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
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
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
about the matter But now for the right vse of this way of triall there be two conditions to be obserued of his part whiche will obiect an olde heresie to an other The first is that the partie doe in dede holde that thinge whiche he obiecteth and not a certaine likeliehoode of it For that were to slaunder and not to obiect As when oure aduersaries doe obiect to vs the heresie of Pelagius abowt free will it is a mere slaunder For we holde that mans will beinge preuented and holpen with the grace of God may woorke well but he helde that it could do the same by the power and force of nature without the helpe of gods grace as S Augustin proueth at large in his booke of free will The like iniurie they doe vs in many other things which they obiect against vs as the heresie of those whiche dyd sacrifice to our ladie and the like whiche we doe not The second condition is that the heresie obiected be in dede suche as was accompted and condemned for an heresie in the primatiue churche and not onelie that an heretique held it For heretiques doe holde diuerse truethes alwayes together withe falsehode And for lack of this condition doe our aduersaries often abuse the simple people As M. Fulke oftentimes sayeth prayer for the deade is an heresie because the Montanists which were heretiques helde it But lett hym proue that euer this was accompted one of MoÌ„tanus hys heresies theÌ„ he proueth somewhat But that he can neuer doe for he grauÌ„teth Austen Ambrose Chrisostom Ierom and others â—o haue vsed prayers for the deade whoe notwitstanding were great enemies to Montanus and all his errors VVherefore this is a verie malitiouse kynde of abusing people And I heere saye again that lett hym and all the protestants in the worlde proue that we doe holde in dede but anie one thing which was accoÌ„pted an heresie in the primatiue church we will graunt that we are not the Catholique Churche but that in all other things we erre besides But we in charging them vvithe heresies doe obserue allvvayes the foresayd tvvo conditions As for example vve charge them vvith the opinion of Aerius vvhiche denied prayer for the dead And that they holde this verie same opinion they vvill not denie And that it vvas accompted an heresie in the primatiue churche vve alleage for vvitnesses S. Augustin and Epiphanius Hovv doe they auoyde this No vvaye but by sayeinge that Augustin and Epiphanius vvere deceyued in recording that for an heresie vvhiche vvas none for that is M. Fulks answere whiche is to condemne all that age for that those holie fathers wrote downe heresies as they were taken in those dayes by the church The lyke we doe about vigilantius whose opinions were among others that Saints were not to be prayed to nor their reliques to be honored Now that the protestants hold this no man dowteth And that this was accompted heresie in the primatiue churche we cite S. Ierome for a wittnesse which wrote against hym VVhat shift is there here None but to deface S. Ierome and commend vigilantius and to denie it to be an heresie for so doeth M. Fulke sayeing further that Ierome rather raileth than reasoneth and that vigilantius vvas a good man and his opinion sovvnd The like order we take in a nuÌ„ber of other olde hereticall points whiche we charge them withall as may be sene in the tables and books sett owt of this matter Now yf our aduersaries could bringe vs to anie suche confession of heresie the matter were ended But they can not and therefore I know they will neuer admitt this way of triall The last way of triall whereof I will speake at this time is to consider the maners of olde heretiques to compare the same with oures And here I wolde haue also the former two conditions obserued To witt that we consider suche qualities onelie as were accompted hereticall in them that is proper to heretiques and to examine them trulie withoute partiall affection in our selues For example S. Augustin doeth note it as an hereticall propertie in the donatists to hate the See of Rome and to call it cathedram pestilentiae the chair of pestilence Doeth this agree to protestants or to vs As also the defaming of the said See sor the euell pretended lyfe of some particular men As likewise he noteth it as an hereticall tricke in them to persuade the people that the visible churche had erred and oppressed the true churche banishinge her from the sight of the worlde Doe not our aduersaries say the verie same Also he noteth the same heretiques for hatinge and condemninge the lyfe of monkes as also for dravving Nonnes out of theyr cloysters and ioyninge them selues vvith the same in pretended vvedlocke Finallie he noteth it as hereticall in the ArriaÌ„s to appeale from traditions to onelie scripture Now before S. Augustin Optatus noted it as hereticall in the donatists to breake aultars vvherevpon the bodie and blood of Christ vvere kept as the woordes of Optatus are And about the same time Victor Vticensis wrote his storie against the vandall heretiques where he setteth furthe moste liuelie the state of our time by the maners and behauiours of those heretiques in breakinge chalices prophaning of holie Chrisme spoylinge of churche vestimeÌ„ts throweing the blessed sacrameÌ„t of the aultar on the ground with other moste horrible abuses to the same not to be repeated in prohibiting masse to be sayd by edicts and proclamation and a hundred things moe whiche are the verie exercises of our aduersaries now The like things in many points doeth S. Basil obiect as sacrilegious against Iulian the Apostata and his folowers wherfore I thinke our aduersaries will not admitt The cause inforcinge the author to break of pag. 1.2.3 M. Charks vntrueth and hypocrisie pag. 5.6.7.8 A Challenge to M. Charke and all his brother ministers for disputation page 9. 10.11 VVhye protestantes appeall to onelie scripture pa. 13. The dissention among heretiques of our tyme vppon onelie scripture page 14. Protestantes do admitt no tryall at all page 18. An absurd hereticall interpretation of scripture touchinge S. Iohn Baptist his place of lyuinge apparrell and diet page 19. Euident testimonies of scriptures and fathers for the reall presence in the sacrament page 20. Luthers mislyking of Corolostadius Zuinglius Oecolampadius others touching the reall presence pag. 22. M. Fulk his arrogant kynd of answering page 25. The protestants kynde of tryall is onelie that to be trueth whiche they will haue to be trueth page 26. Catholikes offer many kyndes of triall of spirites pa. 27. As by bookes of scripture and the expresse woorde therof Ibidem By necessarie collections vpon scripture page 29. By Councells page 30. By doctors Ibidem By the Churche and her notes Ibidem By sucession of Byshoppes page 31. By agreement of the doctrine of our aduersaries with olde heresies page
examples of many things vvhiche bothe vve and our aduersaries also doe beleeue vvhich neuerthelesse are not sett dovvne expreslye in the Scriptures although perhaps deduced therof As the perpetuall virginitie of our ladie after her childebyrth Tvvo natures and tvvo vvilles in Christ The proceeding of the holye Ghost equallie froÌ„ the father and the Sonne vvithout generation The vnion of the vvorde vnto the nature of man and not vnto the persone That God the father begat his Sonne onelye by vnderstaÌ„ding hymselfe That infantes vvithout reason should be baptized That the common Creede vvas made by the Apostles The celebration of the SoÌ„daye in steade of the Satterdaye The celebration of Easter onelye vppon a Sondaye The fovver Gospels vvhich vve vse to betrue Gospels not fained or corrupted That our epystle to the Romanes vvas vvriten by S. Paul And the other vvhich is to be seene to the Laodicenses is fayned and not vritten by hym seyng notvvithstanding S. Paul neuer mentioneth any epistle vvritten by hym selfe to the Romanes but yet sayeth that he vvrote one to the Laodicenses All these things I saye and many more are beleeued by vs generallye and yett none of them expreslie to be found in scripture THE DEFENCE To the charge of shameles belyeing the Iesuites M. Chark answereth nothing but thus hovv soeuer Goâ—uisus reporteâ—h or misreporteth the Iesuites yf I reporte hym faythfullie it is no sâ—ame to me But it is shame to your cause good Syr whiche can not be mayntayned but with lyeing on all handes And yet must not this shame lyght onelie