by scripture to acknowledge I say this position to be false which notwithstandinge is one mayne grounde of all theire religion PILK When a souldier that killed Marius came to cutt of his head he drewe out his sworde and told him hie est gladius quem ipse fecisti for Marius formerlie had been a cutter The groundes that you haue layde cutt the throate of your faith but raseth not the skinne of the protestants For I haue shewed before that scriptures doe sufficiently prooue themselues to be the worde of God and these and these bookes to be such whereon it followeth your conuincinge demonstration that protestants beleeue nothinge att all to be a windy friuoulous discourse whereas such conclusions may be drawne from your principles as will prooue vulnera in capite canis you will not easilie licke them hole CHAMP Remoue the sworde first from your owne throate whiâ—hâ—â— presseth to harde and after may you atteÌ„pt to pietie your aduersarie with it You haue hitherto made a 〈…〉 able shewe of anie proofe but of your owne in reâ—lible ignorance and impertinencie ioyned with wilfull stande to deâ—eâ—â—e your reader If you defend your proâ—estaâ—â—s no better then hitherto you â—â—â—ue they will be euidentlie concluded to belieue nothinge att all by the argument proposed which 〈…〉 e you cannott tell where to begin to solue oâ— anâ—weâ—e you make a Thrasonicall and glorious shâ—we of contempt of it as manie of yours 〈◊〉 and 〈…〉 elie your grand maister Calluine when 〈…〉 most prest and hath least to say for himselfe Are you nâ—â— ashamed to lett myne argument stand as a â—â—â—phey against you your heresie without saying one worde in answere of it idlie supposinge that you haue sayde somethinge to it before But seeinge you dare not sett vppon mine argument to satisfi it which you should first haue donne lett vs see what incurable woundes you geue vnto me out of myne owne principles PILK For they that relie theire faith vppon humane testimonies originallie are conuinced to haue no faith att all for faith commeth by hearinge and hearinge by the worde of God But you papists relie your faith vppon humane testimonies originallie when you ground it on the authoritie of the churche which you say is a more vniuersall rule and more auncient then the scriptures Now then make the conclusion as pleaseth you CHAMP I graunte your proposition or maior and deny your minor For where learned you to terme the authoritie of the churche humane testimonie seeinge the holy ghost stileth the churche the house of God the piller and grounde of truth your conclusion therefore is blowne away like a fether So that the wounde which you thought woulde prooue so grieuous is not so much as the blowe of a litle childe Spitt therefore vppon your handes take better hold and strike more manfullie or else geue your bill to another But so hoodewinkt you are either with ignorance or malice that strikinge at your aduersarie you hitt your selfe For whilst you say with S. Paule that faith commeth by hearinge hearinge by the worde of God you prooue that the scripture or the word written which is not hearde but reade is not the first meanes of our saith but the worde of God preached as S. Paule sayth in the same place which was before the scriptures PILK From hence commeth all this warr that we will not grounde our faith vppon the totteringe wall of humane authoritie as you doe but cleaue fast to the sacred scriptures beleeuinge nothinge as Paule taught but that which was written in Moises and the prophetts which we reioyce to haue made the meane grounde of our religion CHAMP A stoute Champion I wisse that after the first blowe and that a verie weake one casteth downe his armes and thinkinge to ouerthrowe his aduersarie with wordes falleth to raylinge as if he hoped to gaine the victorie rather by his stinkinge breath then by strength of hande stroakes You hauing been att the schoole of the father of all falsehoode haue learned to call the churche of God and the infallible authoritie thereof the totteringe wall of humane authoritie which the holy ghoste by the mouth of this Apostle stileth the piller and ground of truth wherby as by manie other passages you shewe what honour and respect you beare vnto the holy scriptures seeinge you dare so disdainfullie debase the house of God which they so highelie prise and extoll You farther glorie in that you beleeue nothinge but which is written in Moises and the prophettes whereby you prooue your selfe to be a Iewe and no Christian Either retract this Iewishe proposition of yours or blotte out of your Bibles the whole newe testament that you may be knowne to be noe Christian and that you may fill vppe the measure of your grande mayster Martin Luther who hath longe since cast out diuers bookes out of the newe testament besides those he hath reiected out of the oulde You seeme to father this your