apostles) taught the sunday to be solemnised and the jews Sabbath to be left without all solemnity. Though most strictly commanded by God to be solemnised as an everlasting Covenant. PILK. The observation of the sunday and alteration from the jewish Sabbath we find written in the scriptures. For john termeth it the Lord's day; not only for that it was consecrated to his public service, but for that he was the instituter Epist 119 cap. 13. Chrisost. serm. 3. de resurrect. and ordainer thereof, as S. Aug: speaketh. It was prefigured in the eight day wherein the jews used 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 accordingly they taught the church to observe it, not by voice only, but by writing 1. cor. 16. 2. Every first day of the week let every one of you put a side by himself, and though it were commanded by God to be observed as an everlasting covenant, yet who is so meanly skilled in the Hebrew, that knoweth not Gnolam, sometimes to signify eternity, sometimes a definite time, as to the jubilee, Exad▪ 21▪ 6▪ than his master will bring him unto the judges, and set him to the door, or the post, and his master shall boar his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him for ever, and as the passover was termed Exo: 12. 14. an everlasting ordinance, which yet was but to continue till the fullness of tyme. So the Sabbath is termed an everlasting covenant, which yet for the day was only under the state of the old testament. CHAMP. Here you exceed yourself in impertinency and wilful obstinacy. If I should have brought out of the scriptures for traditions such proofs as you do to overthrow them, you would make sport thereat, and worthily, saying they were not only lose arguing, but very silly Sophistry, S. john termeth one day, the Lord's day, ergo say you the scripture testifieth the abrogation of the jews Sabbath, and establishment of the sunday, and that fully, for of full proof and testimony we here dispute. Again the Apostle willed the Corrinthians every first day of the week to lay a side by themselves etc. Ergo say you the Apostle did not only teach by voice, but by writing also the observation of the christians sunday instead of the jewish Sabbath. These are your best and strongest arguments in this matter, which if you truly think to be fully sufficient of themselves, to prove that you desire; with what face or conscience can you reject the proofs of express scripture and clear instances brought for the catholic position, as not sufficient to prove the same? Manual Proof 6. They delivered and taught the creed by word of mouth and not in writing, which from their time till now hath continued in the church by tradition only. PILK. The creed we confess the Apostles taught, and find every parcel and portion thereof in their writings, which if you deny we can quickly make good. S. Aug. telleth us so much. Lib. ad Catech. de Simbolo. These words which you have heard (he speaketh of the Simboll) are scattered in the holy scriptures; from them collected and reduced into one, to help the memory of dull men. But here you delude your reader again with a trifling Homonomie of this word creed. For if thereby you mean words and syllables, than it is true, that the Apostles use not in their writings, some words expressed in the creed, neither is it necessary to believe that they wrote the words thereof, and then it is not to the purpose to prove your position, which is of things to be believed, and not of words. But if by the creed you understand the matter of it, and things to be believed, than it is untrue that the Apostles writ it not, and all things contained therein; which things have continued in our church as the object of our faith, not for tradition only, as you ignorantly say, but because they are recorded in the holy scripture. CHAMP. Show me then in their writings, I mean the Apostles, the dissension of our Saviour into hell; and the catholic church, which Luther loved so little, that he turned it the christian church. Though we believe not only the parcels of the creed, but the whole creed together. And that the Apostles made it, which is no where expressed in scripture. And if I say ignorantly that the creed as it is composed by the Apostles and therefore received and believed of all christians in all ages, hath continued in the church until this day by tradition only; show it me written in the scriptures, and I will confess mine ignorance, and correct my words. But seeing you cannot perform that, I tell you, that you impudently affirm that it hath other continuance then by tradition, opposing tradition to the canonical scripture only. Manual. Proof 7. They taught Baptism administered by heretics to be good; and therefore S. Aug. speaking thereof saith. Many things which Aug li 2. cont. Donat. c. 7. are not found in the Apostles writings nor in the latter counsels, yet because they are observed by the whole church, are believed to be delivered and recommended by none but by them. Again he saith. There are many things which the whole church doth hold, and therefore are well believed to be commanded by the Apostles, howbeit they be not found written. PILK. That Baptism ministered by heretics, was preached by the Apostles, but not written, hath as much truth as the rest. For whereas Cyprian hath taught, that Baptism of heretics was not good, and therefore to be reiterated, S. Aug. crosseth him and proveth the contrary out of the gospel, and out of the words of the Apostle Ephe. 4. And this is so frequent with that father, that it maketh me think you have not read him of that argument, but gleaned out of others that might serve your turn. So palpably are you deceived to think that S. August: conceived this to be an unwritten tradition without ground of scripture, for thus