on Gotuisus as you wolde haue it though you neuer named hym in your other bookes but vpon your selfe principallie First for that you had read this infamous lie refuted to kemnitius of whome Gotuisus woorde for woorde hath borowed it by payuas Andradius and proued to be as it is a moste shameles slaunder of his owne and no one woorde of the Iesuites Secondlie you must needs haue seene as no dowt but you had that Gotuisus reported an open vntruthe by the fower other places of Canisius whiche he alleageth for the same as well as the Censure of Colen All which fower places any man that will reade for the booke is coÌ„monlie to be solde in England shall see that Gotuisus is a shameles felow and you a playne deceyuer in that you cited onelie the Censure of Colen whiche you knew was not to be had suppressed Canisius which is extant to confound your vntruethe These tryckes may admonish men that are not vtterlie willfull how you are to be trusted in other matters of greater importance wherin your falshoode can not be so easylie conuicted to the sight of all men as in this it is Seeke all the bookes that euer the Iesuites wrote whiche are manye and yf you fynde in any one of them any one of these three odious woordes wherwith you charge them that is imperfect mamed or lame attributed to the scriptures I will yeeld in all the rest that you affirme of them But you haue a shyft to couer your dealing heerin and that is that seing we holde that all thinges necessarie to saluation are not written in the scripture Therfore we holde in effect saye you though not in woordes that the scripture is imperfect mamed lame VVhiche reason yf yt were true yet were your dishonestie great in settinge foorthe so odious woordes of your owne fayning for the wordes of the Iesuites But mark how voyde of reasoÌ„ this argumeÌ„t of yours is If a marchaÌ„t departing into an other countrie shoulde leaue his coÌ„maundementes with hys seruantes partlie in writing partlie by woorde of mouth might the seruantes saye that he had left them a broken commaundement writen but yf he should yet add further vnto them that yf they dowted of any thing they should repayre to hys wyfe and she should fullie resolue them therin might not he iustlie account hym selfe iniuried by theÌ„ yf they notwithstanding should accuse hym for leauing them an imperfect maymed and lame commaundement No more is it any defect to scripture or gods coÌ„maundement as S. Austen proueth at large li. 1. contra Cresc c. 32. that God hathe lefte certayne things vnwriten for that we may receyue the same by tradition in the churche as that doctor proueth whiche Churche Christ hathe commended vnto vs as his espouse in earthe to be heard and obeyed by vs in all dowtes The verie same doctrine teacheth the sayd father li. de fide oper ca. 9. and also ep 66. ad Don. To the twelue particular poyntes sett downe by the Censure as not contayned expresselie in scripture and yet to be beleeued M. Charke answereth that seauen of them are in scripture the other fyue for that they are not in scripture they are not of necessitie to be beleeued But heere is first to be noted that the questioÌ„ betweene vs and the protestaÌ„tes is of expresse scripture onelie and not of any farre fett place whiche by interpretation may be applyed to a coÌ„trouersie For this contention beganne betwene vs vpoÌ„ this occasion that wheÌ„ we alleaged diuerse weightie places and reasons owt of scripture for proofe of inuocatioÌ„ of Saints prayer for the deade purgatorie and from other controuersies our aduersaries reiected them for that they dyd not playnelie and expresselie decide the matter VVherupon came this question whether all matters of beleef are playnelie and expresselie in scripture or no whâ—che they affirme and we denye And for proofe of our part we alleage all these twelue particulars and many more which are poyntes necessarilie to be beleeued and yet not expresselie in scripture For answere wherof you shall see how this man is distressed First he sayeth that seauen of them are contayned in scripture Marie he flyeth from the question of expreâ—se scripture and alleageth places a farre of wherof the question is not For the Censure graunteth that many of them myght be deduced from scripture but not so expresselie as they are to be beleued But lett vs runne ouer these seuen pointes coÌ„tayned as he sayeth manifestely in scripture The first is of two â—â—tures and two willes in Christ for which he citeth these woords Of his sonne vvhiche vvas made vnto hym of the seed of Dauid according to the fleshe Also not as I vvill but as thou vvilt But how doe theese woordes proue euidentlie the matter in question That deductions heerof may be made from scripture admitting the interpretation of the Churche vpon the places alleaged I graunt but that interpretation of the churche beinge sett asyde the bare text onelie admitted these places can not conuicte an heretique that wolde denye ether the distinct natures or distinct willes in Christ as appeareth by the councell of Constantinople where after long stryuing in vayne with the Monothelitâ—s abowt this matter owt of scripture in the end they concluded in these woordes vve beleeue this for that
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
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
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
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
they signifie the fauour of the hearers All these circumstances the Iesuits laye downe when they compare the scripture abused to a nose of waxe wrested And who is so foolishe but will coÌ„fesse that a lewd and wicked man in an ignorant audience where all men fauour his doctrine for that he flattereth them in theyr sinnes maye wrest abuse the holye scripture as men are wonte to bend a nose of wax to what plausible sense it lyketh hym best No mary sayeth M. Chark it can not be For albeit an hereretike may vvrest and peruert the scripture yet S. Peter teacheth that it shalbe to hys ovvne destruction and the scripture notvvithstanding shall remayne perfect and vndefiled As though we did holde the contrarie to this or as though we did impute the wrestinge of the scripture vnto imperfection of gods woorde not to the malice of the wrester or as though we sayd that this wresting were not destruction vnto the wrester VVho euer heard suche kinde of answering he sayeth the scripture may be wrested and peruerted and yet he will euen with these woords answer and refute vs which holde also that it may be wrested He sayethe the very same that we doe and yet will he haue men beleeue that he sayethe the contrary VVhere were your wittes sir william when yow wrote this answer But you storme greatlie agaynst the comparison sayeing shall Iesuits mayntayne this directlie or in directlie in a kâ—ngdome vvhere the gospell is preached VVhat els good syr euen in the kyngdome of you ministers to the confusion of your false named Gospell whiche is nothing els but the letter of scripture peruerted and woorse abused and wrested by yow to all errors and licentiousnes than euer waxen nose was yet bended to diuers fashions It is no fault of holye scripture that wicked men may abuse it For the more excelleÌ„t a thing is the more easie and pernicious is the abuse therof Christ was the excelleÌ„test benefit that euer God gaue vnto this worlde and yet is he called notwithstanding lapis offensionis petra Scandali the stone of offence and rock of scandal not for any fault or imperfection in hym but through the wickednes of suche as abuse that benefit So when S. Ierome dothe call the scripture alleaged corruptlie by Marcian and Basilides euangelium Diaboli the deuills Gospell yeelding this reason that the Gospell consisted not in the vvoordes of scripture but in the sense Also wheÌ„ S. Austen calleth the scripture arcum haereticorum The bowe of heretiques And Ireneus compareth it abused by heretiques to a Iewell stamped with the forme of a dogge or fox In Lykewise when Gregorie Nazianzen compareth it to a syluer skaberd with a leaden swoorde within yt Tertullian to the deceitfull ornaments of harlots Vincentius Lyrinensis to poysoned herbes couered in the apothecaries shoppe vvith fayer titles and superscriptioÌ„s on the boxes where they lye No doubt these fathers meaÌ„t not by suche comparisons to detracte any thinge from the dignitie and excellencie of holie scripture no more than the Iesuits dyd in comparing it to a nose of vvax abused and vvrested by malitious heretiques And I