fowle doctrine vppon S. Paule thoughe you dayne him not the honour of S. Paule but why doe you not poynte att the place where he teacheth it If S. Paule had been of this minde that you woulde seeme to make him of in vayne did he write his Epistells in vayne did the rest of the Apostles and Euangelists write theire workes Againe suppose S. Paule had written anie such thinge in his letters or Epistles howe woulde you make anie man beleeue that Epistle to be his and therefore to be canonicall scriptures vnlesse you will vse the authoritie of tradition and the churches testimonie All the witt and cunning you haue yea thoughe you borrowed all that of the rest of the ministers in the worlde will not shape a sufficient answere to this question PILK And which if we coulde not prooue yett canne we not be conuinced to haue noe faith because they are principles against which none dare open his mouth that anie way woulde haue himselfe to be counted a Christian as S. Aug. spake For as other artes and sciences are sufficientlie knowne credited without proofe of theire principles so matters diuine are perfectlie and demonstratiuelie persuaded vnto vs from this indemonstrable principle of the holy scriptures saith Clemens and are not prooued by iudgment but comprehended by faith CHAMP Why doe you say which iâ— we coulde not prooue as thoughe you had some meane to prooue it without traditions and the churches authoritie But they are principle you say and therefore not to be prooued The scriptures are principles of faith in deede in a certayne degree but they are not prime principles which onlie are to be beleeued for themselues without anie further proofe vnles as I toulde you before you will make them to be God who onlie is to be beleeued for his owne proper veritie and all other verities for him And when you say out of S. Aug. that none dare open their mouth against them that will be counted a
especiallie to be beleeued Whereupon in another place speakinge of the faith wherewith we beleeue the scriptures he willeth vs to followe those who inuite vs first to beleeue that which we are not able to conceiue that beinge made more stroÌ„ge in faith we may attaine to vnderstande that which we beleeue God himselfe confirminge and inwardlie inligthenninge our mindes and not men This is sufficient to shewe that neither arte nor order requireth at your handes to prooue the scriptures as you disorderlie imagine CHAMP The scriptures or verities conteyned in them are confessed to be principles in respect of all Theologicall conclusions deduced from them and therefore in respect of them they neede no farther proofe to anie christian diuine that beleeueth them to be the worde of God But they are not principles in respect of the articles of our faith in generall but are themselues to be beleeued for the same authoritie of God reueylinge as all other articles of faith are And that they are not necessarie principles of the articles of our â—aith it is manifest by that before the scriptures were written the churche of God beleeued manie of the same articles which nowe it beleeueth Therfore when you say the scriptures or verities contained in them are primae veritatis if ignorance thoughe grosse and not to be excused in a doctour of diuinitie doth not excuse you you will make the scriptures not onlie to be gods worde but also to be God himselfe For besides him there is no prima veritas which is to be beleeued for it selfe as vppon better consideration I thinke you will not dare to denie Seeinge therefore the scriptures are not primae veritatis or first truthe but the testimonies wordes or verities reueiled by the first truthe they are not euen by your owne grounde to be beleeued for themselues but for the truthe and authoritie of the first veritie God himselfe of whose reuelation we must haue sufficient grounde before we canne securelie and prudentlie beleeue the scriptures to be his worde That which you bringe out of S. Thomas maketh euidentlie against you so iudicious are you in your allegations For the scriptures beinge not God they are not the first truth and therefore not to be beleeued for themselues S. Aug. in the first place maketh also against you sayinge that the scriptures are to be beleeued to bee of gods spiritt and not to be knowne For to beleeue this he recurreth not to the scriptures themselues but to the authoritie which they had obtayned throughe the whole worlde The second authoritie of S. Aug. is wholie impertinent to your purpose as the reader thoughe but of meane iudgmeÌ„t will easilie discerne Hee sayinge nothinge that soundeth as if the scriptures were to be beleeued for themselues or without other authoritie And therfore thus farr haue you saide nothinge that may satisfie this assertion of the Manuall that in the orderlie proceedinge in this present poincte the scriptures shoulde first