he writeth. (That I may not seem to prove it by humane arguments, I will bring forth certain documents out of the scripture). And whereas Cyprian had taught, that for proof of this we must have recourse unto the fountain of Apostolical tradition, that is the scriptures, S. Aug: approveth it, and saith that the Apostles delivered, that there is one God, one Christ, one baptism, and therefore baptism of heretics is firm, and not to be repeated. When then he saith of this as of other things, that they are not found in the Apostles writings, nor in latter counsels etc. And there be many things which the whole church doth hold, and therefore are well believed to be commended by the Apostles, howbeit they be not found written. Which words are in his 2. book contra Donatistas' I cited the same place you do if you could see it, though the printer added the other unto it. cap. 7. and not lib. 5. cap. 27. as you cited them. His meaning is they are not written in so many words, but the grounds of them are laid in the scriptures and thence necessarily they may be concluded. This is plain out of Aug. for having uttered these words urged by you, when he draweth to an end of this disputation, he thus concludeth. It might suffice that our reasons being so often repeated and diversely debated and handled in disputing, and the documents of holy scripture being added, and so many testimonies of Cyprian concurring. By this time I think the weaker sort of men understand, that the baptism of Christ cannot be violated, by the perverseness of the party that giveth or receiveth it. Lo how be bringeth documents out of scripture, to prove that the perverseness of heretics, perverteth not the baptism of Christ, and therefore baptism ministered by heretics is good. CHAMP. Is it be written by the Apostles that the Baptism of heretics is sufficient, and not to be reiterated, why do not you show the place and confound your adversary? But you had rather impudently affirm an untruth, than ingeniously acknowledge a clear verity. As though if it had been so clearly & fully taught in holy scripture, as you are bound to show it, S. Cyprian who had a much judgement to discern it as you at least, and no less good will to acknowledge it, nor yet less industry and diligence to seek it, could not he have esped it? And howsoever here you wilfully wrangle out of S. Aug: as though he acknowledged not the Baptism of heretics by tradition, yet two pages after, you in express words confess, that he saith: neither baptism of infants, nor by heretics are written in scripture. And though you interpret him both here and there, to mean that they are not found written in so many words, but that the grounds notwithstanding from whence they may be necessarily concluded are laid in the scriptures; yet is this your gloss merely voluntary, clearly against S. August: meaning and common sense. Or i● not, why do not you frame some argument which by necessary consequence may conclude out of the grounds laid in scripture, abstracting from the authority of the church and tradition, either of these two articles? But it is more easy for you to affirm twenty positions, then to prove one. Manual catholic position. 2. The Catholic church doth, and aught to believe those things which the Apostles delivered by word of mouth without writing, in the same degree of faith with those that are written. PILK. For answer unto this, let the judicious reader Bell. lib. 4 de verbo. cap. 11, respon ad Ireneum. The heretics abusing the authority of traditions proveth their authority, as it doth also that of the scriptures which they likewise abuse. observe that it is the usual doctrine of Papists to teach, that all points of Christian belief, which are necessary for all men, were publicly preached by the Apostles to all men and recorded in the register of holy scripture. But besides these there were diverse things committed to prelates and priests that were more perfect men, which they taught them a part, according to that which S. Paul saith, we speak wisdom among them that are perfect. And these be their traditions which they would have equally credited with the scriptures. Now this was the very doctrine of the ancient heretics, Valentinians, Cerintheans, Marcionists etc. For abusing the scripture and advancing traditions grounded on the same foundation, as the fathers tell us. And these be things which the protestants deny to be equal with the scriptures, for they grant that the Apostles in the beginning of their embassage, write not the whole doctrine which they preached, but delivered part by word of mouth, and part by writing; howbeit they consigned the Canon of the scripture, and writ that formerly they had delivered as Ireneus and August. do teach. This being the true state of the question, if the papists mean not these former secret matters that Bellarmine mentioneth and are not written, his position is, de non ente. For that there is nothing or faith now, which the Apostles did not after they preached either find or leave in writing unto the church, and these being delivered at first, partly by lively voice, partly by letters, were to be embraced with like acceptance and credit. But if he mean these secret doctrines delivered a part, and only by word, never by them written, than we deny that the Apostles left any such thing equally to be credited, with the holy scriptures, neither the allegations infer any such matter. CHAMP. You have here multiplied a great heap of unnecessary words, making the thing obscure, which of itself is clear enough. The question is not now (as you say) whether the Apostles taught not more by word of mouth (whether in secret or in public, that importeth not) that, having been disputed before, and proved against you. But of what authority the things delivered only by word of mouth are, of which question you have the belief of the catholic church set down directly in the position of the Manual, and the proof thereof out of express scripture, whereunto let us hear your answer. Manual. Proof 1. Therefore brethren stand and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether it be by word or by our. Epistle S. Basill saith I account it Apostolic to continue 2. Thes. 2. 