in ep 1. ad cor Isodorus Li. diu offic cap. 18. Damascenus Li. de ortho fid cap. 14. with others Nether importeth it anie thinge though the woorde facere dothe not signifie to consecrate of his owne nature for the facte of Christe going before draweth it to that signification as if a man should singe and afterwarde say to the standers by Hoc facite Doe the same héere facere should signifie to singe though not of his owne nature 12. You reporte the Iesuites to say Traditions are of equal authority with the woorde of God we must beleue thē though they be manifestlye against the Scripture Cens. fol. 230. You drawe towards an end M. Chark therfore you wil make a soūd lie for a parting blow You haue here added of your owne We must beleue them thoughe they be manifestlye against the Scripture The Iesuites say no such woord but they affirme the former parte of your wordes although not soe generally confusedly as you report For they say not that all traditions are of equal authoritye with the woord of God but only such as are certaynlye descended from Christ his Apostles and were deliuered by thē to be obserued as parte of the woorde of God For there are two kinds of traditions or doctrines receaued onlye by woord of mouthe the one called Ecclesiastical because they were begone and left vs only by the Church and thes ar of no greater authoritie then the writinges and other decrées of the Churche are The other are called Apostolicall or deuine left vnto vs by Christ the Apostles and thes are of no lesse authority then if they had ben writen by thē or then are the other things which they wrot For if a maister should leaue vnto his seruantes one thing in writing and an other thing by woord of mouthe they are of equal authoritie as all men wil graūt Thes traditions therfor if they be certainly knowen to come frō Christ his Apostles the Iesuites say they are of equal authority with y e written word not al traditiōs as you malitiously reporte And now that Christ his Apostles left vnto the Church diuers doctrines by word of mouth only not writen it is proued by inuincible argumētes as by the testimonies of the Councels Fathers stories of the Primatiue church by many places of scripture as namly by that S. Paule saithe to the Thessalonians Brethern stande fast and hould the traditions which you haue lerned ether by word of mouth or by our epistle Also it is proued by doctrines which we haue and hould the Church hath so done frō the beginning which doctrines notwithstanding are not writen but receaued by worde of mouth from Christ and the Apostles as baptisme of infantes celebration of the sondaye the nomber of the bookes of Scripture the fast of lent and the like wherof I haue geuen more examples before in your fourth reporte Now this being soe how vainly doe you bring in M. Charke against this the sayng of Christ touching the superstitious scribes and Pharases In vaine doe they worshipe me teaching doctrines that are but the traditions of men In your owne conscience I aske you is this anything pertaining to our purpose or contrarie to the Catholiques doctrine which I haue set doūe if it be not why doe you soe shamlesly deceaue the people with such impertinēt stuffe But this is your onlye refuge and herein lyethe the whole mayntenance of your cause to reporte vs still amisse and to refute vs with that whiche nothing pertayneth to the matter As in this place whiche you haue héere brought in let the reader marke how manye differences there be betwixt it and our purpose First Christ in this place reprehendeth the teaching of doctrins that are but of men and we talke of doctrines deliuered vs by Christ and his Apostles Secondly Christe reprehendeth not al obseruation of traditiōs of men but the noughtie obseruation of them by estéeming them more then the worde of God and by breaking the worde of God for the obseruinge of them which we also doe condemne Thirdlye those traditions of the Pharases which Christ reprehendeth were certayne idle and foolishe external ceremonies as the washing of cuppes and the lyke and dyuers of them were directe contrarye to the worde of God as certaine corrupt expositiōs of the law as Christ noteth there And these were of thrée kindes The one left by Rabbi Akiuam the other by Rabbi Iuda the thyrde by the sonnes of Asomoneus which interpretations all were called Deuteroseis that is secondarye expositions after Moyses of which peruerse expositions came al their errours of the Talmud But now what is this to the holye Traditions of Christ and his Apostles or of the Primatiue Church 13. Lastly you report the Iesuites to say We must worshippe the image of Christ with lyke honour that we doe the holy bookes of the Ghospel fol. 66. Agaynst which you bring in S. Paul askinge What agreemente is there betweene the temple of God and Idoles I answere much more agréement then there is betwéene the matter we talke of and this place of S. Paule For he talketh of