be prooued but you will peraduenture satisfie better hereafter PILK Yett further to satisfy you I answere that the scriptures doe sufficientlie prooue theÌ„selues and these and these bookes to be the scripture both by that inwarde light that is contained in them and that outwarde operation that they haue in vs. For first they are a lanterne to our feete and a light to our path a candle that shineth in a darke place And as a light doth discouer those thinges that are in darkenes and demonstrateth also it selfe vnto the eies saith Aug. so doth the holy scriptures by that connatur all light that is in them manifest themselues vnto those whose vnderstandinge is enlightened to behoulde them Which if you cannot perceiue desire God to remoue the scales from your eies as he did from Paules for this is a case so cleare that Stapleton graunteth it credenti scriptura seipsam probat commendat CHAMP All this proueth noe other thinge then that to christians and catholikes who belieue the scriptures to be the worde of God and vnderstand it in the sence of the churche they haue all these properties of light lampe and lanterne and this is it which Stapleton expreslie saith if hou had taken but verie ordinarie heede to his wordes But to say that either to a Pagan who beleeueth not the scriptures to be Gods worde or to an heretike who vnderstandeth them not in the sence of the churche but accordinge to his owne fancie they are such as doe manifest themselues to be the worde of God is a most sencelesse Paradox contradicted by manifest experience not onlie in Martin Luther and all his disciples who as you knowe reiect diuerse bookes receiued by Caluin and his followers but also of the auncient and holy fathers who did not vniuersallie receiue as Canonicall Scripture all such bookes of the newe testament as nowe are receiued by you And yett none of all these I suppose you will say wanted light to see that which is manifest of it selfe PILK Againe they are knowne by theire operation in vs for the worde of the Lorde is pure and conuerts the soule a two edged sworde Heb. 4. 12. a verie fierie worde psal 119. 14. which purifieth the soules inflameth the affections enlighteneth the vnderstandinge and so softeneth the heart of the hearer that it frameth it sitt to all goodnes Which noe other worde or worke deuised by the witt of men or Angells canne doe Where vppoÌ„ LactaÌ„tius speakinge of the differeÌ„ce betweene the doctrine of the gentills of the churche saith that the wisdome of the Philosophers doth not roote out vice but hide it whereas a fewe precepts of God so change the whole man and mould him a newe by castinge away the ould that one would not thinke him to be the same Geue me a man that is wrathfull euill tougued vnbridled by a fewe wordes of God I will make him meeke as a lambe Geue me a couetous auaritious and tenacious man I will restore him liberall and distributinge his money with his owne handes Geue me a man fearfull of sorrowe and death he shall contemne crosses fires dangers bulls c. By one lauer shall all malice be expelled such is the force of diuine wisdome that beinge powered into the brest of man it expelleth folly att one blowe that is the mother of all vices What man then that hath his hearte thus mollified his will rectified his vnderstandinge cleared and his whole course suddenlie altered can deliberatelie doubte of the scriptures seinge Christe himselfe teacheth vs thus to knowe them Is anie will performe the will of his father he shall knowe of the doctrine whether it be good or noe CHAMP In whome I pray you doth the scripture worke these effects you haue here so industriously numbred vp in those that beleeue them not to be true or to be the worde of God you will not say so I suppose Why doe you therefore bring these arguments to prooue the scriptures to be easily knowne to
thinge deliuered in the worde CHAMP That is properlie an article of faith that is beleeued for diuine authoritie whether it be written or noe as were all these thinges the fathers beleeued before the lawe written And because we beleeue the bookes of Genesis for example and the rest of the holy Byble to be written by Gods reuelation therefore doe we beleeue them to be holy scripture and to containe gods worde Which therefore is properlie an article of faith no lesse then the misterie of the blessed trinitie beleeued for the same authoritie PILK Vppon this grounde I answere first in generall that none of these points are articles of faith CHAMP Vppon such a false grounde you are like to builde a good answere Is it no article of faith with you that the booke of Genesis is written by gods reuelation Tell me I pray you vnto what kinde of knowledge or assent you will reduce it I will confesse you a maister in diuinitie if you can make it well appeare by what other act of knowledge or vnderstandinge we assent