Apostolical and Euāgelical traditiō the doctrine of fathers haue taught it The second point is the proceeding of the holy ghost from the father the sonne equallie For this M. Charke quoteth vvhen the holye ghost shall come vvhiche I vvill send you from my father the spirit of trueth vvhiche proceedeth from the father But this proueth not expresselie that the holie ghost proceedeth equallie from the father and the sonne together but rather seemeth to inclyne to the heresie of the Greekes that it proceedeth onelie from the father And therfore the heretiques which denyed this equallye buylded their heresie especiallie vpon this place as S. Cyrill noteth Agayne this place telleth not whether it proceedeth by generation or without generation from the father and yet we must beleeue it to be without generation The third poynt is the vnion of the vvoorde vnto the nature of man not vnto the persone For which M. Chark citeth And the vvorde vvas made fleshe But what is this to the point thys proueth that the woorde tooke our fleshe but whether he tooke the nature of man onelye or the persone onelye or bothe together it expresseth not And heere is to be noted by the waye M. Charks lacke of iudgemēt not onelie in the matter but euen in the verie termes of diuinitie For he reprehendinge my woords as vnsounde in that he vnderstoode thē not he chaungeth thē thus That the vvoorde dyd take the nature of man to be one persone and not the persone VVhiche are bothe fond and erroneous For the woorde tooke not the nature of man to be one persone seeing the woorde was one persone before he tooke that nature of man vnto it selfe Nether could the nature of mā be that one persone as M. Charke semeth to weene for so should nature persone be cōfounded in Christ. But I thinke M. Chark neuer studied yet these matters and therfore he myght haue bene lesse malepert in reprehendinge yf he wolde The fowerth doctrine is of baptizinge of infantes For which M Charke quoteth these woordes of Genesis The infant of eight years olde shalbe circumcised in mankynde This hathe nothyng expresselye as yow see for baptisme And yf we had nothing but this lawe for our warrant in baptizing of infantes how chaunceth it that wee baptize infantes before or after the eight daye also why baptize we infantes of woman kynde also whiche were not circumcysed in the lawe Beza was strycken quyte dumme in the disputation of poysie in fraunce withe this demaunde as the byshope Claudius de Saynctes reporteth whoe was present VVherfore I had rather folow S. Austen who contendeth and proueth that baptizinge of infantes is onelye a tradition of the Apostles and not left vs by anye written scripture li. 10. c. 23. super Gen. ad lit And the same teacheth Origen ho. 8. in leuit The fyueth doctrine whiche M. Charke auoweth to be in scripture is the chaunge of the Sabboth daye into Sundaye For which he citeth these woords owt of the reuelations I vvas in spirit in our Lordes daye But heere is no mention of Sundaye or Saturdaye muche lesse of celebratiō of ether of them leaste of all of the chaunge of the Sabbothe appointed by God into any other daye Is not this chaunge then of the Sabboth daye appointed by the law substantiallie proued from this place of scriprure trow yowe The sixt poynt is abowt the fower Gospels and epistle to the Romanes whiche he sayeth to be proued scripture owt of scriptute But yet he quoteth no place of scripture where they are proued to be scripture but onely sayeth they are proued ovvt of the vuoords by the inscription there expressing the names of the vvryters therof But what a mockerie is this is the bare names of the Apostles sufficient to proue that they were written in deed by the Apostles whoe can proue owt of scripture that these names were not counterfayted The fayned epistle to the Laodicenses hathe it not the name of S. Paul in it and begynneth it not with the verie same style as his other epistles doe and yet is it reiected as counterfaite and that onelye by tradition The fayned gospell of S. Bartholomew had it not his name in it and yet was it not reiected The fayned Gospell of S. Thomas had it not his name and yet Origen sayeth he reiected it onelie for that the tradition of the churche receyued it not The three counterfait Gospells among the hebrewes had they not as holy titles as the rest and yet they were reiected by tradition of the churche as Epiphanius sheweth VVhen Faustus the Manachie denyed the Gospell of S. Mathew sayeth not S. Austen Mathaei euangelium prolatū aduersus faustum Manachaeum per traditionem The Gospell of Mathew was alleaged against Faustus the Manachie by traditiō VVhat can be more euident than all this to proue our opinion of the necessitie of tradition and to confound the fond madnes of this poore minister that will haue the bare titles of bookes sufficient to proue their authoritie and so certainlie as the true scripture it selfe once knowen is to be beleeued The seuenth doctrine whiche he holdeth to be expresselie in scripture is that God the father begatt his sonne onelie by vnderstanding hym selfe Marye he citeth no place fort it but reprehending the darkenes of the woordes which notwithstanding are most playne and vsuall to those whiche haue studyed any thing i◠diuinitie he flyeth to an other matter sayeing vve beleeue by testimonie of the vvoorde that Iesus Christ is the onelie begotten sonne of the father And for this he quoteth a place or two of scripture whiche needed not For we holde this to be expresselie in scripture more than in fortye places But the question is of the manner howe this generation may be whiche though it appertaine not to the simple to trouble them selues with all yet the Church must defend it agaynst aduersaryes whoe will obiect as often they haue done hovve can God beyng a spirit begett a sonne and yet the sonne not to be after his father in tyme or nature but equall vvith hym in them bothe vvhat mean you saye they to holde that the holye ghost proceedeth from the father that the sonne proceedeth not but is begotten vvhye is it heresie to saye that the sonne proceedet◠from the father or that the holye ghost is begotten vvhat difference is there betvveene theese speeches hovv doeth the father begett and the lyke All these are poyntes of diuinitie to be discussed And though M. Charke seemeth ignorāt in them all not to vnderstand so much as the verie termes them selues moste playnlie sett downe yet Catholique diuines kuowe what the Churche hath determined heerin against heretiques and infideles And albeit these thynges be not expresselye sett downe in scripture yet are they no lesse to be beleeued thā the other mysteries of the Trlnitie VVherof I
serueth their turnes for the tyme. So Martin Luther after he had denied all testimonie of man besides hym selfe he beginneth thus aboute the number of Sacramentes Principio neganda mihi sunt septem sacramenta tantùm tria pro tempore ponenda First of all I must denye seuen sacraments and appoint three for the tyme. Marie this tyme lasted not long for in the same place he sayeth that yf he wold speake according to the vse of onelie scripture he hathe but one sacrament for vs that is baptisme But yet the confessioÌ„ of Auspurge whiche pretendeth to folow Luther in all things doeth allowe three by onelye scripture Mary Melancthon whiche professeth onelye scripture more than the rest and wolde seme to knowe Luthers meaning best of all men for that he lyued with hym holdeth fower by onelye scripture and Iohn Caluin holdeth two Agayne by onelie scripture Iohn Caluin fownd the title of heade of the church in king henry to be AntichristiaÌ„ vvhich novve our folovvers of Caluin in England doe finde by onelie scripture to be most christian Mary yet the Magdeburgians by onelie scripture do condeÌ„ne the same still In like sorte by onelie scripture the protestantes defended a greate while against Catholiques that no heretiques might be burned or put to deathe whereof large bookes were written on bothe partes But now our protestants in England hauinge burned some them selues haue fownd as they write that it is euident by scripture that they may be burned Luther by onelie scripture found that his folowers and the Sacramentaries coulde not both be saued together and therefore he condemned the one for arrant heretiques Doctor fulke findeth by the same scripture that bothe partes are good Catholiques neyther of them heretiques Finallie how many things doeth M. VVhittgift defend against T. Cartwright to be laufull by scriptureâ— as byshops deanes archedeacons officialls holy dayes and a hundred more whiche in Geneua are holden to be flatt contrarie to the same scripture So that this appellation to onelie scripture bringeth good case in manie mattâ—rs For by this a man maketh hym selfe Iudge and Censurer not onelie of all fathers doctors councels histories examples presidents customes vsages prescriptions and the like but also of the bookes of scripture and sense it selfe reseruing all interpretation vnto hym selfe But Catholiques albeit they gyue the soueraigntie to scripture in all things yet bindinge theÌ„ selues to other things beside for the better vnderstanding of the meaning of scripture as to councels auncient fathers tradition of the Apostles and primatiue churche with the lyke are restrained from this libertie of chopping and chaunging affirming and denyeinge allowinge and misliking at theyr pleasures For albeit they hauing wittes as other men haue might drawe some problable apparaÌ„ce of scriptures to theyr owne deuises as euery heretique hitherto hathe done yet the auncient interpretation of holie fathers and receiued consent of the churche not alloweing the same it wold preuaile nothing Mary the selfe-willed heretique that reiecteth all things but scripture and therein alloweth nothing but his owne exposition may runne and range and deuise opinions at his pleasure for he is sure neuer to be conuicted thereof allowinge no man to be iudge of his interpretation but onelye hym selfe or some of hys owne opinion This we see fullfilled in all heretiques and sectaries that now lyue whome it is vnpossible so to conuince by onelye scriptures but they will alwayes haue some probable shew whereby to defend them selues and theyr owne imaginatioÌ„s M. Charke therfore chanting so muche vpon this point of onelie scriptures treadeth the pathe of his forefathers and pleadeth for a pryuilege of ease which whether we will allovve hym or no he entreth vpon it of his ovvne authoritie and dravveth scripâ—ure to euerye deuise of his owne braine so violentlie as a man may take coÌ„â—â—ssion to see yt I shall haue many examples hereafter in this ansvver but yet one vvhich is the chefe ground of this his preface I can not omitt After he had proued ovvt of Saincte Iohn that vve must trie spirites and not beleeue euerye nevv spiritt whiche is true he will nedes alleage owte of the same Apostle a full and plaine rule as he termeth it whereby to discerne and trie his oure spirites The rule is this Euery spirit vvhiche acknovvlegeth Iesus Christe to haue come in fleshe is of God and euerye spirit vvhiche dissolueth Iâ—sus is not of God but of Antichriste Here now may be sene what difference there is in exposition of the scriptures For the auncieÌ„t fathers interpreted this place as of it selfe it is most euident â—o be gyuen as a rule against the Iewes which denied Christe to haue taken fleshe Also against Ebion and Cherinthus heretiques nowe gone into the worlde as fore-runners of Antichriste dissoluing Iesus that is denieing his godheade and coÌ„sequently denyeing the sonne of God to haue come in fleshe Martin Luther interpreteth this place to be vnderstoode of M. Charke and his felowes sayeinge That spirit is not of god but of Antichriste vvhich dissolueth Christs fleshe in the sacrament But to vs Catholiques how can it be by anie deuise wrested who neyther denye Christe to haue come in fleshe nor yet do dissolue the name of Iesus by anie doctrine of ours But yet Marke how M. Charke interpreteth this place and coÌ„fesse that he hathe a singular grace in abusing scripture VVhat soeuer spirit sayeth he shall confesse Christe to haue come in fleshe as a prophet alone to teache as papistes doe not teaching traditions besides the vvritten vvoorde also as a kinge alone to rule as papistes doe not defending the popes authoritie also as a preest alone to sanctifye as papistes doe not vpholding the Masse this spirit is of God and the other of Antichriste Is it maruaile yf these men build what they list vppon scripture when they can fovvnde so many absurdities vppon one sentence thereof I wolde here aske first whether M. Chark thinketh that vve exclude Christe vvhen vve allovve prophetes to teache vnder hym kinges to raigne vnder hym preests to sanctifie vnder hym or no If he thinke we exclude Christe he is to fond to reason against sensible men knowing not what they holde But yf he thinke we allowe prophets kings and preests vnder Christe onelie and in hys name how can he call this the spirit of Antichrist doe not the scriptures allowe Prophets and teachers vnder Christe in the churche Ephes. 