drawinge the yoke with infidels and our question is whether the worshippe done to the image of Christ and to the Byble be al one or no But you by callinge the image of our Sauiour an Idole shew your selfe impious and you are accursed for it by the seuēth general Councel And by putting such great difference betwéene the worship of Christes Image and his books of the Ghospel you proue your vnderstanding to be very litle For if you graunt any kinde of worshippe to the one how can you deny the same to the other séeinge that both are creatures and as the Image was made by the Karuer so the letter of the Byble by the Printer and the hononr done to the one and the other is not to them selues but onely to God whose Image and word they are But if you denye al kinde of honour to them both in that they are creatures for we assigne no diuyne honour vnto them Thē first your place of S. Paul of difference is nothing to the purpose Secondlye what wil you saye to the worshipppe done vnto the Arke vnto the Cherubins vnto the serpent of brasse Why doth Dauid say Doe you adore the stoole of his feete Why are we commaunded to bowe our knée at the sounde of the name of Iesus which is but a creature representing Christ to the eare as his image doth to the eye S. Austen geueth this reason for it Because the honour done to these thinges doth redounde vnto him who is signified by them But you are so wilful M. Chark as you wil not vnderstād y e difference betwéene an image and an idole nor betwéene the honours done vnto a creature and to the creator but malitiously you wil stil confound the same in our names
I would you might be féede cuē for the sauing of your credit M. Charke to alege one place without corruption Doe you translate Lex domini immaculata The Lawe of the Lorde is perfecte in sense soe that it maye not be wrested to a wronge interpretation This is maruelous Immaculata signisieth in these countryes vnspotted voyde of filthe or dishonestye wherewith prophane wrytings are often times defiled But the Law of God is deuoyde of all such thinges and therefore conuerteth soules wheras other wrytinges doe often times corrupt them But that Immaculata can not be translated perfecte in sense it is euidente by this that euerye sillable and worde in God his Lawe is vnspotted but yet not perfecte in sense and much lesse so cleare as it may not be peruerted to an euil meaning wherby your fraudulente translation is discouered 7. You reporte the Iesuites to saye The readinge of the Scripture is not onely not profitable but manye wayes verye hurtefull to the Churche Fol. 21. Did you thinke M. Charke when you wrote this that anye of these bookes whose leaues you cite were to be had or séene in Englande I thinke noe or els you are at a poynte to make none accounte what you speake hereafter The Iesuites haue not this which you reporte here in their names But onely they laye doune certayne wayghtye reasons whye the readynge of Scripture is not rashelye and without verye greate consideration to to be permitted to the rude and ignorant people which vnderstande it not and therfore maye easely misconceaue the meaning therof shewing also that al heresies from the beginning haue bene founded vpon the misunderstanding of the Scripture and yet this without al faulte of the woorde of God but by the ignorance or malyce of the misconsterer As in like manner al sinnes arise by the misuse of the creatures of God which creatures notwithstandinge are good in their owne natures as the Apostle teacheth and Christ him selfe is sayde to be an occasion of ruine vnto some and yet without any faulte of his This is the Iesuites doctrine the contrarie wherof I would sée nowe how M. Charke according to his promise will proue out of the cléere woord of God Mary saythe he Christe delyuerethe a contrarie note Math. 22. Yee erre not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God whereof he would inferre that all men must read the Scriptures A stronge argumente the circumstances considered for first the men to whome Christe spake these woordes were noe ignorante people but learned Saduces which came prepared to pose Christe about the resurrection This appeareth by the subtile question which they put for the of seuen brethren which had alone wife groūded vppon the lawe of Moyses wherby they thought to ouerthrow the doctrine of resurrection But Christe hauing heard their question toulde them that they erred not vnderstanding the Scriptures touching that poynte of resurrection which Scriptures he interpreted to them presentlye out of the iij. chapter of Exodus Also he sayde they erred not vnderstanding the power of God wherby he is able to rayse againe the selfe same bodye in nomber whiche is dead though it be vnpossible as it is in all natural reason Soe that Christ spake not here to vnlearned men nor of all Scriptures nor of readinge but of vnderstanding What maketh therfore this to your purpose M. Charke