vnto this veritie besides the act of faith Which if you cannot performe as assuredlie you cannott you must needes see this your first answere to be noe answere att all but a meere supposall of a manifest falsitie PILK Secondlie I answere to euerie one in particular I answere to the the first That all canonicall bookes and euerie parcell thereof be such is prooued out of themselues For besides that the ould testament prooueth the newe and the newe the old for whatsoeuer we read in the ould testament the same is founde in the gospell and whatsoeuer is founde in the gospell that is deduced from the authoritie of the ould testament as Hierome speaketh so in speciall euerie booke prooueth it selfe both by its owne light as formerlie was shewed and by the testimonie of Christ of the Prophets and Apostles that were the secretaries of the holy ghost The testimonie of our Sauiour Christ. Luc. 24. 44. These are the wordes which I spake vnto you while I was with you that all must needes be fulfilled which were written of me in the lawe of Moyses and in the prophetts and in the psalmes Of S. Paule 2. Tim. 3. 16. All scripture is geuen by the inspiration of God and is profitable to doctrine to reproofe to correction to instruction which is in righteousnes Of S. Peter the 2. epist 1. 21. The prophecie came not in olde tyme by the will of man but holy men of God spake as they were moued by the holy Ghost doe abundantlie prooue the bookes of the olde testament to be canonicall besides that there is not anie of them out of which some testimonie is not in the newe testament extant CHAMP Your second answere is as much to the purpose as your first Neither the old testament proouing the newe nor contrariwise vnles the one be beleeued before Yea you make your selfe ridiculous to all men by such a naturall or circulare proofe vnles you suppose the assured beleefe of some parte before For example if one shoulde demaunde of you how you knowe or why you doe beleeue those wordes of our Sauiour which you cite out of the 24 of S. Luke either to haue been spoken by him or written by S. Luke would you say that they euidentlie prooue themselues so to be surely this you must say both accordinge to your doctrine here and accordinge to the necessitie you putt your selfe into by denyinge the authority of tradition and of the churches testimonie And yett in sayinge that you shall euidently prooue your selfe to be senceles For there is noe such euidence of the thinge but anie man that is not moued with the authoritie of gods churche and tradition would esteeme it verie vncertaine and most doubtfull For vnles these wordes and that which I say of them I say of the rest of the scripture were God himselfe and spake to vs as imediatlie as he did to Moises and the rest of his prophetts they cannot be sayde to be knowne by theire owne light nor beleeued for theire owne truth Againe suppose you had certayne knoweledge of this by what meanes soeuer howe could you be certayne that he speaketh of those bookes of Moises psalmes and prophetts which we haue vnder those names This certainlie would be impossible for you to prooue seinge you reiect the authoritie of tradition and the churches iudgment by which onlie it is assuredlie prooued Furthermore you knowe that our Sauiour speakinge in his owne person required not to be beleeued but by the testimonie of his workes sayinge Nisi opera in eis fecissem 〈◊〉 nemo alius fecit peccatum non haberent Much lesse therefore doth he require that we shoulde beleeue a written booke to be his worde without other proofe then the selfe light of the booke which is not so greate as that of his owne liuelie worde◠The sayinge of S Hierome is nothinge to the purpose For he speaketh onlie of the mutuall consent and concord of the two testaments which to christians that alreadie beleeue them both to be the worde of God is no small confirmation of the veritie of the doctrine they both contayne PILK The Gospells of the Euangelists the Acts and Epistles of the Apostles the reuelation of S. Iohn prooue themselues out of themselues to be theires whose titles they beare And if we creditt the bookes of historians and Philosophers auncient and moderne diuine and humane to be theires whose names they carrie in theire foreheads what madnes were it to thinke the diuine scriptures not to be written by them who are said to be theire penmen after the defluxion of so manie ages wherein neuer anie good christian called them in question besides wicked Iesuits impure Manichees Cerdonians Marcionists and Ebionites CHAMP None of all these bookes say they were written by such and such as is manifest And thoughe they did yett were not this sufficient to prooue them theirs vnles it were certaine this were theire testimonie and that they were infallible in their testimonie As for the titles they beare there is the same