4. Act. 5 Also kinges and rulers thoughe puritanes wolde haue none 1. Pet. 2. Act. 2 Also may not preestes sanctifie by the woord of God 2. Timo. 4 How then are these things accompted Antichristian doe not protestants teache the same what deepe Mysteries of puritanisme are these Christe is a prophete alone a kinge alone a preest alone Againe I aske what doe the traditions of Christe and his Apostles for of those onelie
diuersitie of opiniō as hath bene shewed M. Charke can not geue one example to the cōtrarie for the maintenance of this absurde definition of different forme in profession c. VVhereby he wold make all them sectaries whiche differ in anye externall forme By whiche reasō all their owne byshops ministers Iudges lawyers and the like are sectaries and all diuersities of states are sects For is there not a different forme in making of a byshope and of a minister is not there diuersitie in their authorities in their apparell in their state and forme of lyfe notwithstanding that bothe doe professe ministerie of the woorde The laye man and the preacher doe professe one religion and yet is there no difference in the forme of their profession is the ministers forme of apparell of preaching of ministring the sacraments of obedience to his byshope of obseruing the statuts of college or church wherein he is nothing different from any other laye man or is he a sectarie for this who wold say this and much lesse print yt but onelie william Charke I leaue the begynning of his definition as too too childish ridiculous for hym that professeth learning where he sayeth a sect is a companie of men as yf a man should say an heresie is a compauie of men or an opinion is a companie of men or a frencie is a companie of frentike men VVhen S. Paul saieth I liued a pharisey according to the most certaine sect of our religion will ye say he meant according to the moste certaine number of men of his religion or rather according to the moste certaine deuided opinion of his religion for the number of phariseys were not certaine Againe when S. Paul sayeth the vvoorks of the flesh are manifest as sects c. VVill you saye here multitudes of men are workes of the fleshe where as the greek hath heresies So like wyse when S. Peter sayeth of false prophets they bryng in sectes of perdition in greeke heresies of perdition will you saye multitudes of men of perdition I omitt many other examples in scripture which doe conuince your absurditie and besides that doe proue our principall point that sects and heresies are all one Although I am not ignorant that in common speeche this woorde sect may improperlie signifie the men also whiche professe the same but not in a definition where the proper nature of eche woorde is declared After this new definition set downe M. Charke proueth the Iesuites to be a sect by the same for whose disgrace onelie he deuised it His collection or argument is this Seing therefore the Iesuits receyue a peculiar vovve to preache as the Apostles dyd euery vvhere to doe it of free cost to vvhipp and torment them selues after the example of a sect called by the name of vvhippers and condemned longe a goe seing thy are deuided from all others and doe folovv the rule of Loyolas it appeareth plainlie they are a sect A substātial conclusion for a man of your making These be like the conclusions ye made in the tower against M. Campian I meane not of your last conclusion to dispache hym at Tiburn for that was vnanswerable although nothing foloweing of the premisses I meane of your pretended dysputations wyth hym But to our matter what is there in this illation that can make the Iesuits a sect if it were all graunted to be true that they vovv to preache as the Apostle dyd Yow know the scripture doeth allow and commende the dedication of a mans lyfe by vow to gods seruice Num. 6. Psalm 131. VVhat then To preache euery vvhere and at free cost This you should be a shamed to say seinge Christ hym selfe commaundeth it to his Apostles Teache all nations preache the gospell to all creatures yovv haue receyued it freelie geue it freelie And S. Paul gloryeth muche that he had taught the gospell of free cost 2. Cor. 11. VVhat then maketh them sectaries To vvhipp and torment them selues yf it were true why for what reason It is writen of S. Paul by hym selfe that he chasteyned his owne bodie 1. Cor. 9. yea and that he caried the brāds of Christe in his flesh 2. Cor. 4. And the scriptures do talke muche of mortyfyeing our members of crucifyenge our flesh and the like and neuer a woord of pamperinge the same And ecclesiasticall stories doe make large mention of great seueritie of the auncient fathers and Saints heerein As of the seueritie in lyfe of S. Iohn Baptist and other Saints Also of the Saints of the olde testament who went about as S. Paul sayeth in camels hears in goats skinnes and the like And he that will see great store of examples gathered together out of all antiquitie about this matter lett him reade but one chapiter of Marcus Marulus de castigatione corporis per flagella of chasteyning the bodie with whippes S. Ierom. testifyeth of hym selfe by an occasion gyuen to a secret frende of his That his skynne vvas novv become as blacke vvith punishement as the skinne of an Ethiopian And Ioannes Cassianus that liued about the same time hathe infinite examples of the practises of holy fathers in this point And albeit Peter Martyr a renegate friar after he had now coped with a wenche doeth ieast at S. Basil and S. Gregorie Nazianzen for the hard handling of their owne bodies yet there is reason to think that they knew what they did as well as he And yf you ministers of England wold vse a litle of this salue sometimes also possible the worlde wold goe better with you fewer Eatons should neede to stand on the pillorie for lyeing with their owne daughters fewer hynches flye the countrie for rauishing of yong gyrles especiallie being preachers and hauing wiues of their owne besides And manie other foule enormities in this kynde wolde easier be auoyded But yf you will not practise this remedie your selues for contristing or making sadde the holie ghoste within you as your phrase is yet impute it not as Schisme and heresie to them which vse it moderatelie as you may imagin the Iesuites will being not fooles nor hauing yron bodies but sensible as yours are And as for the last reason you add of their folowing Loyolas his rule of lyfe and that they are deuided from others made schismatikes therby I haue shewed before that being but a particular direction of lyfe and maners grounded on the scripture and practise of auncient fathers and allowed by the superours of the Churche it can be no matter of sect or heresie nether are Iesuites seperated frome others by this but rather nearer ioined with all the godlie for that vertue is but one and he that leadeth the most vertuouse lyfe is ioyned nearest to Christ and to all good Christians And this now may be answered supposing that all were true that you report in this place of the Iesuites lyfe and vocation which is not
lyfe time But say you he vvas no friar In deede the englishe names of friar or Monke were not then extant for that we were not yet Christians But the Latin names frater and monachus were attributed to hym as may appeare in the places alleaged VVhiche ioyned with the vowes whereof I spake before doe proue the thinge what soeuer you may wrangle of the Englishe name But what require you more to make hym a friar after the englishe fashion yf you will haue me gesse at his apparell it were hard and nothinge pertinent for that onelie the vowes make the vocation as hathe bene shewed yet S. Ambrose maketh mention de nigro cucullo câ—ngulo ex corio Of the blacke hoode and the girdell of leather that S. Augustin dyd weare Now they whiche know the habit of Austen fryars let them consider how nighe this goeth to that matter Albeit as I sayd the weede litle importeth when we haue the substance of the vocation The last woordes of the Censure touching Christs spirit of voluntarie pouertie offeÌ„dith greatlie our replyer The example of Christ sayeth he is alleaged moste blasphemouslie against his Maiestie Still the woorde blasphemie must be one But what is the reason vvhen dyd Christ euer vvhipp hym selfe sayth M. Charke Yet the choler of whipping is not past from M. Charks stomacke But I answer he had no rebellion in his fleshe as we haue by reason of the conflict of concupiscence left vs for resisting whereof we vse mortification of our bodie according to S. Pauls counsaile coloss 3. Neyther is it necessarie that we should doe nothing in this kynde but what we reade expresselie Christ to haue done Albeit to geue vs also example herein we reade of his great fasting and long prayeing with lyeing all nyght on the ground which not withstanding I think you ministers will not imitate But you adde Christ frequented publike assembleys vvas sometimes entertained at great feasts Yea marie this is for good cheer this is more pleasant than the doctrine of the whippe And dyd you neuer heare Syr of religiouse men inuited also to a feast or assemblie You are wont to call theÌ„ bellie gods for that cause and how is this â—tile so soone chaunged O malice how blynde and frantike art thou But you aske agayne VVhat vvorldlie blessings gyuen hym by his father dyd he at â—ny time abandon hovv doeth his example recommend voluntarie pouertie I aske you M. Charke yf he that was Lord of all chose to lyue of almes and of such things as were sent hym as the scripture signifieth Io 12. Luc 8. was not this voluntarie pouertie in hym selfe And he that counsailed men to renounce all they possessed for his seruice and to gyue all to the poore that would be perfect dyd not he recommende voluntarie pouertie to other thoughe he comaunded it not Yf the Apostles left all proprietie and dyd lyue in common as the scripture noteth and many good Christians chose to sell all they had and to offer it to that communitie though not vpon constraint as S. Luke testifieth And yf Ananias and Saphira for breakinge their vowe of pouertie made with the Apostles as S. Basil and S. Ierom and other auncient fathers doe testifye were so terriblie punished by death for the terrour of all vowe breakers then no dowt but this was done eyther by the example or by the recommendation of Christ whiche you make so