vvolde knovv of M. Charke for that he exaggerateth so muche the indignitie of this comparison hovv he vvill interpret hys holy man Martin Luthers ovvne vvoordes vvhiâ—he after a long discourse to proue that all heresies seeke theyr foundation in scripture are these Quare verum est sicut dicitur Scripturam sanctam esse librum haereticum hoc est eiusmodi librâ—Ì„ quo potissimùm haeretici nituntur VVherfore it is true vvhiche is sayde that the holye scripture is an hereticall booke that is suche a booke as heretiques most of all leane vnto And a litle after Haereseon liber biblia sunt The bible is a booke of heresies Oh that the Iesuites had vsed suche vvoordes hovv vvold VV. Chark and his felovves haue triumphed against them for the same And yet thoughe Martin Luthers fashion vvas to runne ouer the shooes in what soeuer he tooke in haÌ„d I thinke he meant nothing in these vvoordes against the dignitie of scripture For he addeth in the verie place alleaged Scriptura sancta haereseon liber est non sui causa sed istorum nebulonum qui eam deprauant The holie scripture is a booke of heresies not of it selfe but by the meanes of those knaues vvhiche doe peruert yt This is father Luthers swete benediction vppon sacramentaries vvherof I trowe M. Charke will not deny hym selfe to be one And thus you see that the Iesuites haue not onelie trueth and reason on their syde to vse that comparison but also haue examples in this kynde both of auncient fathers and of our aduersaries them selues VVhat intemperat malice then is this of william Charke so to raue against them for this one coÌ„parison vsed without all derogation of Scripture yf they had spoken euill of any scripture in it selfe yf they had reiected any one booke therof as protestants doe many yf they had discredited or defaced any one sentence therof as Luther dothe most odiouslie the whole epistle of S. Iames yf they should saye any booke of the scripture to be written with a profane and ambitious spirit as your D. Fulk doeth of the Machabies yf they should ieste at the Angell Raphaell in the booke of Tobie as M. VVhittaker doeth or fall to that extreme impudencie as to reuyle in open audience any holie person coÌ„mended in sacred wryte as you dyd M. Chark without shame when you called that blessed womaÌ„ of God Iudith vnchaste Iudith in your disputations with M. Campian yf the Iesuites I saye should saye or doe any of these thynges as you are driuen to doe then myght you iustlie accuse theÌ„ drawe theÌ„ into hatred for deprauing of gods woorde But seing they doe not soe but alltogether the coÌ„trarie seyng they defend gods whole woord agaynst you that offerre violence to the same seyng they maintayne the number of bookes which antiquitie hath left theÌ„ the vnwritteÌ„ traditioÌ„s that the Apostles haue delyuered them the Catholiques expositioÌ„s which auncient fathers haue assigned them seyng they nether choppe nor chaunge nor corrupt nor put owt nor coÌ„teÌ„ptuouslie reiecte anie one thing as you doe infinite for maintainyng of your ruynous and most impious cause you endeuour in vayne to discredit them by exaggerating one poore comparison or similitude whiche they vpon occasion vsed to expresse the wickednes of you heretiques that abuse scripture and not to attribute any imperfection to scripture it selfe No man in the world euer spake more reuerentlie of holye scripture than Iesuites doe And whether they seeke to execute it in lyfe as muche as our ministers of England or no let them be iudges that know bothe theyr conuersatioÌ„s I myght heere alleage infinite testimonies owt of theyr workes how with what reuerence they speak of scripture But one place onelie of Canisius
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
so taken away by baptisme but that it remaynith styll to tempt vs M. Charke to deceyue the reader foysteth in this woorde synne to S. Austens text reciting his woordes thus Concupiscence is not so forgyuen in baptisme that it is not sinne By whiche addition of the woorde synne the matter seemeth to stand cleere on hys syde And this also can not be excused by ignorance but sheweth open and willfull malice in the man I passe ouer many of these and suche lyke tryckâ—s whiche can not proceede of negligence simplicitie or ignorance but muste needes be effectes of sett-malice As where he reportinge diuers vntruethes against the Iesuites owt of Gotuisus as he now sayeth concealed the author in his first booke And now though vppon necessitie he confesse the same yet fynding the things there reported in his conscieÌ„ce to be false where as his Author citeth allwayes two Iesuites bookes for proofe of the same that is CeÌ„sura Coloniensis which is not to be had in EnglaÌ„d and Canisius his greate Catechisme which euery man may haue and reade M. Chark quoteth the page alwayes in Censura Coloniensis whiche he is sure can not be seene and concealeth the page cited lykewise by his Author in Canisius for that hys reader turning to Canisius hys places should fynde the falshoode bothe of M. Charke and hys Author And Sometimes also when Gotuisus dyd not belye the Iesuites sufficientlye M. Charke without blushing will falsifie hys woordes to make them more odious as where Gotuisus hys woordes are that the Iesuites saye the scripture is as it vvere a nose of vvax M. Chark sayeth their woordes are the scripture is a nose of vvaxe Infinite such things you shall fynde in the treatyse foloweing whiche proueth manifestlye that point wherof I spake before to wytt that M. Charke is a man of no synceritie in matters of controuersie but purposelye bent bothe wittinglie and willinglie by all meanes possible to deceyue And thus much M. Chark concerning your writing As for your other behauyour towardes M. Campian in the Tower of London els where I mean not greatlie to stand vpon It was suche as myght be looked for at a mans handes of your makyng or degree The Censure somewhat noted your inciuilitie in woords which you had vttered agaynst hym before in your booke But that was nothing to the contemptuous vsage of so learned a man in open audieÌ„ce with barbarours threatenyng of that further crueltie whiche then you had in mynde and nowe haue putt in execution vppon hym But aboue all other things that was most ridiculous and fytt for a-stage whiche you thought was excellent and became you vvell and that vvas your often turning to the people requesting them to reioyse thank the Lord that he had gyuen you suche an argument agaynst the papistes as novve you had to proposeâ— And then wheÌ„ greate expectation was moued the argumeÌ„t came forth it proued not woorth three egges in Maye for that M. Câ—mpian dispatched it oftentymes in lesse than halfe three woordes These are the comedies that you exercise to get applause of the people vvithall For vvhiche cause also you had M. Norton the Rack-maister at your elbovve to repeat and vrge your argument for you to the purpose Surelie it is pitie that you durst not make these fevve disputations publik vvhere more men might haâ—e laughed and bene witnesses of your folye especiallie of that in the end when beynge now brought to a non plus in argueing and thervpoÌ„ the people beginning to depart you M. Charke caused the dores to be shutt and no man to be lett owt vntill with one consent they had ioyned with you in prayer to thanke the lorde for your victorie that daye gotten vppon M. Campian O M. Chark how greedie are you of a litle vainglorie and how vayne are the wayes by which you seeke yt thynke you that men haue no Iudgement in the woorld abrode Trow ye not that many smylde in their sleeues to beholde this hypocrisie no no yf you had parted with M. Campian but at an euen hand as you ioyned with hym with all inequalitie we should haue had books of Triumphe sett â—oorth before novv And this secret of yours all the people of England doeth knowe Doctor Fulke dyd but looke into vvisbyche castell the last yeare past and framed to hym selfe but a certaine imaginatioÌ„ of a victorie for that those learned prisoners contemned his conference and beholde he printed presentlie a pamphlett in hys ovvne prayse as after is shevved And vvhat then vvolde you and your bretheren haue done abovvt these disputations vvith M. Campian yf you had thought yt any vvaye able to abyde the vevve And yet as I sayd you knovv the inequalitie vvherby you dealt vvith that maÌ„ being but one vnbookt vnprouided vvearyed vvith imprisoâ—ment and almost dismembred vvith the rack threatned and terrified vvith deathe to come appointed onely