15. Basil de Spiritu S. cap. 29. Fulke 2. Thes. 2. Sect. 17. firmly in unwritten traditions, and allegeth this place of S. Paul S. Chrisost cited by fulke himself saith this. Hereof it is manifest that they (the Apostles) delivered not all by Epistles: but many things without letters, and the one is of as great credit as the other. Therefore we think the traditions of the church to be worthy of credit, it is tradition, inquire no more. PILK. To your first testimony, if I should answer that S. Paul meaneth not he delivered some things by writing, somethings by word only, but the very same by both, first preaching it, and after writing, it would trouble you to prove the contrary. For the disiunctive (whether) argueth not diversity of things delivered, but diverse ways of delivering the same, as in other places Rom. 14. 8. whether we live or whether we die, we are the lords: it followeth not dying we are one, and living we are another 1. Cor. 5. 11. whether I or they, so we preach, and therefore Paul preached one gospel, the Apostles another. CHAMP. You do wisely not to stand much upon your new invention, lest to your own companions you might become ridiculous, neither though you should stand there upon, should it put me to much trouble to prove the contrary: unless to establish your novelty you would think to invert the common and usual manner of speaking and understanding of all men. For the disiunctive (whether) doth always signify the diversity of the thing joined with it, as is manifest even in your examples, whether we live or dye; whether I or they: but so as one and the same thing is affirmed of them both, & so it is in our testimony as also in these sayings following; retain the goods you have received whether in money or merchandise. Keep the present I sent you, whether in jewels or in play With five thousand more. And it is a ridiculous conceit to think, that the Apostle commended unto his disciple the same things both written and preached: in which sense his saying should be no more disiunctive but copulative in this manner, hold those things which you have learned both by word and Epistle: Which is not to interprett the Apostle, but manifestly to corrupt him. seeing therefore you dare not stand upon this interpretation, let us hear your avowed answer. PILK. But I add that if one understand these things of divers points of Christian religion, which S. Paul delivered unto the Thessalon●ans and writ them not: it will not follow, that other Apostles writ them not, and still your thesis is de non ente this testimony is to no purpose, sith what point of doctrine Paul delivered by voice, we find recorded in the scriptures. CHAMP. It followeth right well that the other Apostles writ not these thing which S. Paul delivered only by word. if your rule be true, non credimus quia non ●egimios For it is no where written that they wrote those things; therefore according to your doctrine, not to be believed. Again I having proved by express scripture interpreted by the fathers, that the Apostle taught something more than he wrote, and commanded it to be believed equally with his writing (which is the position of the Manual) it behooveth you that maintain the contrary, to prove it by express scripture, or else to confess that the catholic doctrine hath better and more firm ground in the scripture than Protestantisme. You prove bravely my thesis to be de non en●e, and the proof thereof to be to no purpose, by your ordinary miserable, absurd, and ridiculous begging of that which is in question, & supposing that for true and granted, which is expressly denied But to such shameful shifts is falsity worthily driven. Let us see the rest of your answer if it be any better. PILK. The testimony cited out of Basill, is wrongfully fathered on that worthy-Bishoppe, and contradicteth that which he writeth in other places, and are acknowledged on both sides to be his, and namely his sermon de fide, where he saith, that it is a manifest desection from faith, to bring in any thing that is not written. Besides in this very chapter mentioned Epist 44. & 67. by you, he speaks of Meletus, as a rare man that lived an died before his time, as appeareth by diverse of his Epistles. And if we credit Baronius he died after Basill. For Basill died. 378. and Meletus 381. CHAMP. Here indeed you go roundly to work, and like yourself, for not knowing how to answer the authority, you deny the author; for two weighty reasons I wisse. The first is a pretence of a contradiction, which is as much a contradiction, as to affirm Mr. Pilkinton to be a minister, and a doctor. For he affirming it to be Apostolic, to continue firmly in unwritten traditions: saith it is infidelity to add any thing to the scriptures that is contrary unto them. The second is a weak conjecture, that he lived after one Meletus, who notwithstanding is said to die after him. PILK. Chrisostome is the only man that seemeth to favour your assertion, but truly understood he helpeth it nothing. For he speaketh not of traditions that are not written at all, but of such as are not written in so many words. And it is usual with the fathers, to call them unwritten traditions, which are not verbatim set down in the scriptures, and yet have a true ground in them, as formerly I showed out of S. Aug. who saith that neither baptising of infants, nor