straunge as yow sticke not to affirme it Anabaptistical condemning of proprietie Good God how farre may fond furie dryue a man that hathe no guyde I pray you reade but S. Ierom vpon the woords of Christ goe and sell all Also S. Basil vpon the same woordes As also S. Chrisostome vpon the wordes of S. Paul Saâ—utaete prisâ—am and perhaps you will alter your iudgement espiciallie yf you will credit S. Augustin who proueth out of the same chapiter that the Apostles them selues votum paupertatis vouerunt made a vovve of pouertie But as for the worldlie blessings which you talke so much of in this and other places of your bookeâ— I know that all creatures are blessings of God but yet all vse of all is nether commaunded nor commended to all You know whoe sayeth All things are lavvfull but all are not expedieÌ„t The carnall Iewes were much entysed by those blessings in the olde testament but in the new testameÌ„t you shall neuer fynde Christians eyther allured to theÌ„ or dandled and smothed in them as you doe your folowers but rather to the contrarie many threates and hard sayeings are vttered against richemen and such as liue in pleasures and ease of this woorlde And therfore your often repeating and tickling fleshlie harts with naming carnall and worldlie blessings proueth you yf I be not deceiued to be one of them whereof the Apostle sayeth they serue not Christ but their ovvne bellye and doe seduce innocent hartes by svvete vvoordes and blessings THE CENSVRE Thirdlie you endeuour to bring the Iesuites in coÌ„tempt by their obscure conception as you tearm it from one Loyal as a Spanyard and had not their fulll creatioÌ„ and commission vntill about thirtie yeres past from pope paulus quartus VVherein you erre for it vvas froÌ„ Paulus 1. tertiê° the third pope before Paulus quartus and the third pope after leo decimus in vvhose time Luther began Soe that there is not muche difference betvvene Iesuits and protestants in their antiquitie of name marie in matter verie greate for the protestants faythe and beleefe began at that time but the Iesuites folovving vvith humilitie the fayth vvhich they fovvnd in the Catholique Churche onelie beganne a strayter kinde of lyfe in maners and behauiour than the common sorte of people vsed for reformyng of vvhose vices they dedicated them selues to God and to all kinde of labour paines trauaile and perill vvith abandonyng all vvorldlie pleasures and all possibilitie of prefermeÌ„t in the same so farre furth as none of that Societie hath or may take any spirituall or temporall liuings or coÌ„modities vvhat soeuer though diuers greate princes haue pressed them often times vvith the same but of free cost they preache teache in all places vvhere they are sent vvith all humilitie of spirit and vvithout intermedling vvith matters of estate as shalbe shevved more hereafter VVherefore M. Charke offereth them the greater vvrong in charging them vvith the contrarie And M. Hanmers impudencie is the more to be vvondered at vvho blusheth not to put in print so notoriouse an vntrueth in the sight of all the vvorld and to repeat vrge and amplifye the same so often in his booke sayeing that one 2 Theatinus a Iesuit hypocriticallie got to be Cardinall and pope meanyng thereby Paulus quartus called before Iohannes Petrus Caraffa of the order of Theatines and not of Iesuits vvhiche all the vvorlde knovveth to be tvvo seuerall and distinct orders of religion And
whiche as well in that place as in the first booke of his retractations c. 13. he proueth moste leardnedlie that originall sinne is voluntarie in vs by the first voluntarie acte of our first father in whiche acte we all dyd sinne voluntarilie that beinge an vniuersall acte of all mankynde contained in Adam as also the Apostle confirmeth sayeing of Adam In quo omnes peccauerunt In whome all haue sinned His second obiection is of the citie of refuge appointed by God among the Israelites for them that had killed a man vnwillinglie whereof he wolde inferre that vnwilling manslaughter is a sinne But I am ashamed of M. Charke that professinge skill in scriptures doeth so ignorantlie alleage them against theyr playne meaninge and against hym selfe For that chapiter sheweth at large how these cities of refuge were appointed amonge the leuits for indifferent triall of manslaughter leaste the next of kynne to hym whiche was slayne called there the reuenger of bloode shoulde reuenge the acte vppon the kyller before the matter were tried But when the thing was now examined in the citie of refuge by sufficient witnesses as the scripture appointeth then yf it were fownd that the slaughter was committed willinglie and of hatred then the murderer was delyuered into the hands of the reuenger of bloode to be slayne for the same But of vnwillinglie and without malice liberabitur innocens de vltoris manu sayeth the text the innocent shalbe deliuered frō the hand of the reuenger But yet he shall not departe from that citie vntill the deathe of the high pryest For that as Rabby Isaac Arameus writeth the highe pryest whose cities these of refuge amonge the Leuits were had interest and dominion vppon this man by the lawe of Leuits during his lyfe for the benefit whiche he had receaued by the place of refuge To whiche also Rabbi Moyses and Rabbi Leui Ierson doe add an other reason for that yf he should haue returned presentlie amōg the kinred of the mā killed his verie sight might haue styrred thē vp to reuengement vppon hym agayne after the triall passed But in the deathe of the high pryest the publique sorowe was so great as all men forgate theyr priuate iniuries and dyd vse commonlie to forgeue one an other all offences saye these learned Iewes And now I aske againe whie M. Charke brought in this exāple Doeth not this make cleare against hym prouinge that manslaughter vnwillinglie done is no sinne but innocencie yf not manslaugter how muche lesse other smaller actions are cleare from sinne when no consent of will is yeelded Against the clause of the definition which sayeth that sinne must wittinglie be committed he obiecteth that M. Howlet in his reasons of refusall doeth acknowlege a sinne of ignorance which I graunt but he speaketh of culpable ignorance whereof a man hym selfe is the cause as his example of persecuting Saul doeth shew whose ignorance although it were not so willfull as of many persecuting protestants at this daye whoe of purpose refuse to know the truthe yet as S. Bernard well noteth it could not be but culpable in hym as also hym selfe doeth confesse For that he being learned in the olde testament yf he wolde haue conferred patientlie with the Apostles he might haue seene that they taught nothing but correspondent to the aunciēt scriptures of God But we speake heere of inculpable ignorance called inuincible by the tearme of schoolemen for that it was not in the doers power to auoyd it nor he fell into it by his owne default As yf an English man being in India in seruice of the Prince should be commaunded by proclamation made in westminster hall to appeare there at a certaine daye and he as not hearyng of the same should not appeare this man is excused by inuincible ignorance And so in all other cases S. Augustin and Chrisostome proue of purpose moste learnedlie that this kynde of ignorance which in deede is onelie proper and true ignorance doeth excuse from sinne Yea God hym selfe proueth it by the example of Abimelech king of Gerare whome he excuseth from sinne for that he had taken awaye Sara Abrahams wyfe vpon ignorance in simplicitie of hart thinking her to be Abrahams sister as the text sayeth The like simplicitie of hart and inculpable ignorance was in Iacob lieing with Lia in stead of Rachell as the Censure sheweth And albeit M. Charke most impiously Ioynynge heerein with Faustus the Manachie dareth condemne the holie Patriarche in a double sinne as Faustus dyd yet S. Austen defendeth notablie this holy mans innocencie bothe against that and this heretique in his two and twentith booke against Faustus through many chapiters together as also in his booke of the Citie of God And with S. Augustin doe take parte S. Iustin the martyr l. de verit Christi religionis and Theodoret q. 84. in generat and lyranus vpon the verie same place of genesis And what one woorde can M. Charke now peepe against all this To conclude therfore though M. Charke hathe picked out certaine obiectiōs of our owne bookes made and answered by our selues against the learned definition of the Iesuits as in deed thay haue no other argumētes but suche as we lende them our selues yet hathe he as you see not infringed but establyshed that definition thereby and hathe bewrayed in hym selfe greate wantes in holdinge that sinne is no acte that no euill men doe sinne but the euill in men that sinne is not voluntarie that it is no humane or reasonable action that it requireth nether vvill nor knovvlege in the doer that fooles madde men may as properlie committ sinne as others for all these are his positions by whiche he may as well defend that beasts and vnreasonable creatures may committ sinne and be sinners which S. Augustine thinketh to be so absurd as no man of common sense will affirme the same But what doe I alleage S. Augustin whome M. Charke reiecteth heere by name about the definition of sinne Let vs returne therfore to the Censure And see what is further brought about this matter THE CENSVRE But novv hovv doeth M. Charke ouerthrovv this doctrine forsoothe thus Contrarie to this sayeth he is the woordes of God 1. Ioh. 3. the transgression of the lawe is sinne You seme to haue made a vovve M. Charke not to deale plainlie in anie one thing Can you not alleage one litle sentence vvithout falsifyeing The vvoordes of S. Iohn are these Euerie one that sinneth committeth iniquitie and sinne is iniquitie Or as you vvill perhappes seeme to enforce it out of the greeke vvoorde ANOMIA Sinne is transgression of the lawe But vvhy haue you fraudulentlie turned it backevvard you knevv vvell the force of transposition out of Sophistrie that it changeth all the meaning of the sentence For yf I say Euerie man is a liuing creature it is true but yf I turne it backevvard