to ansvver and neuer to oppose All this you knovve and the vvorlde bothe knovveth and meruaileth at yt abrode Mary vve meruayle not vvhoe know your purses For that vve are sure and dare auowe to your faces that you vvill neuer deale vvith vs at euen hand or vpoÌ„ equall conditions vvhile you lyue And heere M. Charke because we are now fallen into this matter I am in the name of all my felow Catholiques to renew our publike chalenge of equall disputation to you and to all your brother ministers agayne You see M. Campian is gone whome you named in this matter our onelye Champion You see also that M. Sherwyn is made awaye with hym whome you are wont to saye for more abasement of the other to haue bene farre better learned than M. Campian hym selfe But how soeuer that was bothe of them haue you dispatched and therby in your opinion greatly weakned our cause Yet notwithstanding we are the same men that we were before yea muche more desirous of this tryall than before VVherfore we request you now at length yea we coniure you either for trueth sake yf you seeke yt or for your ovvne credites sake yf ye will retayne it that you yeald vs after so muche sute and supplication some equall triall eyther by writing preaching or disputing There is no reasoÌ„ in the worlde but onelie feare that may moue you to denye vs this our request For the reason of state which you alleage M. Charke in your replye is most vayne For what can a peaceable disputation graunted vs for religion indaunger your state but onelie that you wold saye that this disputation may chaunce to discouer your errors and so make the hearers deteste your state of heresie For other daunger there can be none to your state And yf you had the trueth with you as you pretend whose propertie is the more to shew her selfe the more she is examined you should muche increase your state by this publike tryall For that you shoulde bothe gayne more to your parteâ— by opennyng the
sayd trueth and also confirme many of your owne syde that now iustlye doe wauer vpon this open discouerie of your feare in tryall VVherfore once againe I saye vnto you ministers obtaine vs this disputation thoughe it be onelie but for a shevv therby to hold maintaine your credites VVe protest before God that vve seek it onelie for the triall of Christ his trueth for searche vvherof vve offer our selues to this labour charges perill of lyfe VVe aske for our safties but onelie such a vvarrant from her Maiestie as the late Councell of Trent dyd offer vnto all the protestaÌ„ts of the wolrd wherof you haue the copie vvith you VVee will come in what kynde number at what tyme to what place you shall appoint Yf you will haue your owne countrie meÌ„ they are redie to come Yf you will haue straungers to dispute in your vniuersities before the learned onely there shall not want For your selues vve gyue you leaue to call all the learned protestants of Europ for your defence VVe will take onelie our owne countrie men yf you permitt vs. VVe gyue you leaue to oppose or defende to appoint questioÌ„s to chuse owt controuersies to begynne or end at your pleasure and to vse any other prerogatyues that you please so that they impugne not the indifferencie of tryall VVhat can yow alleage whye yow should not accept this If you had leuer make this triall in other countries than at home before your owne people as perhaps you had chuse you what protestant state you lyst and procure vs therin the forsayd saftie from the prince and we will nether spare labour nor cost to meet you therin also Or yf this seeme hard or lyke you not then take you but the paynes some number of you to come into any Catholique kyngdome or countrie where you best please And wee will procure what securitie soeuer reasonable you shall demaund for your persons And more then that we will beare your expenses also rather than so good a woorke shall remayne vnatteÌ„pted And yf you can deuyse any other conditioÌ„ to be performed on our partes whiche I haue left owt doe you adde the same and we will agree by the grace of God to fullfill it If we offer you reason than deale somewhat reasonablie with vs againe For all the world will crye shame and begynne to discredit you yf you will nether gyue nor take vpon so great oddes as heere are offered you If you dare not venture with disputatioÌ„s yet graunt vs certaine sermons to encounter with you vpon this matter Or yf that also be to daungerous procure vs but a litle passage for our bookes at leastwyse you M. Charke shall doe an honorable acte to obtayne licence of free passage for this booke vntill it be answered by you to the end that men hauinge reade this ouer may be the better able to conceyue your answer when it comethe THE ANSVVERE TO THE PREFACE TOVCHINGE DISCERNINGE of Spirites MAister Charke besides the matter in question maketh a praeface to the reader touching the vtilitie necessitie and waye of tryeing spirites alleginge the woordes of S. Iohn whereby we are willed not to beleeue euerie spirite but to trie the spirites whether they be of God VVhich he saythe he and his felowes offer to doe and we refuse But that this is clearlie false and a formall speche onelie withoute trueth or substance our dedes doe testifie which are alwayes with indifferent men as good as woordes Our bookes are extant whereby we haue called to tryall all sectaries of our tyme as they rose vpp and shewed new spirites as Luther Corolostad Swinglius Munster Stankarus and Caluin whome our aduersaries folow as one of the last And nowe in England yf we had not bene willing or rather desirouse of this triall of spirites we wolde neuer haue laboured so muche to obtayne the same of our aduersaries in free printing preaching or disputatioÌ„ much lesse wolde we haue aduentured our liues in comming and offering the same to theÌ„ at home with so vnequall conditioÌ„s on our syde as we haue done and doe dayly for the triall of truthe And yf all these our offers and endeuours ioyned with so many petitions and supplications for triall haue obtained vs nothing hitherto but offence accusations extreme rackings and cruell deathe me thinke M. Charke had litle cause to make this preface of our refusing triall and their offering the same except it were onelye for lacke of other matter and to kepe the custome of sayeing somewhat in the beginning But perhappes M. Charke will saye that althoughe we offer triall yet not suche nor by suche meanes as in his opinion is lawfull sure and conuenient VVhen we come to the coÌ„bate then remayneth it to be examined whiche parte doeth alleage best meanes whiche shalbe the argument of this my answer to this preface And I will endeuour to shew that all the meanes of tryall which M. Chark his felowes will seme to allow in woord for they offer none in deede are neyther sure possible nor euident but onelie meere shyftes to auoyde all triall and that we on the coÌ„trary parte doe not onelie allow but allso offer all the best and surest wayes of tryall that euer were vsed in Gods churche for discerning an hereticall spirit from a Catholique The onelie meanes of tryall whiche M. Chark will seme to allow is the scripture wherto onelie he wolde haue all triall referred and that which can not be tryed therehence by hym must stand vntryed And then as yf we refused all tryall of scripture he vseth his pleasure in speche against vs. But this is a shyft common to all suche as M. Chark is And the cause thereof I will declare immediatlye S. Augustin dothe testifye it of the heretiques of his tyme. And all the sectaries of our dayes doe make it plaine by experience referring theÌ„ selues in woordes eche one to the holie scripture onelie for maintenance â—f there errours and denyeing all other meanes of tryall whereby the true meaning of scripture may be knowen The causes of this shyft in all new teachers are principally three The first to gett credit with the people by naming of scripture and to seme to honour it more than their aduersaries doe by referring the whole triall of matters vnto it The second is by excluding councels fathers and auncitours of the churche who from tyme to time haue declared the true sense of scripture vnto vs to reserue vnto them selues libertie and authoritie to make what meaning of Scripture they please and thereby to gyue colour to euerye fansie they list to teache The third cause is that by chalenging of onelie scripture they may delyuer them selues from all ordinances or doctrines left vnto vs by the first pillers of Christe his Church thoughe not expresselie sett downe in scripture thereby assume authoritie of allowinge or not allowing of comptrolling or permittinge what soeuer liketh or