baptising by heretics, are written in the scripture, and yet proveth both out of them. This is the answer of that worthy divine D. Fulke. CHAMP. Both you and your worthy divine D. Fulke, corrupt S. Chrisost: who saith it is manifest by the testimony of the Apostle, that they delivered not all by Epistles, but many things without letters, mark these words without letters, and see whether they will stand with your gloss. You here confess against yourself, that S: Aug: saith, neither baptism of infants, nor by heretics is written; and therefore consequently believed by tradition. But you say he nevertheless proveth both by scriptures. He showeth indeed by scriptures, that they are not contrary to scriptures; but that they are either commanded or warranted by scriptures he showed not; but recurreth to tradition and the authority of the church. So that the confirmation of your gloss upon S. Chrisostome out of S. Aug: is as voluntary as the gloss itself. PILK. This is the answer of that worthy diunine Dr. Fulke to the objection of the Rhemists cited not by him, but by them out of S. Chrisostome; which I wonder how you impute to him, except you would have your reader to conceive that he favoureth your opinion, which he directly impugneth in that place. CHAMP. I know that amongst other perversities of that affected wrangler Fulke, this is one, which for his name, hath not the more, but much less probability, because he every where impugneth the manifest truth. Nor did I impute it to him for the end you say, for I desire not his favour in the behalf of the catholic truth, being a perverse enemy thereof; but for this reason, that the protestant reader should not suspect the place to be cited by me more favourably than it was in itself. Manual Proof 2. O Timothy keep the depositum, that is that which is committed to thy trust, not certes by writing. For little or nothing written of the new testament was known to Timothy then. See a large discourse hereupon in Vincentius Lirinensis. PILK. This is nothing to the purpose. For whether 1. Tim. 6. 20. that which was commited to Timothy's trust, be understood his flock as Lyra conceiveth it, or those gifts which were bestowed upon him for the edifying of the people, as Aquinas judgeth; it is far from your inference, that unwritten traditions are of equal credit with the scriptures. Vincentius favoureth not your traditions at all; For that which was committed to Timothy, is in his opinion the talon of catholic faith, whereof, he was not the author, but the keeper, not an maintainer, but a follower; not a leader but one that is led. Lo this is the catholic faith contained in the scriptures, not traditions of other doctrine beside them or without them. PILK. The depositum which S. Paul speaketh of, is the whole christian doctrine delivered by the Apostles to their disciples to keep, and to deliver to others as is manifest, by the words following in the same text. O Timothy (saith he) keep the depositum, avoiding the profane novelties of voices and oppositions of falsely called knowledge. Very little of which doctrine being then written, it must necessarily be understood of tradition. And this is Vincentius Lirinensis doctrine; which you cannott deny, though you would obscure it a little in words, saying the depositum is the catholic faith; where if you mean, the things believed▪ you say the same that I say, if you mean the act or habit of faith, you speak against common sense. For that is not the depositum commited to Timothy, by S. Paul, but the virtue of faith, given him by God, neither is it formally opposed to the profane novelties to be avoided by him; but the virtue or act whereby we assent unto the articles of faith and verities proposed unto us. Manual Proof 3. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom nor the church of God. Where S. Paul allegeth the custom of the church, as a sufficient disproof of any practice: why not therefore for the proof of any. PILK. Our question is of doctrines of faith, to be believed and received of all, not of rites and ceremonies concerning external order of the church, whereof the Apostle treateth in that 1. Cor. 11. 16. place. This therefore is nothing to the purpose, nor touching our question at all: and yet S. Paul allegeth not only custom, but giveth a reason of it in the words going before; which you seldom do satisfy your proselytes, but persuade them to believe and hang faith upon your credit, as if it were impossible you should be deceived. CHAMP. Our question is as well of manners or things to be observed, as of faith, and so is the former Catholic position of the Manual conceived, and set down, neither is the authority of traditions either more fallible, or less necessary in the one then in the other. Or if you think the contrary, give us some sufficient reason or proof thereof, besides your own bare assertion. Which if you cannot seeing you are constrained by the evidence of scripture, to admit the authority of tradition in the one, you cannott without wilful obstinacy reject it in the other. And though S. Paul giveth some reasons of his doctrine in that place, yet he recurreth to the custom of the church, as to the most effectual and forcible argument against those that are obstinate and contentious as you are. Manual Proof 4. The things thou hast heard of me by many 2. ad Tim. 2. 