and saye Euerye liuing creature is a man it is false Soe these vvoordes as S. Iohn vttereth them are moste true Euerie sinne is iniquitie or transgression of the lawe but as you vtter them they are false to vvitt that euery iniquitie or transgression of the lawe be it neuer so litle or done vvithout eyther consent or knoulege or by a madde man or brute beast should be properlie a mortall sinne Soe that this first blashemie of the Iesuits coÌ„meth not to be so haynouse as you vvolde make it but rather to confound your ignorance vvhich vnderstand not so cleare doctrine but hudle vp matters as M. Campian telleth you also to note your vntruthe in misreporting their vvords and the scriptures against them And of this first depend the other tvvo that folovve THE DEFENCE For couering of falshoode in this place M. Charke is constrayned to vse a falshoode or two more according to the sayeing that one lye is not maintayned but by an other things aequiualent sayeth he as for example the definition and the thing defined may be conuerted one mutuallie maye be affirmed of the other as the gospell is the povver of God to saluation And the povver of God to saluation is the gospell And therefore these two woordes also siâ—ne transgression of the lavve But I denie this consequence for transgression of the lawe is not the definition of sinne as hath bene proued nor is it equall in signification with the same but reacheth further than sinne as the former discourse sheweth And thefore it is but absurdlie brought in againe heere as a thing graunted seing thereof is all the contention Secondlie let M. Charke looke leste he be deceyued wheÌ„ he sayeth the power of God to saluation is the proper definition of the gospell seing Christ hym selfe whiche notwistandinge is not the gospell but author of the gospell is called by the same woordes in an other place DVNAMIS THEOV that is The povver of god and no doubt but to saluation as M. Charke will not denie VVherfore though it import not our matter at all yet I thinke M. Charke was somewhat grosselie ouerseene in choyse of this example After this for some countenance of his fraudulent transposition he sayeth as for the transposition lett the Apostles vvoordes be marked sayeing God is a spirit Yet the vvoordes lye thus in the greeke text a spirit is God VVherfore let not transposition seeme straunge to you No more it doeth M. Charke in common speeche and in a tongue that will beare it as the latin and greek doeth But when we measure the weight of woordes or propositions and that in oure English tongue as in our matter it falleth out traÌ„spositions are frauduleÌ„t as in the verie example whiche you alleage a spirit is God if you wolde inferre therof ergo euerie spirit is God as you inferre that euery transgression of the lavve is synne you should easilie see your owne falsehood For Angels also are spirits as the scripture sayeth and yet not Goddes And heere for my learning I wolde know of you Sir in what tongue the Apostle sayeth God is a spirit different from which you say the greek hath a spirit is God surelye M. Chark you are ouer bolde in your auouchements of the scriptâ—re For not onelie the greeke but also the latin and Syriak hathe Spiritus est deus and therfore bothe fondlie and falsely doe you attribute it as peculiar onelie to the greeke But M. Charke reserueth a sure carde for the end therewith to dashe all that hath bene sayd before and that is the sentence of S. Iohn afterward omnis iniquitas est peccatum all iniquitie or transgression sayeth he is sinne VVhich seemeth so plaine against me as he greatlie insulteth and triumpheth affirming that the victorie by this one senteÌ„ce is gotten but beleeue hym not good reader for he thinketh not so in his owne coÌ„science but well knoweth that this sentence maketh greatlie against hym thoughe he wolde deceyue thee with the bare sound and equiuocation of woordes For in the former sentence where is sayd sinne is iniquitie S. Iohn vseth for the woord iniquitie ANOMIA in greeke which signifieth any transgression or variance from the lawâ— be it great or litle as hath bene proued and as the nature of the greeke woord importeth in which sense it is most true that euerie iniquitie is not sinne as I haue shewed as S. Augustin proueth of verie purpose l. 2. cont Iul. pela c. 5. And alleageth also S. Ambrose in the same opinion as also Methodius apud Epiphanium her 64. quae est Origenis And S. Augustin proueth it in many other places besides shewing in our verie case how concupiscence is iniquitie in the regenerat but yet no sinne And this for the first place Now in the second place where the same Apostle sayeth euerye iniquitie is sinne he vseth not the same generall woorde ANOMIA VVhiche he vsed before but ADICIA which is a more speciall woorde and signifieth an iniustice or iniurie as the philosopher sheweth assigning it as the contrarie to Iustice and therfore no maruaile though this kinde of iniquitie be sinne as S. Iohn sayth yea great sinne also for of such onelie S. Iohn talketh in that place sayeing there is a sinne to death I doe not saye that any man should aske for that all iniquitie is synne c. whereby is euydent that the Apostle taketh not iniquitie in this place expressed by the woord ADICIA in the same sense wherein he tooke it before vsing the woord ANOMIA VVhiche M. Charke well knoweing sheweth hym selfe a willfull deceyuer in that he wolde delude his reader with the equiuocation of the latin translation which at other times he reiecteth withoute cause or reason Lastlie he chargeth me with alteration of the text of scripture for translating omnis qui facit peccatum euerie one that sinneth where I should haue translated sayth he euery one that doeth sinne This is a charge woorthie of M. Charke that will playe small game rather than sytt owt I praye you sir what difference is there in the two phrases your vvyfe spinneth and your vvyfe doeth spinne But you coÌ„fesse in deede there is litle holde in this and therefore freendlie you doe pardon me for it and doe conclude sayeing you think perhaps to serue the Lorde in your opinion and I knovv I serue the Lorde You are happie that haue so certaine knowlege of your good estate M. Charke though to vtter it in this place I doe not see what occasion you had But I praye you let me learne how you came to this knowlege Not by Aristotles demoÌ„strations I am sure which yett are the onelie means of certaine science properlie How then by fayth but you know that faith can assure nothing whiche is not reuealed by the woorde of God VVhat parte of gods woorde then teacheth vs that william Charke in particular serueth the Lorde
reckoned some small parte onelie in the Censure VVhiâ—he notwithstanding I wolde not haue troubled M. Charke withall yf I had supposed hym so grosse therin as by examination I fynde hym A lacke poore sir william And by this you see how substantiallie he hath proued all these seuen poyntes to be expresselie in scripture If we shoulde beleeue no more in all thesâ— mysteries than is expressed in scripture our faythe wolde be verie obscure and confuse heerin Bâ—t these men are wonderfull lordes of scripture They can exclude what they will and drawe in what they please VVheÌ„ we are to proue a matter to be founded on scripture no testimonies will serue except they be so playne and euident as by no wayes they may be auoyded But when they will haue a thing in scripture euerye litle gesse at theyr pleasure is sufficient to proue yt Hearâ— D. Fulks woordes to M. Bristoe abowt certayne lykâ— matters For the diuision of parishes excommunicacion suspension publique solennizing of Mariage vvith the lavves therof and punishing of heretiques by deathe they are all manifestlie proued ovvt of the scripture This he sayeth alleaging no one place of scripture to proue it And for the fyrst fower I thynke the puritanes will hardlie graunt them to be manifestlie in scripture And the last was for a long tyme denyed by them selues to be eyther in scripture or allowable by scripture vntill now they haue burned some for religion them selues in England But theyr former bookes are extant to the contrary and all theyr companions yet in other countries where they raigne not as our protestants doe now in England are styll of opinion that no heretique ought to be putt to deathe for religion And thus he auoydeth seuen of the pointes obiected affirming them to be euidentlie in scripture For the rest sayeth he of these tvvelue pointes as they are not â—uidentlie contayned in the vvoord so a christian is not absolutelie bounde to beleeue them Beholde the last refuge of a proude hereticall spirit in breakinge where he can not otherwise gett owte Dare you M. Charke to sett men at libertie to beleeue or not to beleeue that the common crede was made by the Apostles whiche Origen Tertullian Ierom Ruffinus Ambrose Austen and all the primatiue Church doe so coÌ„stantlie affirme to be theyr doeinge Dare you to sett at libertie the obseruation of Easter daye whiche Eusebius calleth Apostolicam traditionem A tradition of the Apostles and abowt whiche was so great sturre in the primatiue churche and so many decrees made in councels against heretiques But aboue all other dare you putt at libertie the beleefe of our blessed ladies perpetuall virginitie Remember you not that Heluidius was condemned of heresie for denieing the same in the primatiue Churche Remember you not the solemne curse for this matter of so many holie Byshopes recorded and confirmed by S. Ambrose of Millan I will conclude and stoppe your mouth yf I can with these woordes of S. Austen Integra fide credendum est c. vve must beleeue vvith a sounde faith blessed Marie the mother of Christ to haue conceiued in virginitie to haue brought foorthe her sonne in virginitie and to haue remayned a virgin after her childbyrth nether must vve yeeld to the blasphemie of Heluidius Loe M. Charke S. Austen maketh it bothe a matter of faith the dowting therof to be blasphemie how will you auoyde thys For the mention which S. Paul is thought to make to the Colossians of an epistle written by hym to the Laodicenses M. Charke denyeth it and condemneth both me and S. Ieroms translation of ignorance for reporting the same for that as he sayeth the greeke text hath onelie of an epistle written by S. Paul from Laodicea and not to Laodicea But me thynketh M. Charke should not obiect ignorance so pereÌ„ptorilye to others except he were sure of his owne opinioÌ„ If I had had no other vvarrantize for my allegation but onelye the olde latin translation being of suche antiquitie as it is and the matter of no importance to our purpose yet ought I not so rigourouslie to haue bene reprehended for the same But besides this I haue two editions in greeke the one of learned Paguine in folio the other of Plantyne in octauo both whiche make playnlie for me Then haue I the iudgement of S. Ambrose and oâ— S. Ierome whiche knew the true greeke editions Also the consent of Tertullian Philastrius and Epiphanius a greeke writer whiche may be sufficient to wype away M. Charkes bytter reproche against me in this matter Of the scriptures misalleaged for the contrarye by M. Charke THE CENSVRE But hovv doe you novv ouerthrovve this doctrine and prooue it blasphemie M. Charke By a place of S. Paule All the scripture is geuen by inspiration of God and is profitable to teach to confute to correcte and to instructe in iustice that the man of God maye be perfect and throughly instructed to euery good worke VVherof you inferre that the Scripture is sufficient to perfection but hovv vvrongefullye it shall novv appeare And first I let passe your ordinarie misusinge of scripture by adding fiue vvordes of your ovvne in this litle sentence to vvit the is and and throughâ—lie vvhich audacitie if it vvere in translating of Aesops fables it vvere tollerable but in the holie Scriptures vvhere euerie vvorde must be taken as from the holie Ghoste it is impious Secondlie this place maketh nothinge for your purpose vvhich I proue by tvvo reasons The first is because S. Paule saieth not here that the Scripture is sufficient to perfection but onelie that it is profitable Novv you knovv that a thinge maie be verie profitable yea necâ—ssarie to an effecte and yet not sufficieÌ„t to doe the same vvithout all helpe As meate is profitable and necessarie to maintaine lyfe and yet not sufficient vvithout naturall heate clothes and the like The second reason is for that S. Paule signifieth in this place that euerie parte or canonicall booke of Scripture is profitable to make a man perfecte but yet vve can not say that euerie part or booke is sufficient for then all other bookes of scripture besides that vvere superfluous And that S. Paule meaneth in this place euerie seuerall canonicall booke or parte of Scripture by the vvordes Omnis scriptura it is euident by that he vseth the vvorde Omnis and not Tota vvich tvvo vvords hovv much they differ both in Greeke and Latine all Logisioners knovv For omins homo signifieth euerie man And M. Charke him selfe in this verie same sentence hath translated Omne oâ—us bonum Euerye good worke And yet deceatefullye hath he traÌ„â—lated Omnis scriptura All the scripture As though S. Paule had meante onelie that all the Scripture put together is sufficient to perfection vvhich sense can not stand First for that all the Scripture at such