difficultie For it is not otherwise knowne to be theirs then by faith and beleefe of which we seeke the grounde And if titles were sufficient proofes of the true gospells we should haue manie moe gospells then we haue as you cannot be ignorant Againe the Epistle to the Hebrues beareth not the name of anie of the Apostles and howe longe it was thought by diuerse not to be S. Paules you knowe vnles you be verie ignorant For the workes of other humane authors why doe you beleeue them to be theirs if it be not for the testimonie of all succeedinge ages brought vnto vs by tradition Giue some other sufficient grounde of your beleefe in this poynte if you can and if you cannot say you are senceles to reiect ecclesiasticall tradition in receiuinge the bookes of the Bible or else that your iudgment is foolishe and idle
tract 98. in Ioh before mentioned Nowe your argument out of all these places is shewed to be vayne and of noe force by the particular answere to euerie authoritie And thus farr haue you brought nothinge more for the proofe of your position thē anie heretike in the worlde may or might haue brought for the proofe of his heresie For euerie heretike can bringe single places of scripture yea and of fathers in fauour of his heresie But to bringe scriptures interpreted by the fathers in fauour of theire heresie is a thinge if not impossible at least verie harde and rare beinge the priuiledge of the catholike churche alone PILK ANTITHESIS 2. The scriptures contayne in themselues a perfect doctrine of saith and good workes necessarie to saluation without testimonie authoritie or tradition of the churche addinge vnto them or bringinge from without them anie other doctrine CHAMP This position is the same in sence if either of them haue anie sence with the former and therefore vainlie is tearmed by you a second Antithesis vnlesse euerie tyme you write a position varyinge a fewe wordes in it but retayninge the same sence you will say it is a newe positiō But to lett this passe your proofes so farr as they make anie thinge against the catholike veritie are to be pondered PILK Proofe 1. 2. Tim. 3. 16. The whole scripture is diuinelie geuen and profitable for doctrine for reproofe for correction for instruction which is in righteousnes that the man of God may be perfectlie instructed in euerie good worke That which perfecteth the man of God to euerie good worke contayneth perfect doctrine of faith and manners without addition of anie othèr but the scriptures do so Ergo. CHAMP It must needes be obstinacie in errour and not ignoraunce as I thinke that maketh you abuse this place For first you cannot be ignorant that the Apostle speaketh there of the scriptures of the olde testament wherewith S. Timothy was acquainted from his infancie which if you will say to contayne a perfect doctrine then is all the newe testament either superfluous or at the least not necessarie Secondlie the Apostle peaketh not of the whole scripture taken together but of euerie parte thereof seuerallie meaninge that euerie parte of scripture is proffitable to teach correct and instruct which is true but nothinge to your purpose And that he speaketh not of the whole scripture in the former sence but in the latter it is manifest For when he wrote this to Timothie the whole scripture which the church nowe hath was not written Lastlie lett it be sayd that he speaketh it of the whole scripture in the former sence yett he saith no more but that it is profitable to teache instruct c. which I easilie graunt you and yett I say your argument drawne from thence is most friuolous as appeareth by the like sett downe before in answere of this of yours wherunto I referre you PILK Proofe 2. Iohn 5. 35. Search the scriptures for in them you thinke to haue eternall life Luke 16. 29. They haue Moises the prophetts lett thē heare them That which teacheth how we may come to eternall life and shunne or escape eternall death contayneth a perfect doctrine of faith and good workes But the scriptures doe soe ergo CHAMP Make your minor proposition this as it should be but the olde Testament doth soe for of the olde testament onlie these places speake as is manifest and your conclusion will serue directlie to exclude the whole newe testament from the perfect rule of faith Fye I am ashamed in your behalfe of such childishnes as you shewe in these arguments PILK Proofe 3. Acts 1. 