2. witnesses these commend to the faithful men which shall be fit to teach others also. Lo no word here of writing, but of hearing and teaching by word of mouth. Now having proved by scripture itself & evident instances, that many things are to be believed, that are not directly contained in scripture, it appeareth a senseless thing to demand proof of every thing we believe, out of scriptures. PILK. Whereas Paul chargeth Timothy to commend those things to faithful witnesses, which he had learned of him, where there is no mention of writing but teaching by word, I would gladly demand of this papist, if he would with patience endure any of us thus wildly reasoning. These things were taught and heard, and commended to faithful witnesses, therefore not written. The Bereans heard S. Paul teach, but the same things they found in the scriptures. Thus Aquinas interpreteth this place, these things which thou hast heard of me and of Christ, I say not of one only, but confirmed by many witnesses vid. the Law and the Prophetts. So things were not only taught by word, but confirmed by the doctrine of the old testament. CHAMP. This reasoning is not wild but firm and good, especially according to your grounds, who teach that nothing is to be believed that is not written. For seeing it is no where written that these things which S. Paul taught and commended to Timothy to teach to others were committed to writing, you cannot believe that they were written, but by contradicting your own rule, non credimu● quia non legimus. Again S. Paul exhorting Timothy to teach others, and not to write unto them these things which he had heard of him, not read out of his writings, doth manifestly show, that not only things writter●, but also things spoken (yea these principally) are to be believed. And therefore this arguing is not wild, but that your wits were one wooll-gatheringe, when you wrote this and saw not the force of the argument, unless peradventure you would be politic in dissembling the force thereof, because you could not avoid it. And though S. Paul confirmed much of his doctrine by the authority of the old testament, yet that he taught nothing more, then that which was written before, I suppose you will not dare to say. And if you think the commentary of S. Thomas here alleged by you to be true, why do you condemn the believing of things not written, seeing you find not his comment written in all the whole Bible. Or if you condemn it not in him▪ why should you condemn it in us, or abhor it in yourself? And thus you see you are forced which way soever you turn yourself, to admit of unwritten doctrine for good and canonical, when you have spited all your can against it. PILK. Now that you may know that protestants have both a shield to defend themselves, and a sword to wound their adversaries, hear their positions with the confirmation thereof. CHAMP. If your sword be no sharper, than your shield is strong, it will no more wound your adversaries, than the other hath kept your doctrine whole. Which hath been so often pierced, as had your shoulders received so many but dry blows, as your doctrine hath done overthrows, they would give you but small rest till you had taken some sovereign Elixir to cure them. And why do you not put down the protestants positions set down in the Manual? If you had disliked them, you should have told us why; if you did not dislike them, they had been more easily set down in their own words, then in others. Well I will here set them down that the reader may see them in their own shape. Manual protestant position 1. The holy Apostles delivered not by word of mouth more things to be believed and observed by the church, than they either found written or wrote themselves. And therefore are there no traditions to be holden or believed. Position 2. The catholic church ought not to believe those things which the Apostles delivered only by word of mouth without writing in the same degree of faith, with those which are written. Now let us hear yours. PILK. ANTITHESIS. 1. The Apostles delivered not by word of mouth, more things to be believed, or observed by the church as necessary to salvation, than they wrote themselves or found written. Proof. 1. Acts. 26. 22. having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to great and small, saying none other things, than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come. Argument. They that preached no other things then that which is in Moses and the prophets, delivered no more by word of mouth than is written (than was written you should have said) but the Apostles did so. Ergo. CHAMP. Your argument if it did prove any thing would conclude that the Apostles taught nothing more than which was written in Moses and the prophets; which if it be true, what necessity or profit is there of the gospels and the rest of the books of the new testament? Whilst therefore you impugn traditions, you overthrow the whole new testament. S. Paul therefore taught nothing contrary to the law and prophets, yea those things which he preached to the jews of our Saviour Christ, he proved to be conformable to their own prophets. Which kind of proof to the gentills would have been of small moment, and therefore you see your argument not to be effectual nor to conclude universally. Again why do you use the like manner of reasoning which you reprehended in me a little before, concluding that because S. Paul at one time, or in one audience preached nothing without the law, and prophets; that therefore neither he or any other times nor any other of the Apostles▪ did preach any thing more than that which is contained in them? Which kind of argument though I may justly maintain against you, as conformable to your own principles, denying traditions and believing nothing but that which is written, yet are you ridiculous to use it against me, who profess to believe many things not written. And much more ridiculous you are to use it for the impugning of traditions, assuming that for the ground of your proof, which you know is denied you, and which ought first to be proved. Further where do you find in all the prophets or Moses, the vision whereof S. Paul maketh a recital in the chapter cited by you? Certainly no where. And yet this he preached with much vehemency in an assembly of great personages, and himself thought it worthy of belief. Something therefore you see he preached more than that which was contained in Moses and the prophets. And this I give you for an example only, and not as the sole thing wherein instance may be made. PILK. Proof 2. 