time as S. Paul vvrote this vvanted diuers important partes as the Ghospel of S. Iohn the Apocalips and some other vvhich vvere vvriteÌ„ after coÌ„sequeÌ„â—lie should haue bene superfluous yf the other before had bene â—ufficient Secondly because vve lacke at this daye many parts of scripture vvhich of likelyhoode vvere in S. Paules time As the booke of Nathan the Prophetâ— vvith the volume of the Prophet Gad. 1. Paralip vlt. The booke of Ahias salonites and the vision of Addo the Prophet 2. Paral 9. Many of the Parables and verses of Salomon for he vvrote three thousande of the one and fiue thousand of the other 3. Reg. 4. Also the epistle of S. Paul to the Laodicenses Colos. 4. vvhereof it folovveth in M. Charkes ovvne seÌ„se that if all the scripture put together is onely sufficient to perfection then our scripture novv lacking dyuers partes of the same is not sufficient And so me thinkethe M. Charke vvrestethe this place againste hym selfe THE DEFENCE After a long apologie in defence of loose translatyng of scripture wherin M. Charke will perforce retaine opinion of honest dealing he coÌ„meth to refute the first reason about profitable and sufficient sayethe that sometimes profitable may stand for sufficient As where the Apostle sayeth to Timothie Exercise thy selfe to godâ—ynes For bodilye exercise is profitable but to a litle but godlynes is profitable â—o all thyngs hauyng promisse bothe of this lyfe of the lifâ— to come Heer sayeth M. Chark it can not be denyed but by profiâ—able is mente suffâ—cieÌ„t VVhich suppose were true yet were it but a slender argumeÌ„t of one particular to inferre an other But in myne opinioÌ„ M. Charke is vtterlie deceyued in this matter For as S. Ambrose S. Ierome S. Austen doe expound this place S. Paules meanyng is to putt an antithesis or differeÌ„ce betwene corporall exercise pietie sayeing that the one is but litle profitable but the other that is godlynes hath her promysse of rewarde in all actions taken ether for this lyfe or for the lyfe to come Out of all I say she reapeth coÌ„moditie and is profitable For in all actions whiche are taken in hand for charitie and loue of God whiche is true pietie therin is merit and rewarde whether the actions be about matters of this lyfe or of the lyfe to come And whoe wolde say heere that profitable signifieth sufficient His second reason he frameth in these woordes vpon the place of S. Paul before alleaged that vvhiche is profitable to all the partes that may be required to perfectioÌ„ can not be but sufficient for the perfection of the vvhole but that the scripture is profitable in suche maner the Apostle doeth fullie declare in rehearsing all the particular partes vvhiche are necessarie as to confute to correct and instruct in iustice ergo the scripture is sufficient God help you M. Charke I assure you you are a simple one to take controuersies in hand VVhat boye in Cambrige wold euer haue reasoned thus If you had sayed that whiche is sufficient to all the partes in particular is sufficient to the whole you had sayed somewhat But how foloweth it that what soeuer is profitable to all particular partes should be sufficient to all haue you not Learned that there is causa sine qua non whiche is not one he profitable but also necessarie to all partes wherof it is such a cause and yet is not sufficient alone ether to the partes or to the whole As for example the heade is profitable yea necessarie to all the actions of this lyfe as to sing weepe dispute and the lyke for without a heade none can be done and yet is not the head sufficient alone to performe these actions as we see by experience For that euery one whiche hath a heade is not able to doe these thinges Hys thyrd reason and argument is taken from the woordes of S. Paul immediatlie goeinge before in the place now alleaged to Timothie whiche are these for that thou hast learned the holye scripâ—ures from thy infancie vvhiche can instruct thee to saluation throughe the faythe vvhich is in Iesus Christ. Loe sayeth M. Charke heer the scriptures are sayed to be sufficient to saluation But I denye this For the Apostle sayeth they can instruct Timothie and shew him the waye to saluation and can bryng hym also to it yf he will folow them But doeth it folowe heerby that they are sufficient for the whole churche and in such sort as all doctrine by tradition is superfluous Euerie epistle of S. Paul instructeth a maÌ„ to saluation wolde also bryng any man to heauen that shoulde folow the same exactlie But is therfore euerie epistle of S. Paul sufficieÌ„t for the whole Church wherof onelie our question is and are all other supeâ—fluous Againe it is to be noted that S. Paul speaketh heere principallie of the olde testament For he speaketh of the scriptures which Timothie beyng nowe a byshope had learned from his infancie whiche was before the newe testament was wryten And will M. Charke saye that the olde testament is sufficient to Christian men such as Timothie now was for their saluation without any other write You see this man lyke the hare in the nett the more he struggleth the more he encombreth and intangleth hym selfe To my two reasons in the Censure to proue that S. Paul in the place alleaged spoke not onelye of all the whole scripture together but also of euery particular booke therof whiche notwitstandinge can not be sayed to be sufficient of it selfe without other he answereth in effect nothinge but for excuse of his fraudulent translating Omnis scriptura all scripture where as he translated omne opus bonum euerie good vvoorke euen in the same sentâ—nce he alleageth a place or two owt of the scripture where this woord omnis signifieth all aswell as euerie one VVhiche I denye not but some times it may be especiallie in greek but yet that there is ordinarilie a difference betwene these two propositions omnis homoâ—est corpus and totus homo est corpus I â—row your logicians of Cambrige wherof you talke will affirme with me And yf there be ordinarilie such a differeÌ„ce and your selfe obseruing the same in the former parte of the same sentence why you showld alter your translation in the second part therof I can not imagine except you mente fraude But now to my two reasons In the first I saye that S. Paul coulde not meane to Timothie of all the scriptures together which we now vse For that all was not then written as the Gospell of S. Iohn and some other partes To this he answereth that there was enough written then for the sufficient saluation of men of that tyme and that the other partes added afterwarde were not superfluous But this is from the purpose For I graunt that in all tymes when there was least writen vvord yet was there sufficient for the
peoples saluatioÌ„ of that tyme. For God supplied it otherwyse that is by woorde of mouthe vnwritten And this maketh for vs for in suche tymes the written woord was not sufficieÌ„t without all other helpes as you affirme it is as for exaÌ„ple when onelie S. Mathewes Gospell was written and nothing els of the new testament yet graunt I that this scripture was sufficieÌ„t for that tyme. For that God supplied yt otherwyse by the woordes and speeches of his apostles So before Moyses wrote the lawe the patriarches had sufficient for theyr saluation thoughe they had ether nothinge or verie litle writen woorde And yet you can not saye that the written woorde of that tyme was sufficient of it selfe without all tradition by mouth VVerfore this answere is against your selfe as also that is whiche you frame to the secoÌ„d reason affirming that albeit dyuers partes of scripture be wanting now whiche was in S. Pauls tyme yet still it is sufficieÌ„t whiche I denye not being ioyned to the other supplies that God vseth For God supplieth by tradition and woorde of mouthe But whether in all tymes the onelie written woord that is extant be sufficient of it selfe to the whole Churche without all other helpes deliuered by tradition that is our question And of times past when the law was not written no man without impudencie can affirme that the written woorde was then sufficient And of our tyme that is after the writinge of the new testament Epiphanius sayeth Non omnia a diuina scriptura accipt possunt quapropter aliqua in scripturis aliqua in traditione sancti Apostoli tradiderunt All things necessarie can not be had from the scripture And therfore the holie Apostles left vnto vs some thinges writteÌ„ and some thinges by tradition VVhich signisieth sufficientlie what Iudgement the primatiue Church had of this matter as more at large shalbe shewed in the article foloweing whiche is also of this same argument Of teaching traditions besides the scripture Art 5. THE CENSVRE 5. You reporte the Iesuites to saye That the want of holy Scriptures must be supplyed by peeciâ—ge it out by traditions Cens fol. 220. This is coyne of the former forge all false and noe one such vvorde to be found in all their booke But yet as though they had sayed soe you fight manfullye agaynst this your ovvne sâ—ntence sayinge in manner follovvinge Contrarye to this is the lawe in Moyses Thow shalte not adde to the woordes which I speake to thee nether shalte thou take froÌ„ theÌ„ But vvhy do you breake the lavv M. Charke in reportinge the lavv you haue heere added the singuler nuÌ„ber in the Verbe and the plurall in the Noune and haue taken avvaye the numbers vvhich the lavv gyuer vsed chauÌ„ged the same at your ovvne pleasure and that for a purpose vvhich I could gesse at But let all thinges be lavvfull vnto you vvhat maketh this lavv for your pourpose By your meaning the Apostles and EuaÌ„gelistes did offend in adding any thing besides the lavve of Moyses vvhiche is absourd Nether did Moyses in this place forbiddinge to adde or take avvaye speake of his vvrytten lavve for he had not yet vvritten it but of those thinges vvhich he deliuered theÌ„ by vvorde of mouthe at that time the vvhich he vvilled them to keepe and obserue vvhollye and perfectly vvithout chaunginge it by addition or diminution or by their ovvne corrupte gloses as naughtie men are vvonte to doe And this is the true meaninge of that place and not as you vvould haue it that nothinge should be beleeued besides that vvhiche Moyses set dovvne for a litle after Moyses hym selfe commaundeth the lâ—vves to heare the Prophet vvhich God should rayse afâ—er hym as hym selfe meanynge therby Christ. THE DEFENCE Heere agayne M. Charke disburdeneth hym selfe vpon Gotuisus sayeing If the Censure of Colen hathe no suche vvordes Gotuisus fayled in vvriting their booke But gentle sir wiliam this matter is not so shyfted of You knew that Gotuisus tooke these woordes from kemnitius against whome they were proued false by Payuas before you wrote your booke as the most of his other reportes were How chaunceth it then you wolde vtter theÌ„ agayne without seeing the originall whether they were true or no Besyde this Gotuisus citeth Canisius for the same woordes where no one suche woorde is to be fownd whye looked you not in Canisius to see yt or whye had you not cited Canisius in your Margent as well as the Censure of Colen which you well knew was not to be had whye dyd you conceale Canisius I saye can you be excused from willfull dishonest dealyng in this matter No no your desperate resolution is to-too euident But saye you we holde the doctrine thoughe the Iesuites haue not the woordes VVhat doctrine M. Chark that the want of holie scripture must be peeced owt by traditioÌ„s It is false VVe speake not so vnreuereÌ„tlie of the scripture as shall better appeare by the article foloweyng VVe doe not teach that the scriptures are wanting or neede to be peeced It is your hereticall malice which deuiseth these woordes Though