A REPLIE to a Censure written against the two answers to a Iesuites seditious Pamphlet By William Charke 1. Reg. 20. 11. Let not him that gurdeth on his armour boast as he that putteth it off ⧠Imprinted at London by Christopher Barker Printer to the Queenes most excellent Maiestie ANNO. DOM. 1581. To the Christian Reader AS there haue risen vp in the Church from time to time false Prophets teachers which oppose them selues to the holye Prophets of God and true teachers of his worde so among the people where such contrarietie of doctrines hath bene deliuered like contrarietie of hearers hath alwayes followed not onely in iudgement but also in their affection For as some through the mercie of God and the sincere preaching of the Gospel haue yeelded obedience to his worde so many caried away with corrupt teachers haue for want of iudgement embraced errour in place of trueth and carnall worshippings in steade of the pure worship of God which euermore consisteth in spirit and trueth Against this so dangerous infection of false teachers the holy Apostle Saint Iohn hath giuen vs a most wholesome counterpoyson willing vs not to beleeue euery spirit but to trie and examin the spirits whether they be of God But to speake of our times this examination and trial may seeme very hard seeing the teachers on both sides are thought learned and al pretend to teach the trueth For it is not denyed but both sides haue had their education in schooles of learning they haue also laboured in the liberall artes to furnish them selues to greater matters wherupō they al bring very good words some shewe of reason seeme to haue no small force of perswasion Howe then shall the simple people iudge howe shal they discerne whose iudgement and discretion should be framed by their teachers and setled by their sownd and plaine doctrine To this I answere S. Iohn in that place maketh the matter more easy then it appeareth at the first shewe For exhorting vs not to beleeue euery spirit he doeth drawe our consideration to the spirit and doctrine of the teachers and not to these outwarde giftes of an eloquent stile or a sweete sownde of pleasing wordes which may be common to good and euil yea wherein the euil for want of a good cause labour to excell and from which the godly absteine for the sufficiencie of their cause without it are also restrayned lest our faith should stande in the wisedome of men and not in the power of God But Saint Iohn to make this his trial of spirits yet more ful plaine addeth that euery spirit which confesseth Christ Iesus to haue come in the fleshe is of God and euery spirit which confesseth otherwise is of Antichrist Now therefore let vs see bowe the Apostle frameth vs to a spirit of discretion to discerne the spirits of true and false teachers If any man shall teach and consesse that Christ was made man and ordeyned of God the Father a Prophet alone to teach a King alone to rule and a Priest alone to sanctifie vs and to reconcile vs to his Father by the obedience of faith this confession and doctrine is of the holy spirit of God and to be receiued what spirit soeuer shall mightily or cunningly perswade the contrary On the other side if any spirit shall teach that Christ is not our only teacher by his holy Gospel but that we must admit vnwritten beleefe and traditions from we know not whom to be of like authoritie with the written worde secondly if any spirit make not Christ alone our King and head to rule vs by his holy spirit but teache that a mortall and sinfull man must sit in our consciences and for hatred or gaine which is his practise bynde or loose at his pleasure lastly if any spirit impeach the alsufficiencie and entier vertue of Christs sacrifice offered vp once for euer teach that themselues must renforce it from day to day by the continuance of their dayly sacrifice of the Masse offered for the quick dead it appeareth manifestly that such spirits are not of God nor their doctrine to be receiued though it be deliuered with neuer so much perswasion of eloquent speach or offered to vs with neuer so much expectation of worldly honour For to denie the most absolute vertue and effects of Christes offices is in effect to denie the authoritie of his person and to lose the benefite of all his graces because they withdrawe a part To this examination of spirits without regard of persons the godly Reader is to be exhorted For the doctrine that giueth al glorie to God is of God the doctrine that attributeth some glory and ascribeth some merites to man is of men the religion also that is agreeable to flesh and blood making an acceptable sounde and shewe to the outward senses is carnall and vayne finally what religion so euer is not ioyned with the knowledge and exercises of the worde of God that is no true religion but a disguised and blinde maske full of deuilish superstition The aduersaries take a contrary course in making triall of their doctrine for they woulde haue this examination of spirits vtterly suppressed and vnder one title of that falsly