1. The former treatise haue I made ô Theophilus of all that Iesus began to doe and teach These thinges that Christ did and taught contayne a perfect doctrine but these thinges are written CHAMP Conclude therefore the onlie ghospell of S. Luke contayneth a perfect doctrine Is this your intent noe but blinde malice against the euident truth draweth you into these grosse absurdities If you haue noe care of your soule haue yett for shame some care of your credit and reputation for the gayninge of which you haue trauelled these fower or fiue yeeres to bringe foorthe this miserable heape of vnshapen absurdities A miserable labour I wisse whereby you gaine nothinge but the reputation of an impertinent minister deuoyde of ordinarie iudgment To these fewe testimonies of scripture so miserablie mistaken you adde some passages of the fathers to as good purpose as you did in the former Antithesis These they are PILK Proofe 4. If you be the disciples of the gospell saith Athanasius speake not iniquitie against God but walke in those thinges which are written or donne For if you will speake diuers thinges from these thinges that are written why striue you with vs without them The scriptures are perfect as spoken from the worde of God and his spiritt CHAMP S. Athanasius speaketh of such thinges as are not onlie not directly in scriptures but are against and contrarie to scriptures S. Ireneus saith the scriptures beinge spoken by the spiritt of God are perfect as the thinges spoken by men are not which haue imperfections and therefore are subiect to corrections and amendments You abuse therefore your reader with an equiuocall tearme of perfect PILK Proofe 5. The order of this present tecture teacheth that we must nott adde anie thinge to the diuine precepts for if thou addest or detractest it is a preuarication of the precept Oftentymes when a witnes addeth anie thinge of his owne he spotteth the whole creditt of his testimonie with a lye nothinge therefore thoughe it seeme good must be added And a litle after if S. Iohn hath sayde of his writinge if anie man adde vnto these thinges God shall adde vnto him the plagues that are written in this booke and if anie man shall take away from the worde of this prophecie God shall take away his parte from the booke of life howe much more nothinge is to be added to godds precepts CHAMP That which is taught or commēded by the churche which the scripture commandeth vs to heare is not superadded to gods commandements or precepts but is comprised in them you therefore that will not heare and obey the churche which you are so expressely commaunded to heare euidentlie and damnablie detract from diuine precepts Therefore this authoritie is so farr from proouinge anie thinge to your purpose that it ouerthroweth it rather PILK Proofe 6. O Emperour doost thou demaunde what our faith is Heare it not out of newe papers but out of the bookes of God heare I pray thee the thinges that are written of Christ least vnder them those thinges that are not written should be preached Open thy eares to those thinges that shall speake out of the bookes lifte vppe thy faith vnto God I will not defend any thinge scandalous nor anie thinge that is from without the gospell
they haue not of themselues but receiue from the interpretation of the churche and traditions which is an impious and blasphemous assertion For the interpretation of a Sinode is but a glosse the scripture is the text the interpretation may err the text cannott erre the interpretation is the worde of man the scriptures the voyce of God to conclude this point whereas the position of the former Roman church was that diuinitie reasoneth from the scriptures necessarilie from other authors and learninge probablie the wheele nowe is turned and men reason from the scriptures coniecturallie but from the interpretation of the churche and tradition firmelie and sullie CHAMP Howe often haue you been tould of your wittinge belying your aduersaries you knowe well if you knowe anie thinge that the catholikes whom you call papists doe teach the scriptures to be the worde of the holy Ghost and to haue theire veritie from him independentlie of the churche And therefore that the churche addeth no strength or veritie to them no more then the witnes or notarie addeth truth or veritie to the will testament of the testatour Neuertheles the authoritie testimonie of the churche is as necessarie for the acceptance and acknowledgment as well of the letter and texte it selfe as of the sence and meaninge of the scriptures as the witnes or notaries hande is to the acknowledgment and proofe of the will and testament or as the sentence of the iudge is necessarie for the true sence and meaninge of the will if at anie tyme it come to be in doubte or in question Neither is the interpretation of the churche vppon the scripture the interpretation or worde of man as you hereticallie tearme it but of the holy Ghost as besides other places you may learne of that Visum est Spitui Sancto nobis But it auaileth like as to teache a wilfull mynde wisdome Your conclusion is yett more childishe ignorant and impertinent For from the scriptures vnderstoode in the sence of the churche which is infalliblie true we say the argument is necessarie and infallible whereas from all humane authours taken seuerallie be they neuer so