bothe partes of gods woord that is both written vnwritteÌ„ be necessarie vnto gods Church yet both of theÌ„ do staÌ„d in their full perfection assigned them by God nether is the one a mayme or impeachement to the other no more than is S. Lukes Gospell to that of S. Mathew or S. Pauls epistles to any of them bothe For as you may not saye that S. Mathewes Cospell is maymed for that S. Lukes is also admitted or that S. Pauls epistles are a peecing vp of the former Gospells no more can we saye that gods woorde left vs by mouthe in tradition is a â—ayme or detraction to that whiche he hath left vs in writing or that in writing to be a disanullyng of that whiche we had by tradition for that bothe are partes of gods woord of equall authoritie as shalbe shewed more largelie in the twelueth article together with certaine meanes how to knovv and discerne the same VVherfore these odious speeches against the dignitie of holie scripture doe procede onelie from the malice of you our aduersaries and of no cause or matter ministred by vs. After certaine tryflyng speeche to litle purpose M. Charke concludeth peremptorilie this article in these vvoordes To conclude it is a great iniquitie to adde traditions or your vnvvritten verities to the vvrytten vvoord of God vvherunto no man may adde because nothing is vvantynge and to hym that addeth shall the curses vvritten in the booke be added for euer cityng in the MargeÌ„t the place of the Apocalips vvhiche sayeth that vvho soeuer addeth or taketh avvaye from that booke of prophecie shall incurre the plagues vvritten in that booke But good Lorde when vvill these men leaue to abuse the scriptures learne to speake to the purpose yf vvee beleeue all that is vvritten in that booke of reuelations and other things besides reuealed vnto
vs els vvhere by God doe vve incurre this curse of S. Iohn therby S. Iohn sayeth nothing may be added or taken awaye from the perfectioÌ„ of that most excelleÌ„t mysticall booke of reuelations but dyd he meane heerby that nothing should be credited besides that vvhiche is there vvritten S. Iohn hym selfe vvrote diuerse things vvhich are not in the Apocalips yea by the iudgement of kemnitius a protestant he vvroote hys vvhole Gospell after the Apocalips And yet I thynke by this additioÌ„ of his Gospell he did not runne into the curses of that booke How theÌ„ is this place alleaged agaynst vs for beleeuyng those thynges whiche our auncetours haue delyuered vnto vs as receyued from the mouth of Christ and his Apostles how holdeth this argument no man may adde to the booke of Apocalips ergo no man may beleeue a traditioÌ„ of Christ or his Apostles May not a man aswell inferre ergo we may not beleeue the actes of the Apostles But this is their common alleaging of Scriptures It is Lamentable to see the sleight dealings of these men in matters of suche importance It is a great iniquitie sayeth Charke to add traditions or your vnvvritten verities to the vvritten vvorde of God VVhat meane you Sir by adding whoe doeth add or in what sense If God left any doctrine by tradition vnto the Churche and our auncetours haue deliuered the same vnto vs especiallie those of the primatiue Churche what shall we doe in this case shall we refuse yt It seemeth daungerous and I see no reason For the same men that delyuered vnto vs the scriptures and sayed this is gods written woorde and sayd of other forged scriptures this is not gods written woorde the same delyuered vnto vs these doctrines sayeinge this is Gods woorde vnwritten As for example S. Austen and Origen doe teache vs that baptizing of infants is to be practized in the Churche onelie by tradition of the Apostles S. Ierom and Epiphanius tell vs that the fast of the lent and other the lyke is a traditioÌ„ of the Apostles Dionisius and Tertullian saye that prayers and obâ—ation for the dead are traditions of the Apostles S. Basil teacheth that the consecration of the font before baptisme the exorcisme vppon those that are to be baptized theyr anointing with holie Chrisme and diuers lyke thinges are delyuered vnto vs by prescript of Christ and his Apostles Thus testifie these men and no man in the Churche controlled theyr testimonie at that tyme wherby it is euident that all that Churche beleeued it Nowe what shall we doe when these and many other lyke things are delyuered vs by our fore-fathers the doctors and cheefe pyllers of Christ his Churche shall we reiect and discredit them wherfore or vppon what ground these men were nearer to the Apostles tymes than we are by many hundred yeeres and therfore could better tell than we can what the Apostles left by tradition or left not Agayne they were no dishonest men and consequentlie wolde not write a lye or deceyue vs wittinglie And yf they wolde yet other men wolde haue controlled them VVhye then should it be suche iniquitie in vs to receyue and beleeue the traditions which they deliuer vs as M. Chark sayeth it is If they come from the mouthe of Christ his Apostles as thes fathers doe affirme then are they parte of Gods woorde also as well as the other whiche are written But you will saye I knowe they come not from Christ and his Apostles And how I praye you can you proue that to me whye should I beleeue you rather than these holye fathers whiche lyued so long agoe I doe not see fot example sake why I should beleeue a CHARKE or a FVLKE commyng but yesterdaye from the Grammer Schoole before a Cyprian a Tertulian a Basil a Ierome a Chrysostome an Ambrose or an Austen especiallie in a matter of fact as our case is seyng they lyued more than twelue or thyrtene hundred yeeres nearer to the deed doeing than these ministers doe and yet to this extremitie am I driuen For hearken a litle how D. Fulck handleth these men about traditions S. Cyprian is alleaged agaynst hym sayeing that the mynglyng of wyne and water in the Chalice is the tradition of Christ hym selfe Fulke but yf Cyprian had bene vell vrged he vvolde haue better considered of the matter Tertulian is alleaged sayeing that the blessing with the signe of the crosse is a tradition of the Apostles Fulke Tertulians iudgement of tradition vvithout scripture in that place is corrupt S. Basil is alleaged for the same matter affirmyng the custome of blessing with the signe of the crosse to be an Apostolicall tradition Fulke Basil is an insufficient vvarrant for so vvoorthie a matter S. Ierome is alleaged sayeing that Lent fast is the tradition of the Apostles Fulke Ierome vntruelye ascribeth that tradition to the Apostles S. Chrisostom is alleaged sayeing â—hat the Apostles decreed that iÌ„ the sacrifice of the Aultar there should be made prayer for the departed Fulke vvhere he sayeth it vvas decreed by the Apostles c he muste pardon vs for crediting hym because he can not shevv it ovvt of the Actes and vvritings of the Apostles But dyuers fathers are alleaged together beside Chrisostome for the same matter Fulke vvhoe is vvytnesse that this is the tradition of the Apostles you vvill saye Tertulian Cyprian Austen Ierome and a great many moe But I vvolde learne vvhye the Lord vvould not haue this setforth by Mathevv Marke Luke or Paul vvhy they vvere not chosen scribes heerof rather than Tertulian Cyprian Ierome Austen and other suche as you name But this is a counterfait institutioÌ„ fained traditioÌ„ And in other place beyng vrged by the lyke he discrediteth all antiquitie sayeing It is a coÌ„mon thing vvith the Aâ—ncient vvriters to defend euerie ceremonie vvhiche vvas vsed in their tyme by tradition of the Apostles Heere now are sett before me a payre of balances with fulke and Charke in one ende and Cyprian Origen Tertulian Basil Ierome Chrisostome Epiphanius and Austen in the other ende for all these fathers as you see affirme constanlie traditions of Christ and his Apostle besides the written woord Fulke and Charke denye the same They alleage particular examples Fulk opposeth hym selfe to them all But whiche in reason should I rather beleeue You shall heare some of them speake S. Basil the great was a maÌ„ I trow to be matched in credit with Charke the minister His woords are these Dogmata quae in ecclesia praedicantur quaedam habemus e doctrina scripto tradita quaedam rursus ex apostolorum traditione in mysterio id est in occulto tradita accepimus quoruÌ„ vtraque parem vim habent ad pietatem nec hiis quisquam contradicit quisquis sane vel tenuiter expertus est quae sint iura ecclesiastica Among the doctrines whiche are preached in
the church some we haue opened to vs by writinge and some agayne we haue receyued delyuered vs by tradition of the Apostles in secret bothe whiche doctrines are of equall force to pietie nether doeth any man gaynsaye this whiche hathe anye litle knowleige in the lawes of tâ—â— Churche Heere now are S. Basil and VV. Charke at an open combate abowt traditions The one sayeth it is iniquitie to admitt them The other sayeth it is ignorance to reiect them The one sayeth they are of no authoritie or credit at all The other sayeth they are of equall force and authoritie vvith the vvritten vvoord of Christ and his Apostles VVhome will you rather beleeue in this case VVith S. Basil taketh parte Eusebius sayeinge Christi discipuli ad magistri sui nutum illius praecepta partim literis partim sine literis quasi iure quodam non scripto seruanda commendarunt The disciples of Christ at theyr Maisters beck dyd commend his precepts to posteritie partlie in writing partlie without writing as it were by a certaine vnwriten lawe Marke heere that traditioÌ„ is called an vnvvriteÌ„ lavve the things delyuered therby are the precepts of Christ and that they were left vnwryten by the becke or appointment of Christ hym selfe Epiphanius is yet more earnest than Eusebius For writing against certaine heretiques named Apostolici whiche denyed traditions as our protestants doe he proueth it thus Oportet autem traditione vti Non enim omnia a diuina scriptura accipi possunt Quapropter aliqua in scripturis aliqua in traditione sancti Apostoli tradiderunt quemadmodum dicit Sanctus Paulus Sicut tradidi â—obis alibi sic doceo sic tradidi in ecclesiis we muste vse traditioÌ„ also For that all thyngs can not be had owt of Scripture For which cause the holye Apostles haue delyuered some things to vs in scriptures and some thyngs by traditions according as S. Paul sayeth euen as I haue left vnto you by tradition And in an other place This doe I teache this haue I left by traditioÌ„ in Churches Heere you see Epiphanius doeth not onelye affirme so much as we holde but also proueth it out of Scripture VVith Epiphanius ioyneth fully and earnestlye S. Chrisostome writyng vpon these woordes of S. Paul to the purpose State tenete traditiones Stand fast and holde traditions Out of which cleere woordes S. Chrisostome maketh this illation Hinc patet quod non omniae per epistolam tradiderint sed multa etiam sine literis Eadem verò fide digna sunt tam illa quám ista Itaque traditionem quoque ecclesiae fide dignam putamus Traditio est nihil quaeras amplius By these woordes of S. Paul it is euident that the Apostles delyuered not all by epistle or writing vnto vs but many things also whiche are not wrytten And yet those are as woorthie fayth as the other For whiche cause we esteeme the tradition of the Church woorthie of faythe It is a tradition seeke no more abowt it VVhat can be spoken more effectualie against VV. Charke than this Is it now greate iniquitie to receyue traditioÌ„s or no how will he auoyde this vniforme coÌ„sent of antiquitie against his fond malepeartnes condemning all traditions for iniquitie Heere you see are the verie woordes auowed as also in S. Basil alleaged before which these new maisters doe so odiouslye exaggerate to the people dailie that we matche traditioÌ„s with the written woord of God These woordes I saye are heere maintained bothe in Chrisostome and Basil affirming the vnwrytten traditions of Christ and his Apostles to be of equall force and authoritie with the written woorde of the same And yet I trowe were they not blasphemous for sayeing so as these yonge gentlemen are accustomed to call vs. And this now in generall that traditions are that is that diuers things belonging to faythe are left vs vnwriten by Christ and his Apostles Also that this sort of traditions are of equall authoritie with the wrytten woord because they are the vnwriteÌ„ or deliuered woorde But now yf any man wolde aske me what or which are these Apostolicall traditions in particular I could alleage hym testimonies owt of the auncient fathers for a great number wherof some examples haue bene gyuen in the former article But lett any man reade S. Cyprian Serm de ablut pedum Tertullian de coron miiltis and S. Ierom. Dialog cont luciferianos and he shall finde store And albeit some thing hathe bene sayd of S. Austen before yet will I adde these few examples owt of hym for endinge of this article He proueth the baptisme of infants by tradition of the Churche lib. 10â— de gen cap. 23. He proueth by the same tradition that we must not rebaptize those whiche are baptized of heretiques li. 2. de bapt c. 7. lib. 1. cap. 23. li. 4. cap. 6. He proueth by tradition the celebration of the pentecost commonlie called whit-sondaye epist. 