2. Tim. 3. 16. From a child thou haste known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ jesus. Argument. The Apostles delivered no more by word nor writing but that which maketh a man wise to salvation. But all this written. CHAMP. If you dare stand to this argument, I will easily prove you to be more a jew then a christian by this syllogism. He that holdeth all that which is able to make a man wise to salvation (so that no other thing is necessary) to be written in the old testament is more a jew then a Christian. But Mr. Pilkinton holdeth this. Ergo. The minor which only needeth proof I show thus. Master Pilkinton holdeth the scripture which S. Timothy knew from a child to be able to make a man wise to salvation. But this was only the old testament. Ergo. By that time that you shall have quit yourself of this argument, you will I suppose find your own not to deserve the name of an argument, nor yet of a witty Sophism. For to believe one only God, is able to make a man wise to salvation, because it maketh him wise in some thing necessary to salvation, as no man of common sense will deny. And yet that alone is not sufficient to salvation, as I think you yourself will confess. PILK. Proof 3. Io. 20. 31. These are written that ye might believe that jesus is the son of God, and believing you might have life through his name. Argument. They that writ all things, whereby we might come to eternal life, wrote all things necessary unto salvation, and more they preached not: But the Apostles did so. CHAMP. This argument is all most as wicked as the precedent. For if it conclude any thing, it proveth the Apostles to have preached nothing but S. john's gospel. And consequently all the rest of the new testament, either to be Apocryphas, or at least not to be any way necessary to salvation. This man thou seest (judicious reader) to be as little a friend to scripture as to traditions, seeing to impugn the one, he destroyeth the other. Is this your sword Mr. Minister wherewith you would pierce and wound your adversary? no wise man I think but will say it was made to cut your own throat with, rather than to draw one drop of blood of your adversary. But you will bring 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 their single sayings. But let us take them as they are. PILK. Proof 4. We know not the disposition of our salvation, Iren. lib. 3. cap. 1. from any other then from them, by whom the gospel came to us, which first they preached, and after by the will of God delivered it unto us in the holy scriptures, to be the foundation and pillar of our faith. CHAMP. This authority hath been once or twice satisfied before, and it saith not; they wrote all they preached; but the same doctrine which they preached, they writ, and not a divers or contrary, as some heretics fabulously taught, against whom S. Ireneus there writeth; and this is the true meaning of that place, as any one that looketh thereon will easily see. PILK. Proof 5. These things are chosen to be written, Aug. trac. 49. in Io. which are sufficient for the salvation of the believers. CHAMP. This is true and not against the catholic doctrine of traditions. For he that believeth that which is written, believeth sufficient for his salvation, if he have not repugnancy in his mind not to believe any more. PILK. Proof. It is a manifest defection from faith, and the crime of pride, either for to refuse any thing of those that are written, or to bring in that which is not written, as our Saviour jesus Christ saith, my sheep hear my voice. CHAMP. It is an equal crimen to deny that which is written, and to bring in any thing not written, contrary to that which is written, as the Arrians did who made Christ to be a creature, different in substance from his father, contrary to that which is written in many places. And this is S. Basil's plain doctrine, which is nothing for your purpose, nor against me. PILK. ANTITHESIS 2. The catholic church ought not to believe these traditions which the papists say the Apostles delivered by word of mouth only, in the same degree of faith with these things that are written. Proof 1. Esay 8. 20. To the law and the testaments, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Argument. That which speaketh not according to the law and testimony hath no truth, and is not to be credited as the law: But papists traditions are so. CHAMP. The answer to your argument shall be to return it upon you in this manner. That which speaketh according to the law and testimony is true, and is to be credited as the law itself. But such are catholic traditions. Ergo. PILK. Proof. Gall. 1. 8. 9 But though we or an Angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, then that which we have preached, let him be accursed: as we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than you have received, let him be accursed. Argument. That which is not the same but another, besides that which Paul preached, is not to be credited but accursed. But popish traditions are so. CHAMP. I must needs say that the catholic doctrine should be very weak indeed▪ if it should be overthrown with such lame and limping arguments, that have not so much as one good leg to stand upon. And what shall we say then of the protestants doctrine, that is supported by such bean-strawe pillars? Your mayor were it true, would conclude all the Apostles writings besisides S. Paul's to be accursed, at jest in all such thinger as are not found in S. Paul: Your minor may as easily be affirmed of S. john's Gospel or any other book of the bible. So that your conclusion is like to be very protestantical. See therefore how strongly you have proved your protestant position, or antithesis, and consequently how deeply you have wounded your adversary. Ever so blind may the enemies of gods church be, to impugn it in this manner, so long as they do impugn it. PILK. Proof. 