learned the argument is not certayne but probable But wheÌ„ we speake of humane authors we vnderstande not the churche nor yett her receiued traditions And thus you see your strongest arguments against the position of the manuall are nothinge but froathie calumnies paralogismes and impertinencies dispersed and blowne away with euerie small blast of winde Manuall Catholike position 2. All such articles as are of faith and so holden by the protestants themselues are not contayned so much as indirectlie or implicitlie in the holy scriptures but onlie so farr as the scriptures contayne and testifie the authority of the churche traditions Proofe Take all the bookes of the bible and euerie parte thereof which are acknowledged for canonicall scripture ioyntlie of catholikes and protestants be such indeede That the moste blessed mother of our Sauiour Christe continued perpetuallie a virgin That it is lawfull for christians to eat strangled thinges and blood which were expressely forbidden them Acts 15. 20. are not so much as indirectly contained in holy scriptures otherwise then is mentioned in our position But this being more amply proued in that which followeth of traditions this which we haue sayd alreadie shal suffice for the present PILK The sunne needeth to borrowe no light of other starres nor the scriptures of the churche or of tradition For without helpe of either they sufficientlie prooue all articles of faith CHAMP It is an vsuall tricke of all deceiptfull and verball disputers to inuert change the question in hande that when they can say nothinge to the true questioÌ„ they may finde somethinge to say to the question framed by themselues The controuersie here is not whether the scriptures doe sufficientlie prooue all other articles of faith for that was disputed in the precedent position and the negatiue parte there prooued against you but whether they sufficientlie prooue themselues to be the holy scriptures or noe which was the first proofe of this position lett vs heare howe you answere it PILK But here you trifle in idle Homonomie of articles of faith For strictlie those thinges are called articles of faith which are prescribed in the old and newe testament to be beleeued and are summarilie comprised in the Apostles creed whereby they are both distinguished from the precepts of the lawe that prescribe good workes and from the principles of diuintie from which as from conclusions they are deriued CHAMP I knowe not what you call trifelinge in homonomie but I knowe that you bable in obscuritie It is be like no article of faith with you that God is to be adored his name not to be prophaned or blasphemed that our parents are to be honoured with the rest of gods commaundements because they be precepts commaundinge good workes I maruell where you learned this good diuinitie But lett this passe yett it serueth not your turne For the scriptures whereof the question is nowe are not precepts as you knowe You haue therefore another as good a shifte That is that articles of faith are distinguished not onlie from precepts but also â—roâ— princeples of diuinitie from which as conclusions they are deriued these are your owne wordes but what you meane by them I cannot conceiue They seeme to sounde that the articles of faith as conclusions are deriued from the principles of diuinitie Then which you coulde haue sayd nothinge more contrarie to truthe For all men knowe that the conclusions of diuinitie are deriued from the articles of our faith as from theire principles not the contrarie as you dreame It had been good you had taken one yeere more to haue reuewed your writinges that you might haue made better sence of your ayinges PILK Of which sorte of principles these are That the holy scriptures are diuine inspired from heauen immutabely true CHAMP By what other reason I pray you are these thinges here named by you rather to be called principles of diuinitie then articles of faith more then for your owne bare and ignorant assertion you should haue geuen some reason for your distinction that your reader might haue seene it had not been meerely forged onlie to delude the argument Againe why are these thinges to be tearmed principles and not articles of faith God is one God is omnipotent God is truth it selfe and the first truth that reuealeth misteries of faith you dare not denie these to be principles of the other principles and yett are they most properlie articles of faith as you dare not denie expressed in the creede it selfe You see therefore your distinctions of articles and principles of faith to be vaine foolishe and friuolous inuented onlie to delude your lesse carefull reader PILK Improperlie articles of faith are called whatsoeuer is written as the principles themselues preceptes of the lawe sermons of the prophets histories of both testaments because faith assenteth to euerie