named Catholique Church of Rome they would bind all men to receiue for vndoubted true religion what corruptions so euer they teach without any further question Which being graunted them the examination of spirits neede not for if Rome affirme it the matter is sufficient and must not be denied Also these enemies of the trueth leaue the touchstone which tryeth al metalles namely the doctrine and for it they drawe the teachers into examination supposing that if they can discredit or disgrace the men they shall easily vndermine and ouerthrowe their doctrine For triall of this long practise there are so many bookes that I neede not alleadge any but this late Censure written as in defence of popish religion but the authour shifting his hands very cunningly of the direct and plaine maintenance of the questions in controuersie doth but offer at them or giue some false fire his leauell and batterie is against their persons and credit that maynteining the trueth cannot but assaile the doctrines and put in hazarde the authoritie of the popish Church Therefore I am in the name of the trueth to craue it of the good Reader to lay aside respect of men the regard of those giftes that may please him much and deceiue him more and if it be his desire not so much to see the fight as to beholde the issue enioy the victory then let him imbrace that doctrine most that attributeth least to the broken arme or blinde iudgement of man that in the Church al the power and wisedome of our saluation may be ascribed to God alone through Christ Iesus our Lorde Amen W. Ch. A Replie to a Censure written against the two answers to a Iesuites seditious Pamphlet IT
all others what did y â— Cloysters foster afterwardes Your other place of Austen to proue it a great fault to reproch many for one or two I graunt to be true but for your purpose falsely alleadged because it is not one or two of you or so fewe as one or two hundred which are accused of superstition hypocrisie but y â— accusation is against you all for you apparell idolatrie with the name of deuotion you nourish ambitioÌ„ vnder a Friers weed and seeke an empire vnder a Priestes gaberdine you exercise a Wolues rauening crueltie vnder Sheepes clothing Treason is conscience among you and a iust execution is made a glorious martyrdome These are the diseases that haue infected the hearte and spread them selues as a leprosie throughout all the bodie of your vnholy orders and irreligious men So that we blame not many for a fewe but cannot finde a few to hope wel of in so great diuers swarmes This is not my complaint as you knowe or of this time alone but the complaint of many and long agoe Therefore in drawing Saint Austens wordes to condemne mee as insulting against Christ and his religion for the fall of some one religious man is to drawe him against his will to condemne one for another as was noted before Your seconde exception to Frankens dialogue is taken because in your opinion he applieth good thinges in the societie to euill purposes by which practise you haue well noted that any good thing in religion or policie may be depraued This practise you shoulde haue prooued in Franken so y â— exception had bene good but you affirme it onely as a man whose word must be taken for a proofe his opinion for an oracle What Franken hath written you see what he can write to a further accusation of the Iesuites life I knowe not I thinke it was his minde to passe by personal matters and to note onely the corruptions and superstitions of their orders and doctrine for which cause also he was alleaged Your bitter taunts against our ministerie as loose are accusations reaching to him that wil not be pacified for the sin with all your vnbloodie sacrifices The ignorant and vnfit ministers we defende not or any that may among so many be iustly accused of loosenes but the godly preachers receiue the testimonie of learning and godly life euen their enemies being made iudges Whereas you finde a place in the dialogue to commende Iesuites for great labour diuine meditations chastising of the flesh and such like I answere there is an vse and abuse in some of these actions you are charged with the abuse The rest as your whippe and voluntarie abandoning of Gods blessings both are superstitions as was noted before in a fitter place You remember who complayneth that of all iniust men they are most iniust which when they doe most deceiue and greatest harme they do it notwithstanding that they may be esteemed good men Againe wherin you haue a singular grace you taunt vs as that we can not well bee charged with such faultes as you count vertues in the Iesuites True it is we wish not to be charged with the righteousnes of Scribes and Pharisees but seeke a righteousnes that may exceede it such as standeth in the synceritie of a good conscience according to godlines The thirde and last exception is against Frankens conuersion as not strong to prooue any thing seeing you can presse vs with many examples for one which is your franke and bould assertion