sayeth that albeit the hoost seme to vs of a rounde forme inseÌ„sible yet who soeuer beleeueth it not to be the verie true bodie of Christe seing he hathe sayd it is excidit a gratia salute Suche a one is fallen from grace and saluation And S. Chrisostom sayeth we must not beleeue sense and reason in this matter Sed quoniam ille dixit hoc est corpus meum credamus etiamsi sensui absurdum esse videatur But because Christ hathe sayed this is my bodye we must beleâ—ue it although it seme absurd to our sense Hoc idem corpus cruentatum lancea vulneratum quod in caelum extulit This is the very same bodie vvhose bloode vvas shed and vvhiche vvas vvounded vvith the speare and vvhiche he caried vpp vvith hym to heauen All whiche notwithstandinge oure aduersaries haue founde out a new exposition of these woordes thys is my bodye affirming that it must be construed this is onelie the signe of my bodie For the whiche construction as they haue neither scripture nor auncient father for theyr warraÌ„t or example so agree they not amongest them selues of this exposition For Luther in his tyme numbreth vpp eight dyuerse and contrarie expositions of Sacramentaries vppon these woordes coÌ„ming from eight diuerse spirits of the deuyll as he affirmeth And a learned byshop of our time hathe gathered 84. gyuen by diuerse sacramentaries vppon the same So that once goe oute of the highe waye and there is no ende of erringe And because I haue here made mention of Doctor Luther a man by M. Charks opinion illuminated singularlie by the holye ghost and compared to Elias by the common phrase of all protestants I will repeate here what he had reuealed to hym by hys holy spirit touchinge this interpretation of M. Charke and his felowes First he writteth thus to the protestants that is to the true Christians as he calleth them of Argentina Hoc diffiteri nec possum nec volo si Corolostadius c. This can I not nor vvill deny but yf Corolostadius or anie man els could for this fyue yeres haue persuaded me that there had bene nothinge in the sacrament but bread and vvine he should haue bound me to hym by a great good turne For I haue takeÌ„ great care and anxietie in discussinge this matter and haue endeuoured vvith all my povver sinovves stretched ovvte to rydde my selfe of the same For I dyd vvell see that by this thing I might hurt the pope more than in anie other matter But I do see my selfe captiue no vvay being left to escape For the text of the gospel is too plaine and stronge and suche as can not easelie be ouerthrovvne by any man and muche lesse by vvoordes and gloses deuised by a phaÌ„tasticall heade For I my selfe God forgyue me for it am too prone to that parâ—e so farre foorthe as I can perceyue the nature of my ovvne Adam Agayne the same prophet in an other place after many most detestable woords vttered against M. Chark and his parteners sayeth thus his spiritibus credat doceri veritatem si quem perire delectat c. Lett hym beleue that these spirites doe teache the trueth vvho deliteth to damne him selfe vvhereas in dede they began not theyr doctrine but by manifest lyes and novv doe defend the same onelye by lyes diuulging the same by corrupting other mens bookes not vouchsafing to heare the anguishes of our consciences vuhich crie saye the vvoordes of Christ are cleare and manifest eate this is my bodye And againe in a certayne treatise intituled against the phanaticall Spirits of sacrameÌ„taries He sayeth talking of this interpretation of the woords This is my bodye Age ergo quando adeo sunt impudentes c. Goe to then seing they are so impudent therfore I vvill geue them a Lutheran exhortation accursed be their charitie and concorde for euer and euer And after coÌ„ming to the expositioÌ„ of the sayde woordes he sayeth thus Doctor Carolostad vvresteth miserablie this pronoune this Svvinglius maketh leane this verbe is Oecolampadius tormenteth this vvorde bodye other doe boucher the vvhole text and some doe crucifie but the halfe thereof so manifestlie doeth the deuyll holde vs by the noses And agayne in the same worke he hathe these wordes To expound the vvordes of Christ as the sacramentaries doe this is the signe of my bodie is as absurd an exposition as if a man shoulde interprete the scripture thus In the beginning God made heaueÌ„ earthe that is the Cuckovve dyd eate vp the Titling or hedge Sparrovv together vvith her bones Again in S. Iohn And the vvoorde vvas made fleshe that is a croked staffe vvas made a kyte This was the opinion of holy Luther towching our aduersaries interpretatioÌ„ or rather euasion and shift whiche I haue alleaged somewhat more at large against M. Chark for that he esteemeth and defendeth the man as a rare instrument of the holy ghoste VVhich yf it be true then woe to M Charke and his comparteners whose spirit is so contrarye to this mans holy illumination By this now it appeareth that the controuersie is not betwene vs whiche part prouoketh to scripture which doeth not but as it hathe allwayes bene betwixt heretiques and Catholiques which part alleageth true meaning of Scripture whiche thing accordinge to the councell of wise Sisinius to Theodosius the Emperour we desire to be tried by the Iudgement of auncient fathers indifferent in this matter for that they lyued before our coÌ„trouersies came in question But our aduersaries will allow no exposition but theyr owne whereby it is easie to defeate what soeuer is brought against them ether scripture or doctour For examples sake to proue that we may lawfullie make vowes are bouÌ„d also to perform the same being made we alleage the plaine woordes of the prophet vouete reddite domino vowe ye and reÌ„der your vowes to god how will the aduersarie auoyde this think you M. Fulke answereth this text belongeth onelye to the olde testament But what may not be wiped awaye from vs that lyue vnder the new testament by suche interpretations Again to proue that there is some state of lyfe of more perfectioÌ„ in Christianitie than other we alleage the cleare saying of Christe Si vis perfectus esse vade vende quae habes da pauperibus habebis thesaurum in caelo veni sequere me Yf thow wilt be perfect goe sell all thow hast and gyue to the poore and thow shalt haue a treasure in heauen and come folowe me VVhat answer haue they trow you to this M. Fulke answereth this vvas spoken onelie as a singular triall to that yong man alone and not to others beside hym VVhat a deuise is this May not he as well say also that the other woordes immediatelie going before were onlie spokeÌ„ to this yong man to witt Si vis ad vitam ingredi
serua mandata yf thow wilt be saued kepe the cōmaundements and so deliuer all his gospellers from the burden thereof what differēce is there in these two speches of Christe seing they are bothe spoken to that yong man and bothe in the singular number as infinite other things of the Gospell are to other particular persones as to the Cananaea to the Adulteresse to Nichodemus to the Cēturio to Zachaeus to the blynde deafe and others which notwithstanding are common to all in that they touche eyther lyfe or doctrine The like absurd shiftes I might repeate in a hundred other points VVhat can be more plaine than the woordes of scripture videtis quoniam ex operibus iustificatur homo non ex fide tantum Doe you see how that a man is iustified by woorks and not by fayth onelie But yet it auayleth nothing VVhy so they auoyde it by interpretation S. Iames say they vnderstandeth of Iustification before men and not before God O poore deuise S. Iames hathe in the same place talking of fayth without woorkes Nunquid poterit fides saluare eum Can faythe without woorks saue him doeth S. Iames meane here of saluation before men or before God Again whē S Paul sayeth factores legis iustificabuntur the doers of the lawe shall be iustyfied whiche is the verie same thing that S. Iames in other woordes sayeth that mē shalbe iustified allso by woorks Doeth S. Paul mean before men or before God Yf you say before mē the text is against you which hath expressely apud deum before God The like euasiō they haue whē we alleage the woords of S. Paul qui matrimonio iungit virginem suam benè facit qui non iungit melius facit he that ioyneth his virgin in mariage doeth well and he that ioyneth her not doethe better VVhereof vve inferre that virginitie is more acceptable meritoriouse before God than mariage allthough mariage