forsoothe as much as if you should reason thus my Lorde Chaunceller sayd to certayne Doctors of the Arches pleading a case vnskilfully before him you erre not vnderstandinge the common lawe in this case nor the Princesse anthoritie Ergo by these woordes he meanethe that al the clownes of Englande shall fall to readinge of the common lawe albeit they vnderstand neuer a woorde therof 8. You reporte the Iesuites to saye That the rightuous mā lyueth by faith ne hath it not in Christ but by his own woorkes fol. 118. You wearye me out with your impudent lyes there is noe suche thinge what should I aunswere you and yet as though they had sayde it you bringe in a place of S. Paule against the same sayinge If rightuousnes come by our woorkes it is not now grace As thoughe noe mans woorkes coulde be rightuous in this lyfe whiche is bothe from the purpose and false For we denye not but the firste and chéefe rightuousnes wherof Saint Paule speakethe in this place that is wherby a man is called first from sinne or infidelitye to the seruice of Christe his sinnes forgeuen him and he iustified by the infusion of grace this rightuousnes I saye is onlye of Gods merrye and noe waye of our woorkes or by anye merite of the same But yet notwithstandinge after we are nowe made iuste and by the mercye of God placed once in state of grace the good woorkes which ensue of this grace may be rightuous and meritorious not of themselues or of their owne natures as you wickedly affirme vs to hould but thorough the dignitye of that grace of Christe whiche remaynethe in the doers The whiche grace beinge once loste their good déedes are noe more rightuous or merytorious The which true doctrine of ours you will not vnderstand but alwayes of malyce report it contrarye as also you doe shamfully this place of S. Paule to make it serue your purpose For S. Paule saythe that Gods election wherby he chooseth men to be Christians is of grace onlye and not by merite of woorkes and you drawe it generallye against the rightuousnes of al good woorkes And because it would not streche soe farre you haue added vnto it of your owne these woordes If rightuousnes come by our c. which woordes are not in S. Paule 9. You reporte the Iesuites to saye Men doe surely hope that euerlastinge lyfe shall be geuen them but they doe not beleue it now hope often fayleth otherwise it were no hope Cens. 118. For confutation of which doctrine you aleage out of S. Paule Hope is the sure anchor of the soule And againe Hope maketh not ashamed In the which you shew your selfe vnlearned huddlinge vp and confoundinge faythe and hope as one thinge the whiche S. Paule 1 Cor. 13 dothe affirme to be distincte thinges The Iesuites doctrine if you vnderstoode it is true learned and cléere to wit that noe man with out a speciall reuelation from God as the Apostles had from Christ when he sayde that their names were written in the booke of lyfe maye beléeue that he in particuler shalbe saued albeit he maye well hope it And the reason of this is for that the only obiect of faythe is the woorde of God reueled vnto vs ether by writing or by tradition that is as much to saye as noe man maye beléeue or haue faythe in anye thinge excepte it be reuealed vnto him by the woorde of God Wherof it foloweth that whatsoeuer a man beléeueth must be soe certayne necessarie and infallablye true as it cannot possiblye be
false Which two reasons proue that albeit a man maye hope his owne saluation in particuler yet he maye not make it of his beléefe First for that he hathe noe expresse woorde of God that he in particuler shalbe saued for what Scripture saythe for examples sake that Willyam Charke shalbe saued none I thinke but onlye in generall and vppon conditions as if he beléeue as he should doe ioyning charitye with it 1 Cor. 13. If he kepe the commaundementes Math. 19. If he perseuer in honestie vnto the ende Math. 10. If he leaue his lyeinge Apocal. 21. 22. and the lyke The which thinges all noe man can tel whether he obserue or whether he shall obserue them vnto the end or noe Secondlye it is not soe certayne that anye man in particuler shall be saued but he maye be damned at the leaste wise it is not vnpossible for he maye denye his faythe if he will he maye committ adulterie murther and the lyke enormityes and soe damne him selfe As we sée Iudas and diuers other haue done which séemed good for a time and soe maye I toe if I liste and therfore my saluation in particuler beinge not infalliblye certayne can not be the obiecte of faythe and beléefe but onlye of hope Now this hope hath ioyned with it bothe confidence and doubte and that in respecte of two thinges For in respecte of the goodnes and mercy of God it is full of confidence and assurance and in this respecte S. Paule callethe hope the anchore of the soule whiche maketh not ashamed as you aleadge But in respect of Gods iustice and our sinfull frailtie hope hath also doubt and feare annexed with it For when I consider that God as he is mercifull soe is he iust Psal. 10. nay that he damneth more by his iustice then he saueth by his mercie Math. 7. 