2. Petri. 1. 18. 19 And this voice which came from heaven, we heard when we were with him in the holy Mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy, whereunto you do well that you take heed as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the daystar arise in your hearts. Argument. That which is more firm and sure, than revelation from heaven, not then written, is more to be credited then any thing now not written: but the scriptures are such. CHAMP. Do you think that the writing of any revelation maketh it more firm? or that it receiveth any increase of authority thereby? you seem to be of this opinion, but it is most absurd to think. For the authority all revelations have, is from God almighty, and not from the writing of them in paper or parchment. And therefore the prophecy S. Peter speaketh of (whether it were written or unwritten, for he saith not it was written, but rather the contrary, terming it a prophetical speech or sermon) is said by him to be more firm than the testimony received in the holy mount, because that had been anciently promulgated, credited and received; whereas this had never yet been preached or proposed to be believed; and therefore no marvel though that were esteemed more firm than this hitherto had been; not because this had not been written, but because it had not been preached or published at all till that tyme. PILK Proof. john. 5. 36. 37. 38. 39 But I have greater witness than that of john, for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. And the Father himself which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me; Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. And ye have not his word abiding● in you, for whom he sent, him ye believe not. Search the scriptures for in them ye have eternal life, and they are they, which testify of me. Argument. That which is greater than the testimony of john is more to be credited, then an●e thing not written: But the scriptures are greater than the testimony of john. CHAMP. The farther you go the more foolish and impertinent still you are; upon what ground do you assume in your minor? But the holy scriptures are greater than ●he testimony of john? not out of the texts of of scripture cited by you: for they say no such thing. They say that, indeed, of the works of Christ, and of his father's testimony, which notwithstanding were no where then written; but of the scripture they say no such thing. And therefore your argument is as fitly founded upon these text▪ of scripture as those are which Pruritanu▪ set down in the name of your fellows, the author of which pamplett had he seen your book, might have increased his not a little out of it. As with this for example. I have greater witness than john▪ ●r●● there are no traditions; or traditions are not to be believed equally with scriptures. For amongst all his I know not whether there be one more impertinent than this. But you will think to make some force out of the last sentence: search the scriptures etc. but with as much probability as out of the other. For were it as you read: For in them ye have eternal life, and not: For in them you think to have eternal life Which is the true text▪ yet have you thence no other thing then that the old testament, (for of that only our Saviour speaketh) doth testify of him. Which how it either proveth your Antithesis, or improveth my position, judge you by this consequence. The old testament in which the jews thought to have eternal life beareth witness of our Saviour Christ; Ergo traditions are not of equal authority with scripture. Do doctors in Oxeforde use to make such consequences? if they do I dare say it is the pain of sin and heresy, for the which they are deprived of the very light of natural reason and discourse. PILK. Proof. Whatsoever is confirmed by the authority of Aug. epist. 112▪ divine scriptures which in the church are called canonical, is without all doubt to be believed. But you may believe or not believe other witnesses or testimonies (which men persuade you to believe) as much as they deserve or not deserve to be credited by the force ye find in them. CHAMP. If you dare stand to this authority, I will evidently prove against you, that you are to believe purgatory, prayers for the dead, the guard of Angels, and diverse other things which you condemn in the catholics. For these things are evidently confirmed in those scriptures which the church in S. August▪ time did call canonical as he witnesseth. Further the books received by yourself for canonical, do confirm the authority of traditions, as is plain out of the second Epistle to the Thessalo: cited before. Again it is not only men, but god's church, and consequently God himself by her▪ that persuadeth us to believe traditions, and therefore this your argument is as foolish as the rest. PILK. Proof. Abraham when he was desired to send Lazarus, answered, they have Moses and the prophets, if they will not believe them, neither will they hear the dead raised up. Christ bringeth him speaking in a parable to show that he would have more faith given to the scriptures, then if the dead should revive: Moreover Paul (and when I mention Paul I mean Christ for he knew his mind) preferreth scriptures before Angels that descend, and that in great congruity; For an Angel though very great, yet are