118. c. 1. He proueth by tradition that the Apostles were baptized ep 108. He proueth by tradition the ceremonies of baptisme as delyuered by the Apostles Li. de fide oper cap. 9. He proueth by tradition of Christ his Apostles that we should receyue the blessed sacrament fasting ep 1â—8 cap. 6. He proueth by lyke tradition the exorcisme of suche as should be baptized li. 1. de nupt concup cap. 20. li. 6. contra Iulian. ca. 2. He proueth by the same tradition that we must offer vpp the sacrifice of the masse for the deade li. de cura pro mort ageÌ„da ca. 1. 4. Serm. 32. de verbis Apostoli I omitt many other suche thinges whiche aswell this learned doctor as other most holye fathers of the primatiue Churche doe auouche by onelye tradition of Christ and his Apostles without writing whiche to beleeue or credit if it be such great iniquitie and blasphemie as VV. Charke will haue vs to esteeme then were these auncient fathers in a miserable case and this new minister in a fortunate lot But yf the countenance of this new Sir doe not surpasse the credit of those olde Saints I weene it will not be hard to iudge how fond and foolishe hys raylinge speeche ys against a doctrine so vniformlie receyued in Christ his Churche as the doctrine of traditions hath bene from the beginning VVhether the Iesuites speake euill of Scripture Art 6. THE CENSVRE You reporte the Iesuites to saye The holy Scripture is a nose of waxe Cens. 117 God forgyue you for abusing so muche these learned men Marie you take the vvaye to ouermatch both learning and trueth too yf you may haue your desire He that vvill reade the place by you quoted shall finde the Iesuites vpon occasion geuen them to saye in effect thus that before the rude and ignorante people it is easie for a noughtie man to vvreste the scripture to vvhat interpretation pleaseth hym beste for the flatteringe ether of
Prince or people euen as a man may frame a nose of vvaxe vvhat vvay or to vvhat forme he liste And vvill you of this make them to saye that the holye Scripture is a nose of vvaxe Christ is lykened to a serpent and yet is no serpent Also to a couetous Vsurer and yet is none Nether doth the Scripture committ blasphemie in vsing such similitudes But hovv proue you M. Charke that the scripture maye not be vvrested into manye senses before the rude people as a nose of vvaxe maye be into manye formes Because it is coÌ„trarye saye you vnto the vvordes of Dauid The lawe of the Lorde is perfecte conuerting soules Suerly I vvould you might be feed euen for the sauing of your credit M. Chark to alleage one place vvithout corruptioÌ„ Doe you translate Lex domini immaculata The Lavve of the Lorde is perfecte in sense soe that it maye not be vvrested to a vvroÌ„g interpretation This is maruelous Immaculata signifieth in these countries vnspotted voyde of filthe or dishonestie vvherevvith prophane vvritinges are often times defiled But the lavv of God is deuoyde of all suche thinges and therefore conuerteth soules vvhereas other vvritinges doe often tymes corrupt them But that Immaculata can not be translated perfecte in sense it is euidente by this that euerye sillable and vvorde in Gods Lavve is vnspotted but yet not perfecte in sense muche lesse so cleare as it may not be peruerted to an euill meaninge vvherby your fraudulente translation is discouered THE DEFENCE To auoyde the reproche of belyeing and slaundering the Iesuits in this place M. Charke hath this refuge I appealle sayeth he froÌ„ your Censure to Andradius playne confession He defended the Iesuitesâ— in these poyntes agaynst kemnitius vvhiche you defend agaynst me This Andradius in handlyng this article doeth not at all crye ouâ— as you doe but acknovvlegeth defendeth the matter vvithouâ— suche needles scoffes VVhat scoffes the Censure vseth or what cryeing out there is in this article the reader seeth and can Iudge of your report M. Charke But that you are the same man which you were before that is most false and shameles in your avouchementes it shall nowe appeare You saye heere of Andradius twoo things First that he playnlye confesseth and acknowlegeth the matter Secondlye that he cryeth not owt agaynst kemnitius for this report And for bothe these things you quote Andradius in the hundred fowertie page of his second booke As for the first lett anye man see the place by you quoted and yf Andradius confesse any more of the matter than is sett downe in the Censure it selfe lett hym beleeue you an other tyme vppon your woorde For the second it is to-too impudent For albeit Andradius had not altogether so much cause to take stomach against kemnitius as I haue against you for makyng a greater lye than he dyd as shalbe shewed yet lett the reader vewe ouer but the two pages whiche goe immediatlie before that whiche you cite he shall see nothing els in them but a moste earnest sharpe inuectiue against kemnitius and all other protestaÌ„ts for malitious slaundering and misreporting the â—esuites And among other things Andradius sayeth there that for a greatâ— tyme he tooke pytie of the protestaÌ„ts thiâ—king that they had erred of ignorance But nowe seeyng their malice in forging open lyes against their owne consciences that is which they must needes know and vnderstand to be lyes his affection of compassion was turned into hatred This and much more hath Andradius in that place against kemnitius for shameles lyeing And yet M. Charke sayeth that he cryeth not owt as I doe but câ—fesseth all VVhat may be sayd to such But as I sayed before Andradius had not so much cause of Choler against kemnitius as I haue against M. Charke for that he doeth not onelie report againe an open vntrueth whiche he knewe to be a lye before he repoâ—ted it but also hath corrupted and falsified that lye to make yet a greater lye VVhiche thyng that you may see I will heere laye downe the verie woordes bothe of kemnitius of Gotuisus M. Charkes author for that their woordes are the selfe same and Gotuisus tooke them syllable for syllahle from kemnitius Gotuisus woordes then are these The Iesuites saye that the holye scripture in those thyngs vvhiche it contayneth and settetb forth is as it vvere a nose of vvaxe not yeelding any certaine and immouable sentence but such as may be vvrested into any interpretation Censura Colon. fol. 117. in opere catechestico Canisij fol. 44. For this false report of kemnitius against the Iesuites Andradius falleth into the loÌ„g and vehement inuectiue wherof I spake before But what should I doe heere with VV. Charke or rather what should the reader think of hym for so great a falshoode as in this place he vseth for first he concealeth the quotatioÌ„ of Canisius fol 44 as well in his first book as also in his second replye And the cause heerof is as often hath beene noted before for that the quoting of Canisius according as he found hym quoted in his author wolde haue discouered the lye which M. Chark hoped to conceale by passing ouer Canisius and cyting onelye the Censure of Colen whiche he was sure no man coulde fynde in England And is this dealing excusable Secondlie owt of the large sentence of Gotuisus nowe repeated M. Charke tooke onelie three or fower woordes that seemed most odious and yet falsified too therby to make them more odious For wher as Gotuisus sayeth the Iesuits holde the scriptures to be as it vvere a nose of vvaxe M. Chaâ—ke writeth that the Iesuits saye the holye scripâ—ure is a nose of vvaxe and quoteth for it Censura Colen fol. 117. whiche he knewe was not to be had concealeth purposelie bothe kemnitius Gotuisus and Canisius where the forgerie was to be discouered VVhat shall a man say of this ministers falshood shall we beleeue any longer this puritane protestation of playne and simple dealing in the lord what hypocriticall deceyuing of the reader is this And thus muche for the slaunder and falshoode in reportinge But now to come to the matter it selfe the Censure graunteth that vppon certayne circumstances the Iesuites doe compare the hereticall wreâ—ting and detorting of scripture vnto the boweâ—ng of a nose of waxe into many formes Mary the circumstances of this comparison are these Fyrst that they speake not in respect of the scripture in it selfe but in respect of heretiques and other wicked men which abuse scripture Secondlye they add apud rudem populum qui iudicare non potest This abuse and wrestinge of scripture happeneth commonlie before the rude and ignorant people whiche can not iudge of the deceyt Thirdlye they adioyne vt palpentur vitia principum aut vulgi Heretiques doe it to flatter the princes or people present in theyr vices By whiche woordes