be holie No say our aduersaries S. Paul meaneth onelye that he doeth better before men and in respect of vvorldlie commodities but not before God But this is absurd for they graunt the former parte of the sentence he that ioyneth his virgin doeth vvel to be vnderstoode before God for that it is sayde also in other vvoordes non peccat he doeth not sinne whiche must nedes be vnderstoode in respect of God How thē can they denie the second clause and he that ioyneth her not doeth better not to be vnderstoode in respect of God also and in respect of merit and rewarde in the lyfe to come especiallie whereas Christ promiseth the same rewarde to virginitie in an other place where he sayeth there be Eunuches vvhich haue gelded them selues for the kingdome of heauen he that can take it lett hym take it You maye see now by this litle and I might shew by many mo examples howe bootelesse it is to bring scripture when we agree not vpon the interpretation VVhat then shall we bring the auncient fathers and doctors of the primatiue church for the vnderstanding of scripture shall we interpret it as they doe vnderstad it as they vnderstoode it No that our aduersaries will not agree vnto but onelie in matters indifferent owte of controuersie VVhere soeuer in matters of controuersie betwene vs and them the olde fathers doe make against them as in all points they doe there will they denie their exposition For example The consent of auncient fathers is alleaged against M. Fulke attributing superioritie to Peter vpon the woordes of Christ Thovv art Peter vpon this rocke vvill I buyld my Church but he auoydeth it verie lightlie thus It can not be denied but diuerse of the auncient fathers othervvyse godlye and learned vvere deceyued in opiniō of Peters prerogatiue S. Ambrose Ierome Chrisostom Cyrill and Theodoret are alleaged for expounding a pece of scripture against M. Fulk Ioh. 5. abowt Antichrist How doeth he shift it thus I ansvver they haue no ground of this exposition S. Ierome with all the ecclesiasticall writers are alleaged for interpreting of the woords of Daniel cap. 7. against the protestants M. Fulke I ansvver that neyther Ierome nor anie ecclesiasticall vvriter vvhome he folovveth hathe any direction out of the scripture for this interpretation S. Austen is alleaged for interpreting Dauids woordes he hathe placed his tabernacle in the Sunne of the visibilitie of the churche Fulke Austen doeth vvrongfullie interpret this place S. Ambrose Ephraim and Bede are alleaged for interpretatiō of certaine scriptures Fulke Gods vvoorde is so pitifullie vvrested by them as euery man may see the holie ghoste neuer meant any suche thing S. Chrisostome is alleaged for certaine interpretations of scripture Fulke he alleageth in dede scripture but he applieth it madlie and yet he often applieth it to the same purpose◠alas good man The consent of fathers is alleaged for interpretatiō of certaine places of scripture of the prefiguration of the crosse of Christ. Fulke The fathers do rather dallie in trifeling allegories than sovvndlie proue that the crosse vvas presigured in those places I might here make vp a greate volume yf I wolde prosecute this argumēt to shew how these new doctors doe contemne reiecte all authoritie antiquitie witt learning sanctitie of oure forefathers of all men in effect that euer liued beside them selues yea of their owne new doctors and maisters also when they come to be cōtrarie to anie new deuise or later fansie of theirs This is euidēt in Luther reiected by his ofspring about the reall presence number of sacraments images bookes of the Bible order of seruice and the like Also in Caluine reiected about the head of the churche in England and about all the gouernmēt thereof in Geneua And I coulde alleage here diuerse examples where he and Beza bothe are reiected by name in diuerse points bothe of puritanes and protestants in England when they differ from them but that this preface wold growe to be too long VVherefore I maye perhaps yf this booke come not otherwyse to be too greate adde a short table or appendix in the end to shew by examples the vnconstant dealings of our aduersaries herein and that in verie dede when all is done and sayd that may be and all excuses made that can be deuised the verye conclusion is that onelye that must be taken for truthe whiche pleaseth them last of all to agree vppon and theyr bare woordes must be the proofe thereof For those bookes onelie be scripture in the bible whiche they appoint in those bookes that onelie is the true sense whiche they gyue out the fathers erred in all things where they differ from them the new doctors as Luther Caluin and the rest sawe so much onelie of the truthe as they agree with them and no further This is the sayeing of our aduersaries this is the saying of all the other sectaries of our time this hathe bene the
sayeinge of all heretiques from the beginninge and this muste needes be the sayeinge of all heretiques for the time to come For except they take this waye it is vnpossible to stand or encrease against the Church And by this way a man may beginne what heresie he will to morow next and defend it against all the learning witt and trueth of Christendome Adioyne now to this that our aduersaries notwithstanding all request sute offer or humble petition that we caâ— make will come to no publique disputation or other indifferent and lawfull iudgement but doe persecute imprison torment and slaughter them which offer the same and then lett the reader iudge whether they desire offer iust triall or no â— M. Charke affirmeth Now for our partes as I haue sayd we offer vnto them all the best surest and easiest means that possiblie can be deuised or that euer were vsed in Gods Church for triall of trueth or discouering of heresie For as for the bookes of scripture seing we must receyue them vpoÌ„ the credit and authoritie of the auncient Church we are coÌ„tent to accept for canonicall and allow those none other which antiquitie in Christendome hathe agreed vpon Next for the contents of scripture yf our aduersaries will stand vpon expresse and plaine woords hereof we are content to agree therevnto and we must needes be farre superiours therein For what one expresse plaine text haue they in any one point or article against vs which we doe not acknowleige literallie as they doe as the woordes doe lie but we haue against them infinit whiche they can not admit without gloses and fond interpretations of their owne For example sake we haue it expreslie sayd to Peteâ— that signifieth a rocke vpon this rocke vvill I buyld my churche Math. 16. they haue no where the contrarie in plaine scripture VVe haue expresselie touching the Apostles he that is great among you let hym be made as the yonger Luc. 22. they haue no where there is none greater than other among you VVe haue expresselie this is my bodie Math. 26. you haue no where this is the signe of my bodie VVe haue expresselie the bread that I vvill gyue you is my fleshe Io. 6. they haue no where it is but the sygne of my fleshe VVe haue expresselie a man is iustified by vvoorkes and not hy faith onelie Iacob 2. they haue no where a man is iustified by fayth alone No nor that he is iustified by faith without workes talking of works that folow faith vvhereof onelie our coÌ„trouersie is VVe haue expresseselye vvhose sinnes ye forgyue are forgyuen vvhose sinnes ye retayne they are retayned Ioh. 20. They haue no where that preestes can not forgyue or retayne sinnes in earthe VVe haue expresselie The doers of the lavv shalbe iustified Rom. 2. They haue no where that the law required at ChristiaÌ„s hands is impossible or that the doing therof iustifieth not Christians VVe haue expresselie Vovv yee and render your vovves Psal. 75. they haue no where vow ye not or yf yow haue vowed breake your vowes VVe haue expresselie kepe the traditions vvhiche ye haue learned eyther by vvoorde or epistle 1. thess 2. They haue no where the Apostles left no traditions to the church vnwritteÌ„ VVe haue expresselie yf thovv vvilt enter into lyfe kepe the commaundements and when he sayd he dyd that allredie yf thovv vvilt be perfect goe and sell all thovv haste and gyue to the poore and folovv me They haue no where that eyther the commaundementes can not be kept or that we are not bound vnto them or that there is no degree of lyfe one perfecter than an other VVe haue expresselye vvoorke your ovvne saluation vvith feare and trembling Philip. 