they servants and ministers, but all scriptures came unto us not from servants, but from God, Lord of all. Chrisostome in cap. 1. ad Gallatas. CHAMP. There is no end of your impertinencies and absurd parologismes. Christ would have more faith given to the scriptures then if the dead should revive say you. Ergo what? Ergo Mr. Pilkinton knoweth not what he saith. Certainly this is the best consequence any man can make of this testimony, as it is cited by him. Again S. Paul yea our Saviour Christ prefer scriptures before angels, that should teach any thing, against that which the Apostles had taught, say you, because the angels are ministers, but the scriptures came to us from God the Lord of all. Ergo traditions are not to be believed equally with scriptures. A learned consequence I wisse, and like the rest of your doctrine, having as much truth and connexion in it as hath this. God is in heaven. Ergo Mr. Pilkinton is a Roman Catholic. Now look back I pray thee judicious reader upon the catholic positions set down in the Manual, with the proofs thereof out of the scriptures, and compare them with Mr. pilkinton's Antitheses, and the proofs thereof, and pass thy impartial judgement on them, whether of them have better ground in holy scripture. Thus far I have gone with your Parallel Mr. Pilkinton examining the weight and truth thereof and in a few leaves have found so many absurdities falsities and impertinencies, that your whole book seemeth to me to be no other thing then a deformed lump or mass of moulding passed, which maketh not any resistance, but is without all difficulty, cut in pieces, pierced, or thrust through, even with every wooden knife, or other instrument. For if I had no more difficulty to copy and transcribe▪ your words, out of your book into my paper that they might go to the print with my reply, than I had to confute them, you should not have been so many days without your answer. I go no further with you in discussing your doctrine, because I will not bestow good hours in such unnecessary and unprofitable labour, learning of yourself in the last page of your book, that as to know the sea water to be salt it is not necessary to drink up the whole sea, or to know an earthen statue guilded over, not to be gold, it is sufficient to scrape of one piece only of the guilding. So for any man to discover the absurdity, and impertinency of your book, it is not necessary he should go through it wholly, but it abundantly sufficeth to have examined one part thereof only. I would not let it go wholly without refutation, lest you should have interpreted my silence to have proceeded from the difficulty there had been to confute your doctrine; and lest your less skilful reader might think you had said something to the purpose, in answer of the catholic doctrine or proof of your own. I would not go any further in mine answer, for the reason already set down out of your own words. If you please to lay down your wilfulness to defend your errors, and with some in difference to consider the sincerity of the catholic truth, I make no doubt but by this little which hath been said, in reply to your answer, you will see the vanity of your doctrine delivered in this book of yours. But if you persist in your obstinate will, not to give ear to the truth, you may well be vanquished and overcome (as S. Hierome saith) but you will never be persuaded. Dialogo cont. Luc. Neither is my pains herein bestowed so much out of hope to proffitt you, whom obstinacy may have made incurable as to help others that embrace error and falsity, rather out of ignorance than malice or obstinacy. FINIS. The Errata. Pag. 3. line 1. to Mr. Abbat, for, three whole years I appealed, read, three whole years since I appealed. pag. 5. l. 11. perferring, preferring. p. 15. l. 6. This in, This is. pag. 20. l. 30. is he, he is. pag. 41. l. 29. depise, despise. If there be any other, they are so small that none in reading, but can correct them. APPROBATIONES. LIbrum D. Antoniuses Champnei Doctoris Sorbonici inscriptum, Maister Pilkinton's Parallela Disparalleld legi, in quo nihil invenio quod contra sanctam fidem Catholicam Romanam, aut bonos mores sit. Quare cum hominis haeretici ineptias apertè detegat, & auctoritatem Ecclesiae Catholicae Romanae in definiendis fidei Controversijs propugnet, utiliter praelo committi posse censeo. Audomari 23. Decemb. 1619. joannes Floidus Societatis jesus S. T. Professor. VIso hoc testimonio Reverendi Patris Ioannis Floidi societatis jesus S. Theolog. Professoris qui Anglicum hunc libellum visitavit prout superius habetur, Reverendiss. Dom. Episcopus Audomarens. permittit ut typis mandetur. Datum Audomari, Anno millesimo sexcentesimo decimo nono, mensis Decembris die vigesima octava. D● mandato Reverendiss. Dom. Praefati, A. Deleau Secret, Faults escaped in the text. IN the first line of the Epistle read, four years 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. things. p. 47. l. 13. after counsels add which. p. 55. l. 22. r. redundant. p. 66. l. 5. after give add an. p. 74. l. 19 after that, add which he affirmeth himself. p. 90. l. 31. after velvet, 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 unskilful. p. 127. l. 19 r. promeretur. p. 132. l. 7. after unless, add therefore. p. 134. l. 11. r. For he saith not my sheep read. p. 146. l. 16. r. dwell. p. 147. l. 30. r. l and the father are one, doth not fully prove the. p. 156. l. 2. For like as read little. p. 174 l. 1. r. your. p. 185. l. 34. r. ordained. p. 205. l. 14. r. do to. Ibid. l. 15. r. hange their. 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 margin. Page 80. against these words look back, wanteth this mark † pag. 112. in the midst of the page wanteth, de utilitate ●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.