But if you cannot truely alleadge a man for a citie or a towne for a kingdome this is a note who it is that in deede dare venture vpon any assertion though all the worlde see the vanitie and vntrueth thereof In place of manye two examples are brought in with their pretended reasons But first you giue sentence before the triall that Franken departed from vs vpon a fancie and your fellowes vpon great reasons and inuincible proofes For Franken I answere though I knowe he be not throwly cleansed from the dregges of Poperie but carieth some corruption that hath infected the hearte which you haue not at all blamed him for yet his reasons of departure were such as enforced him therunto being otherwise superstitiously addicted and desirous to continue Of your two men I can saie nothing I knowe not what roote they had takeÌ„ that were so soone withered But you that condemned me without cause as blaming al your Catholiques for the fault of one abusing a sentence out of Austen against mee for that purpose what is it that your selfe now bring in two runnagates to the slaunder of all that constantly remaine in the trueth must it bee no fault in you that was made so haynous in mee There are belike some indulgeÌ„ces from the pope that what you do shalbe no fault and what you say shalbe no lye To come to your two rumiagates Xilander and Flaschius albeit you auowe their proofes of running out to be great and inuincible yet they are in deede so insufficient that they haue plainely condemned theÌ„ selues by y â— apologie wherein they seeke to be iustified may soone finde better arguments why to returne if their true repentance did opeÌ„ a doore for their reentrie 1 For what reason is the first that Xilander giueth The Catholiques haue endured these fifteene hundred yeeres in concorde of one doctrine and 16 sectes haue sprong of Luther within these sixtie yeres therefore he departeth to you First this reason standeth vpon two false and often confuted assumptions For neither hath the Popish Church endured so long nor so many sects so lately growne vp of Luther Secondly though the assumptions were true yet the argument doth not followe For if antiquitie might prooue a Church the Iewes would make a great clayme to the title If sects springing vp prooue no Church what shal we say to the Churches of God at Corinth and in Galatia Xilander did but salute our religion as passing by that had no better reason of his falling away then this so often and so many wayes confuced His seconde reason that moued him to leaue our religion for Poperie is succession of Bishops in the Popish Church from Christ till now which some Fathers make a great reason Surely those fathers knew some good by the bishops that had bene before their time but they could not iudge of the Apostacie of these that came after to occupie that Chaire Againe those fathers esteemed not so much a Succession of persons as the succession of doctrine which is farre from the bishops of Rome that teach many things against the word and against the practise of the Primatiue and true Apostol 〈…〉 Church as hath beene declared But 〈◊〉 Xilander that maketh this Sâ—ccession a 〈◊〉 able motiue as you speake mouing him to rocaâ—â— did he consider the xxvi graunted Schismes when one Pope cursed and pâ—osecuted an other to the horrible staâ—â—ghtâ—â— of all sortes of
afterward But your definition is first to bee noted as comming somewhat out of place and vntrue Touching the place I will not contend the matter cannot be iustified in that you define Sectaries to be in deede such as cut themselues off in opinion of religion from the general body of the Catholike Church For herein as not remembring your owne arte you confound heretiques with sectaries making no distinction betweene the generall and the speciall for howesoeuer the names are sometimes confounded in the receiued distinction of matter all heretiques are sectaries but all sectaries are not heretiques so that being diuers in nature they cannot haue the same proper definition Beside your fault of confounding euen in a definition which should serue to distinction and to bring cleere knowledge this also is to bee considered that of the two it doeth most fitly agree vnto heretiques whose sinne heresie standeth in cutting them selues off from the communion of the Church in opinion and doctrines of faith Lastly though one man once diuide him selfe and so be guiltie in this particular of schisme yet by the word in common vse wee call it not a sect till there bee many drawen away For if Layolas alone had troden that newe path and vowed that speciall vowe for his diuision and superstitious trade hee alone should not haue bene called a sect Wherefore your definition hath bewrayed great want of learning But to giue you a truer definition A sect according to the true etymologie of y â— word is a companie of men that differ from the rest of their religion eyther in matter of forme of their profession Seing therefore the Iesuites receiue a peculiar vowe to preache as the Apostles