2. They haue no where eyther that a man can woorke nothinge towards his owne saluation beinge holpen with the grace of God or that a man should make it of his beleefe that he shalbe saued without all doubt or feare VVe haue expresselie doe ye the vvoorthie fruits of penaunce Luc. 3. They haue no where that faithe onelie is sufficient with out all satisfactioÌ„ and all other woorkes of penaunce on our parts VVe haue expresselie that euerye man shalbe saued according to his vvoorks Apoc. 20. They haue no where that men shalbe Iudged onelie according to their faith VVe haue expresselie that there remaineth a retribution stipend and paye to euerie good vvoorke in heauen Marc. 9. 1. Cor. 3. Apo. 22. Psal. 118. They haue no where that good woorkes done in Christ doe merit nothinge VVe haue expresselie it is a holie cogitatioÌ„ to praye for the deade 2. Machab 12. They haue no where it is superstition or vnlawfull to doe the same VVe haue an expresse example of a holy man that offered sacrifice for the dead 2. Machab. 12. They haue no example of any good man that euer reprehended it VVe haue expresselie that the affliction whiche Daniel vsed vppon his bodie was acceptable in the sight of God Dan. 10. They haue no where that suche voluntarie corporall afflictions are in vaine VVe haue expresselie that an Angel dyd preseÌ„t Tobias good woorkes and almes deedes before God Tob. 12. They haue no were that Angels can not or doe not the same VVe reade expresselie that Ieremias the pâ—het after he was deade praied for the people of Iâ—rael 2. Mach. 15. they haue no where the contrarye to this I leaue manie thinges more that I might repeate But this is enoughe for example sake to proue that albeit our aduersaries doe vaunt of scripture yet when it cometh to expresse woordes they haue no text against vs in lieu of so manie as I haue here repeated against them nor can they shew that we are driuen to denie anie one booke of the Bible nor to glose vppon the plaine woordes of anye one plaine place of scripture as they are enforced to doe But now yf they will not stand onelie to plaine and expresse woordes of scripture but also as in dede they must to necessarie collections made and inferred of scripture then muste we referre onr selues to the auncient primatiue church for this meaning of Gods woord For it is like they knew it best for that they lyued nearer to the writers thereof than we doe whoe could well declare vnto them what was the meaning of the same And then our aduersaries well know how the auncieÌ„t fathers do ground purgatorie prayer to saints sacrifice of the Aultar vse of the crosse and other like points of our religion besides tradition vpon the authoritie of scriptures also expounded accordinge to their meaning albeit oure aduersaries denie the same to be well expounded If our aduersaries will yet goe further for the triall of our Spirits we are well content and we refuse none that euer antiquitie vsed for the triall of a Catholique and hereticall spirit The olde heretiques
VVhich appeareth also by the scripture it selfe For act 28. where bothe the latin translation and their English hathe a secte the greek hath heresie So likewise gal 5. the same you may reade act 24.26 2. pet 2. And if in olde time there were anie differēce betwene these woordes amōg the gentiles heresie was the more generall cleane contrarie to that M. Charke imagineth For that heresie signifyeing an election of some priuate opinion was the generall name to all the particular sectes of philosophers As to the secte of Stoikes platonikes peripatikes and the like as moste learnedlie doe note S. Ierom in cap. 3. ep ad Tit. And Isodorus l. 8. etym. cap. 3. Theophilact in ca. 2. ep ad col And Tertulian l. de prescript So that this was a great ouer sight in M. Charke The second argument whiche M. Charke vseth to proue a difference betwene a sect and an heresie and so to ouerthrowe the definition is for that yf one man sayeth he cutt hym selfe of in opinion he shall not be called a sect except there be manie But he shalbe called a sectarie M. Charke as also for the same cause he shall be called not an heresie but an heretique I maruaile where your witt was when you deuised this differēce without a diuersitie But you adioyne to this two examples of scripture the one of the Corinthians sharplie rebuked of Schisme by S. Paul for that one sayd he was of Paul an other of Apollo an other of Cephas an other of Christ who notwithstanding dyd not differ in matters of faith saye you but therein by your leaue you are greatlie deceyued For albeit S. Paul doeth vse the greeke woord Shisme in that place which in his proper significatiō is but a degree to heresie as S. Augustine proueth by example of the donatists first shismatikes after heretiques yet schism in his large ample significatiō whereby it signifiethe all diuision cōprehēdeth not onelie heresie but also all error of faith whereby men are deuided in beleefe which is not alwayes heresie except it be defended against the churche with obstinacie And such schisme o◠diuisiō in beleefe was the schisme of the Corinthiás as S. Austen well noteth for that they erred in a point of faith esteming the vertue power of Baptisme not to depend onelie of Christ but of the dignitie of the Baptiser And therfore one bragged as baptized of Paul an other of Apollo an other of Cephas some folowing the trueth in deede sayd that by what minister soeuer they were baptized yet held they onelye their Iustification sanctificatiō of Christ as cōcurring equallie with all his ministers in Baptisme This is S. Augustens Catholique exposition besides this the woordes of the text doe manifestlie proue the same Is Christ deuided sayeth S. Paul that is doeth he impart hym selfe more in one mans baptisme than in an others or doeth he not equallie and whollie concurre in euerie of his ministers baptisme Agayne vvas Paul crucified for you to witt thereby to be able to sanctifie you of hym selfe by his baptisme Or vvere you baptized in the name of Paul No but in the name power and vertue of Christ who onelie sanctifieth in euerie baptisme I thank God that I haue baptized none among you but Chrispus and Caius and the house of Steuen lesse anie man might say that you vvere baptized in my name By this it appeareth plainlie that the Corinthiās were deuided in matter of faythe about baptism VVherfore as this example maketh nothing to the purpose for whiche it was brought so is it fondlie and malitiouslie applied by you against Catholiques whoe say I folovv the rule or order of lyfe of Benedict I of Augusten I of Basil I of Francis wherein there is no difference of faith at all No more to this purpose thoghe the matters be vnlyke than yf yow ministers should saye among your selues in the contrarie sense of libertie I will liue vnmaried after the order of my Lorde of Canterburie I will take a wyfe after the platforme of my Lord of London I will haue two wiues together after the fashiō of M. Archedeacon of Salesburie I will haue a wyfe and a wenche besides after the custome of some other archedeacon and preacher in England Your second example is of the phariseys vvho vvere a notorious sect saye you and yet dyd not cut of them selues by heresie from the churche VVherein agayne you ouerslipp fowlie For in that they were a notoriouse sect they held particular heresies as the passing of soules from bodie to bodie the like whereof you may read in Ioseph L. 2. de bello Iudaico cap. 7. in philastrius in his catologe of heresies vpon the woord phariseus And this is to be vnderstoode of some of the pharises For other wyse I confesse that the pharises were sometime called a sect or heresie in good parte for that they defended the immortalitie of the soule and were deuided therby from the Saduces who denyed the same act 23. And in this sense spake S. Paul when he sayd before the Iudgement seat towching his lyfe past before his conuersion I lyued a pharisey according to the moste certaine sect of our religion VVhere is to be noted against M. Charke againe that S. Paul in greeke vseth the woord heresie whiche in his generall signification importinge onelie a choyse of any opinion as I haue noted before might be taken in good sense euen as this woorde Tyrannie might and was taken of the olde writers though now by vse and appropriation bothe the one and the other be taken in euell part And to the ende M. Charke may confesse his ouersight in this matter I will alleage hym the woordes of one of his owne doctors M. Fulke by name who of this matter sayeth thus S Paul hym selfe openlie acknouleged that he vvas a pharisey vvhen nothing vvas vnderstoode by the name but one that beleeued the resurrection of the dead although the tearme of pharisey vvas othervvyse the name of a sect of heretiques vvhiche maintained many damnable errors from vvhiche the Apostles vvere moste free By this nowe is defended the definition of sectaries geuen by the Censure and ouerthrowne that fond new definition deuised by M. Charke and called by hym a truer definition according to the true etymologie of the vvord to witt A sect is a cōpagnie of men that differ from the rest of their religion in matter or forme of their profession Touching the true etymologie whiche he speaketh of I can not tell what he meaneth nor I think hym selfe For in greke the scripture vseth the woorde heresie for i◠as hathe bene shewed whiche can yelde no etymologie to maintaine this definition And in Latin Secta muste nedes come ether a secando or a sectando bothe whiche being referred to matters of the mynde as necessarilie they must doe include alwaye a