shall serue for this tyme. He hath wryten two large and learned volumes of the corruptions of gods woorde by the heretiques of our tyme where he hath these wooâ—des Est ergo verbum dei c. VVherfore the vvoorde of God is as holie scripture conteyneth the knovvleige of saluatioÌ„ the cleare lanterne and shynyng lampe it is the hydden mysterie the heauentlie Manna the pure and proued golde the learnyng of Saints the doctrine of all spirit and trueth the loking glasse the liuelye fontayne the sealed booke vvhich booke vvho soeuer doe vse vvell they are Gods scholars they are spirituall they are vvyse they are iust they onelye are made the freendes and heyres of almightie God These are Canisius a Iesuites woordes And doe these men speak baselye of scriptures as M. Chark heere accuseth them But now we come to examine the text alleaged by M. Chark agaynst the Iesuites to wytt Lex domini immaculata the law of our Lord is vnspotted or vndâ—filed which M. Charke wolde haue to signifie that the scripture is so perfect playne in sense as no wicked man may wrest or abuse the same For whiche absurd reasoninge and wrestinge of scripture he being now reproued by the Censure heare what he answereth and how he defendeth hym selfe The Censure sayeth he supposeth me to haue but one Byble and that of the olde translation onelie vvhich hathe the lavve of the Lord is vndefiled c. but the original hath the lavve of the Lord is perfect And the best translations haue so translated it your olde translation goeth alone The 70. folovv the rest Heere you see that M. Charke bryngeth diuers reasons for his defense First that he hath diuers Bybles in his house and that of diuers translations Secondlie that the original or hebrew text of this verse in the Psalme hath not immaculata that is vndefiled or vnspoted but rather perfect in that sense as he defendeth it Thirdlie that all the best translations haue it so and that our olde translation differeth from them all Fouerthlie that the septuagint or seuentie greke interpretours are also against vs here in This is all M. Charkes defense But here by the waye wolde I haue the reader to Marke how muche M. Charke getteth to hys cause Yf I should graunt hym all that he hathe here sayd surelie he should gayne onelie that the law of God is perfect And is this against any thinge that we saye or holde or is it against the signification of the woord immaculata in the olde latin translation whiche he impugneth Is not a thinge immaculate or vndefiled also called perfect euen as on the contrarie a filthie or defiled thinge is called imperfect If then we should graunt that the hebrew and greeke textes had the woord perfect in them in steed of the latin woord immaculata yet this dothe not condemne the olde translation for vsing the woord immaculata immaculate For that immaculate as hath bene shewed signifieth also perfect from spot mary not perfect in that sense wherin M. Charke talketh and for proofe wherof he alleaged this sentence to witt that because the law of the lorde is perfect therfore the scripture can not be wrested whiche is a most false and absurd illation vppon the worde perfect For S. Paules epistles are persect together withe other scriptures and yet S. Peter sayeth that many men dyd wrest and depraue them But now lett vs consider the seuerall fower pointes of M. Charkes former answer whiche as yow see if wee should graunt vnto him without contradiction yet had he gayned nothing therby But lett vs examine them Touching the first whiche he answereth that is abowt the varietie of Bybles and translations which he hath at home I will not stand or coÌ„tend with M. Chark Let hym haue as many as he please the matter is howe well he vnderstandeth or reporteth those Bybles and not how many he hath The second poynt is false that the hebrew text disagreeth from the olde latin translation as shalbe shewed after The thyrd is fond that all the best translations doe differe from the olde translation heerin For what best or better or other good latin translation hath he than the olde whiche was in vse in gods Churche aboue thirtene hundred yeeres past as may be seene by the citations of the fathers whiche lyued then whiche was afterwarde also ouervewed corrected by S. Ierom which was also so hyghlye coÌ„mended by S. Augustin what other better translation I saye hath william Charke than this auncient which he so contemneth except he will name some latter of our tyme as of Erasmus Luther or the like whiche Beza hym selfe notwithstandinge affirmeth to be nothing lyke the olde traÌ„slatioÌ„ for exactnes The fowerth poynt which he addeth is a shameles lye that the septuagint in greeke doe dissent from the woorde immaculata in the latin For their woorde is AMOMOS which their owne lexicon will expound vnto them to be immaculate innocent irreprehensible To returne therfore in a woorde or two to the originall text the hebrew woorde is TAMAM or TAM which the septuagint doe interpret as you haue heard AMOMOS that is irreprehensible and the auncient latin translation immaculata immaculate And what refuge then can M. Charke fynde heere I doe not denye but that it signifieth also perfect for that what soeuer is irreprehensible and without spott may also be called perfect as hath bene shewed But how doeth this proue that it signifieth to be perfect in sense in suche sorte as it may not be wrested or peruerted In the 118. Psalme where our auncient translation hath beati immaculati in via your owne englysh bible hath translated it M. Charke blessed are those that be vndefyled in the vvaye and the Hebrew and greeke woordes are TAM AMOMOS as in the other text How then doe you rayle at our olde auncient translation for that wherein your new englishe byble doth the verye same the lyke you may see in infinite other places as leuit 3. v. 1. 6. Also Num. 6. v. 14. VVhere sacrifices are appointed to be immaculate according to the auncient tranflation And your englishe byble translateth it so too sayeinge they must be without blemishe where the hebrew and greeke woordes are TAM and AMOMOS as before By whiche is seene that M. Charke careth not whether he runneth what he forgeth or whome he reprehendeth so he maye seeme allwayes to saye somewhat And of all other shyftes this is the last and the easiest and of most credit and least able to be spyed of his reader as he thinketh to inueighe against the olde latin translation when he is pressed vnauoydablye with any place of scripture alleaged For this shyft besides the present couering of the difficultie yeeldeth also some opinion of Learning to his Maister gyuinge men to vnderstand that he is skillfull in the learned tongues whereas God knoweth the refuge is vsed for bare
we talke when we compare them with scripture impeache the teaching of Christe and his Apostles what doeth the spirituall authoritie of the pope vnder Christe diminishe the kinglie power and authoritie of Christe how doeth the preesthode of mē as from Christe or the sacrifice of the Aultar instituted by Christe disgrace Christs presthoode or his sufficiēt sacrifice ones for all offered on the crosse There is noted in the Margent the epistle to the Hebrewes where it is saied that that sacrifice on the crosse was ones offered for euer for oure redēptiō VVhiche we bothe graunt and teache in that manner as then it was done but yet that impeacheth nothing this dayly sacrifice of ours whiche must be in the churche vntill the end of the woorde as Daniel prophecyed and that in euerie place amongest the Gentiles that is in all the worlde is Malachie fore-tolde being called by Sainct Cirill and other fathers incruentum sacrificium the vnbloodie sacrifice which being one and the selfe same with that which was offered once vpon the crosse is appointed by Christe to be offred dayly in remembrance and thanks geuing for that bloodie sacrifice as Sainct Chrisostom doeth proue at large vpō the epistle to the hebrewes whom other his like yf M. Chark his felowes wolde not disdaine to reade beleeue they wold be a shamed to cauill and blaspheme gods mysteries as they doe But for a large and full answere of this common obiection of theirs owte of the epistle to the hebrewes towching Christe once bloodilie offered for all I referre the reader amōges many other to certayne particular auncient and learned fathers of the primatiue churche whoe doe handle this obiection and answere it of purpose The one is Theodoret byshop of Cyrus whoe handleth this question vvhie Christians doe novv vse to sacrifice in the nevv testament seing the olde lavv vvith all sacrifices vvere abolished by the one sacrifice of Christe The other is S. Augustin whoe proposeth this dowbt hovv vve sacrifice Christe euery daye vpon the Aultar seing he is sayd to be sacrificed once for all vpon the crosse And then he answereth it bothe fullie and largelie in that sense as I haue sayd before So that this obiection was a cómon thing in the primatiue churche and commōlie answered by euery writer which M. Chark his felowes do make so much a doe abowt now crieing owt that we denie the vertue of Christes passion the effects of his offices and the like See the same answered also by Eusebius li. 1. demonst euang cap. 6. and 10. And by Theophilact in cap. 5. ad hebr And so hauing answered now the substance of all that which M. Chark hathe in his preface I might here make an end but that I haue promised to shew how we offer hym and his felows moste reasonnable meanes of triall and that they in deede admitt none at all For what is it to name scripture in woordes when all thee controuersie is about the sense thereof wherein they admit no Iudge but them selues yf we bring scripture neuer so playne yet will they shift it of with some impartinent interpretation And what remedie or further triall haue we then I will gyue an example or two for instruction of the reader in their procedings The most of the auncient fathers wrote books in prayse of virginitie aboue wedlocke vsed to proue it by the sayeing of Christe There be Eunuches vvhiche haue gelded them selues for the kingdome of heauen he that can take it let hym take it Also by the woordes of S. Paul he that ioynethe his virgine in mariage dothe vvell and hee that ioynethe her not dothe better VVhiche woordes being alleaged against Martyn Luther whoe preferred mariage yea though it were of a vowed Nunne before virgnitie he answered it thus that Christ by his woordes terrified men from virginitie and continence and S. Paul by this speche dyd diswade them from the same Now what could be replied in this case trow you An other exāple may be towching S. Iohn Baptist of whome the scripture sayth first concerning his place of liuinge that he vvas in the vvildernesse vntill the day of his appearing to Israel Secōdlie touching his apparell Iohn vvas appareled vvith the heares of Camels Thyrdlie touching his diet his meate vvas locustes and vvilde honie Of whiche three things the olde fathers of the primatiue Church dyd gather a great and singular austeritie of S. Iohns lyfe and doe affirme with all that Eremits and Monkes and other religious people did take their paterne of straite lyuing from hym For whiche cause S. Chrisostome dothe often call S. Iohn Baptist Monachum principem vitae monastice a monke and prince of Monasticall lyfe whiche protestants being not able to abyde doe rage maruailouslie against S. Chrisostome condemning hym of rashenes and falsehode for vsinge those termes wherefore they fall to interpret the alleaged woordes of scripture farre otherwise sayeinge that by the desert wherein he liued vntill he began to preache is vnderstoode nothing els but his priuate lyfe at home in his fathers ovvne hovvse And for his apparell say they of Camels heare it was not straunge apparell but vsual to Mountain men that is vndulata◠sayeth another VVater chamblet hansome and decent albeit somvvhat plentifull in that countrie And lastlie touchinge his dyet of locusts and wilde hony it was no hard fare say they for the locustes were creuises cast awaye by the fishers of Iordan as vncleane by the lawe but eaten of Iohn by the libertie of the Gospell And the wilde hony was no vnpleasant thing as the fathers doe imagin but it was say Cossius and Strigelius that pleasant Manna whiche Apothecaires vse to kepe in their shoppes So that accordinge to these men all that austeritie of lyfe whiche the scriptures so particularlie doe recounte all antiquitie doeth wounder at in S. Iohn Baptist cometh but to this that he was brought vp priuatelie in his fathers house cladde in chāblette fedde with creuisses swete Manna VVhat great hardnesse was this A thyrd example may be aboute the controuersie of reall presence in the sacrament for whiche we bring plaine woordes of scripture oute of fower diuerse places of the new testament where the same woordes are repeated withoute exposition or alteration to witt hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie VVhiche woordes dyd seme so playne and cleare for the reall presence of Christe in the sacrament to all antiquitie as no man might without great offence doubt thereof as the woords of S. Ambro. S. Ciril are And as the same Ciril in an other place proueth at large to aske onelye quomodo how it may be is the parte of an vnbeleuinge Iewe seinge God was able as he sayeth as well to doe this as to turne the rodde of Moyses into a serpent To whiche purpose allso holy Epiphanius