did euery where to do it of free cost to whippe and torment them selues after the example of a sect called by the name of whippers and condemned long agoe seeing they also as a diuided companie from all others doe followe the rule of Layolas it appeareth plainely the Iesuites are a sect As for the examples of Elias Elizeus Daniel and Iohn Baptist they are no lesse wickedly then vnlearnedly alledged to auow their order What are you able to bring out of the woord of God why Elias shoulde after more then 2000. yeeres bee brought in for a patrone of Friers What was in Elizeus or Daniel that may liken them to Iesuites Iohn Baptist that may seeme to make most maketh nothing at all for you for it is to be thought hee was an extraordinarie and perpetual Nazarite therefore his calling warranted him for his austere and extraordinarie attire and diet which restraint or the like is not nowe laid vpon those that teach in the Churche hauing all their seuerall offices expressed in the worde of God Moreouer Iohns preaching in the wildernes of Iudea did not withdrawe him as is imagined into solitarie and waste mountaines but the hillie part of Iudea was in comparison of other places called a wildernesse being notwithstanding a countrey well inhabited as appeareth in the booke of Iosua Thus it is cleere that neither your definition nor examples can proue the Iesuites to bee no sect Neuerthelesse as I haue answered one definition with another so will I answere your examples farre from the matter with examples plainelie declaring that which is in question Saint Paul doth accuse the Corinthes of Schisme only because they said I am of Paul I am of Apollos I am of Cephas I am of Christ These did not cut themselues off in opinion of religion they did not holde a seueral faith to themselues but for this Schisme hee sharpely rebuked them saying Is Christ deuided Therfore the Iesuites following in y â— like or in more wicked steppes receiue sentence from Saint Paule wherein they are accused of Schisme and condemned as a sect For do not these votaries of Rome do not these irregulars say I am of AusteÌ„ I am of Frauncis I am of Dominick and these last men I am of Iesus Is Iesus then diuided or not rather you diuided ye Iesuites being cut off as heretiques from the mysticall body of Christ and rent as Sectaries in your own bowels Also the Pharises are an other example to ouerthrowe your definition proue y â— Iesuits a sect For they did not cut off themselues from the religion of the Church yet for their seuerall order they were a notorious sect As I haue plainely shewed that the Iesuites are a sect so it is true that they are a blasphemous sect For what a blasphemy is it to abuse the most blessed name of Iesus for a colour to their blasphemous practises in rooting out the pure and sincere preaching of the Gospell that afterwarde they may bring in all the execrable superstitions heresies of Poperie and after many outrages establishe againe the intolerable yoke of Antichrist This also increaseth the offence that they drawe to themselues alone the most gracious and comfortable title of our fellowship and vnion in Christ Iesus which is common to all that do beleeue without any diuision or distinction Wherefore howsoeuer the discouerie went neere the heart and made you complaine for me to call the Iesuites a blasphemous sect was neither lewd nor vnlearned It is one of your nothings to make a shew of something when you say they call not themselues Iesuites but the Societie of Iesus making a distinction where none is or if there hee any it is made against the receiued speach euery where and against your selfe who in calling them so often Iesuites doe by the practise allowe your selfe the libertie of that speach which you reprehend in mee And to discouer your manifest vntrueth in this small matter that can yeelde you nâ— reward of a lye I must tell you that Turrian an other Layolas calleth his societie by the name of Iesuites which you denie The second note against me as contumeliously deprauing all religious men to deface the Iesuites is an other slaunder for I honor and pray for all religious men as many as for true religion are vnited in the body of Christ which is the Churche But if you account only the popish Monks and Fryers religious men and so take the tytle of religion onely to your selues excluding al others euen those also that are of your church as many as are not of some regular order and habit you haue wel layd downe my meaning for I holde them all as wicked ministers of Antichrist and worthy to be seuerely censured for making the name of religious men proper to themselues which is common to all Christians euery where Neither am I herein to bee compared with the olde Heretiques for they dispraised the good and I haue spoken against the badde they did it vntruely and I in trueth Therefore it is a manifest misconstruing of my wordes as deliuered to the dispraise of theÌ„ whâ—â— it was not in my thought to dispraise as also it waâ— a plaine iniurie to match those