2. Luc. 13. also that he wil take a straite accounte of euerie little sinne at the daye of iudgement Math. 12. and that there be manie secrete sinnes which maye be in me without my remembraunce Psal. 18. 1. Cor. 4. moreouer that diuers shall come confidentlie at the laste daye hopinge to be saued and yet shalbe damned Math. 7. when I doe coÌ„sider this I say adding to it mine owne noghty inclination vnto sinne my weaknes in perseueraÌ„ce of vertue I caÌ„not chose but ioyne feare with my confidence and soe the scripture teacheth me to do saying Doe you conuerse in feare duringe this time of your habitation And agayne Worke your salutioÌ„ in feare and trembling The reason wherof is put doune also in the scripture to wit Because a man knoweth not whether he be worthye of hate or loue So that we M. Charke as you sée reconcile al scriptures together and mayntayne both confidence and feare in Christian hope and you take one part onely and leaue out the other and yet you are offended with M. Campion for saying that you confound and huddle vp matters 10 You reporte the Iesuites to saye The scripture in deede neuer teachethe inuocation of Sayntes yet we must beleeue â—eceaue and hold it fol. 230. This is falslye reported too for they doe not saye The Scripture neuer teachethe inuocation of Saintes But Monhemius against whom they wrote sayed so and thereof inferred that therefore it was not to be beléeued Which consequence of argument the Iesuites deny to be good and geue examples in many thinges which are not expreslye sett doune in the scriptures and yet are to be beléeued as I haue shewed before in your fowrthe reporte And touchinge this doctrine of Inuocation of Saintes to pray for vs and with vs to our Sauiour the Catholique Churche foundeth it in the woorde of God and deduceth it by necessarie consequence out of manye and euident places of Scripture adioyning therunto the explication and determination of the auncient general Councels and the testimonies of the holye Fathers with the vniuersall practise of all Christendome from the beginning as it maye appéere to them that will reade the Catholique bookes writen of this matter And now you Sir to ouerthrow all this bringe in onlye besides your lye a metaphoricall place of the prophet Esaye Thou art our Father and Abraham hath not knowen vs and Israel hath bene ignorant of vs. Are these your playne cléere and euidente Scriptures whiche you bragge of soe muche I will answers your place to shew your weknes First if the prophet had spoken of inuocation of Saintes in this place and of their intercessioÌ„ for vs yet were not thes wordes against vs for we graunt that the Fathers of the ould Testament vntill Christes ascension were not in heaueÌ„ as our Saintes are now but in Limbo patrum expecting Christ his coming therfore could not here vs or vnderstaÌ„d our necessities as they can now in heauen therfore in this sence the wordes may be true Abraham hath not knoweÌ„ vs c. Secondly the prophet talketh of no such matter in this place but onlye bringing in Christ all bloodye after his passion resoneth with him in the name of the whole people of Israel coÌ„fessing their great sinnes froÌ„ the which Abraham Israel were not able to deliuer them but rather had reiected cast theÌ„ of for the same sinnes so knew them no longer Wherfore they were coÌ„strained to come vnto Christ as to their father and only redéemer therfore they say to him Thou art our father and Abraham hath not knowen vs c. The which kind of spéeche S. Ierome proueth out of the Gospel wher Christ saied vnto the foolish virgins that came to late I know you not that is I know you not for my seruantes I refuse reiect you I care not for you and not as M. Charke doth interpret I know not your case or your necessities for he knew it wel inough but yet would not reléeue them 11. You report y e Iesuites to say Christ neuer sayd to lay men do this in remeÌ„braÌ„ce of me fol. 302. The which as you say S. Paul doth plainly coÌ„fute 1. Co. 11 You wil neuer vnderstand y e Iesuites a right They proue in y t place y t Christ in his last supper hauing coÌ„secrated his owne body blood coÌ„maÌ„ding his Apostles which were preists to do the very same by y e words Hoc facite do this or the faÌ„e that I haue doÌ„e they proue I sai y t this authoritie of consecrating Christ his body was coÌ„mitted only to priestes not to lay men nether doth S. Paul any way impugne this For we deny not to lay men the coÌ„munion of Christe his body but the consecration of the same the which consecration to be geuen by those woords of Christ. Hoc facite Doe this all holye Fathers of the Churche from time to time haue vnderstoode namely Clemens Romanus Li. 5. coÌ„st cap. 20. Ambros. Li. 4. de sacram ca. 6. Cyprian Li. 2. Ep. 3. Chrisostome Ho. 14.