a stravven epistle this is that I say that maketh men to think that you are gyuen ouer to a desperate resolutioÌ„ to mayntaine an euell cause euen against your owne consciences when you blush not to auow suche open vntruthes For I am sure that whitaker being a reader in diuinitie could not chuse but haue redde those woordes alleaged by learned men aboue an hundred times against Luther and yet he denieth them as confidentlie as yf he had neuer heard of the matter VVhat may be sayd to suche men For my anotation anexed to Luthers woordes expounding them as vttered against the former three gospells for that they speake to muche of good vvoorks though you affirme it to proceede of want of exercise and iudgement in scripture wherein you think your selfe onelie to excell yet is it moste true and discried by Luther hym selfe in the place alleaged and argueth in you some ignorance ioyned with more pride in not knowing or dissembling that these three gospells haue many things touching good woorkes contrarie to Luthers bare faythe and credulitie whiche are not set downe in S. Iohn expresselie as of the necessitie of the commaundements and lyfe euerlasting gyuen for keping the same Math. 19. Of the paye due vnto good woorks Math 20. Of the retribution whiche they shall haue in the resurrection of the iust Luc. 14. Of the rewarde of euery cuppe of water gyuen for Christ Math. 10. Marc 9. And many other the like whiche are not sett downe expresselie in S. Iohn though I know he writing with the same spirit could not but haue many thinges to the same effect The fovvrthe doctrine The fowrthe doctrine of Luther was Yf any vvoman can not or vvill not proue by order of lavve the insufficiencie of her husâ—and Let her request at his hands a diuorse or else by his consenâ— let her priuilie lye vvith his brother or vvith some other men This M. Hanmer vtterlie denieth and calleth it my shamelâ—sse reporte with other most bytter woordes as yf their had neuer bene any suche things writen by Luther Mary M. Charke taketh an other way in answering For he confesseth the whole matter but seketh to returne the shame thereof to vs. True it is sayeth he Luther gaue this euell counsaile but as he ansvvereth hym selfe he dyd it vvheÌ„ he vvas yet among you But novv sayeth he speaking of the tyme after his conuersion my mynde is to geeue other counsaile And then M. Charke as hauing taken a great aduaÌ„tage against me exclaymeth with all his force VVhat holie vvritings can be free from your foule reproches yf you vvill thus reade a peece of a sentence against the manifest purpose of the vvriter You haue reason M. Chark and yf the matter goe so cleare against me as you make yt I ask no perdone but let me be discredited for euer But yf you haue shewed here suche a peece of willfull and shamelesse dishonestie as can not be excused how will yow looke your owne freends in the face hereafter Let vs then examyne the matter First I graunt that Luther sayeth that he vvrote this counsaile for confessors or such as heard confessions vvhen he vvas yet in feare of the pope For so are his wordes But yet that this was after his Apostacie froÌ„ the Catholique Religion or as you terme it after his conuersion to your Gospell for many yeres after he stoode in feare of the pope and sayd nothing against confession yt appeareth euidentlie by his whole discourse in the place alleaged where he sayeth plainlie beside other things that the papists dyd seeke aduauntage against hym for this opinion of his and to that ende dyd misreporte his woordes as he sayeth besides you knowe that papists teache no suche doctrine but the plain coÌ„trarie therfore he coulde not maÌ„dare literis as his woordes are that he did that is he coulde not put in vvriting publishe suche a doctrine among vs but he wolde haue bene resisted presentlie yf he had bene of our churche at that tyme. So that this shyft of youres is euidentlie false that he wrote it when he was a papist For albeit he being not yet sufficientely fortified with fryndes to defend hym stood in feare of Antichrist as he tearmeth him and consequentely durst not breake any further to the open execution of this beastely doctrine as afterward he dyd yet had he left papistrie as you call it a good whyle before as appeareth by his owne wordes and by computation of the tyme wherin he wrote this booke But now to the second point whiche is the cheefest Yow affirm and I confesse that Luther sayeth But novv I vvould gyue other counsaile But what wold he reuoke that he had sayde speake M. Chark or else you are shamed VVolde he reuoke his senteÌ„ce I say being now out of the feare of the popeâ—no but he will doe muche worse For whereas before he dyd but counsaile the husbaÌ„d to permitt his wyfe to lye with an other Now being pope hym selfe of Germany owt of feare of the pope of Rome he will compell hym to yt And how trow yow as the pope of Rome doeth compell meÌ„ by excommunication No but by taking hym by the locks for those are his ruffianlie woordes he wolde towze hym except he dyd yt I will recite luthers owne stile that you may see where true and false dealinge ys Thus then he gyueth the wyfe counsayle and authoritie to speake to her husband Ecce marite debitam mihi beneuolentiam praestare noÌ„ potes meque iuuenile corpus decepisti c. Faue quaeso vt cum fratre tuo aut proxime tibi sanguine iuncto occultum matrimonium paciscar sic vt tu nomen habeas ne res tuae in alienos haeredes perueniant ac sine vt spoÌ„te tua a me decipiare quemadmodum tu praeter voluntatem meam imposuisti mihi Perrexi porro maritum debere in ea re assentiri vxori quod si renuat ipsa clandestina fuga saluti suae consulat in aliam profecta terraÌ„ alii etiaÌ„ nubat Consilium tale iam tum impertii cum adhuc me detineret pauor antechristi nunc verò secus longè consulere animus esset talique marito qui adeo mulierem deludat dolis vehementius lanificium immissa manu conuellerem vt vulgo dici solet Idem de muliere iudico quà mquà m id rarius sit quâm in viris In english thus Beholde husband you caÌ„ not performe the frendshipp you owe me and you haue deceiued bothe me and my youthfull bodie be coÌ„tent I pray you that I bargaine a secret mariage with your brother or with some next of your kynne in suche sorte as you may still beare the name to the ende your goods may not passe to straunge heyres And permit your selfe to be deceyued willinglye of me as you haue deceyued me against my will And I went yet further sayeth Luther
whoe was present at yt writeth that the Zuinglians were there vanquished demaunded with teares to be called brethren of the lutheranes onelie thereby to colour a concorde But yet Luther wolde not graunt it The verie same touchinge luthers hardnesse confesseth Caluin to westfalus superintendent of hamborough and Boquinus a Zuinglian confesseth the same as Brentius proueth in the place before alleaged by the testimonie of lauatherus also a Zuinglian so that I should maruayle M. Chark that you were not ashamed to alleage this acte of concorde of Marpurge but that I consider you must nedes say somewhat No M. Charke not onelie in this meeting of Marpurge dyd your men disagree and become more enemies than before but also in all other conuenticles after euen vnto this day haue they dissented in opinions more more as is euident to them vvhiche doe reade the stories and acts of theyr meetings set out in print So that in verie deede this one marke of disagreement is sufficient to shew what spirit they are of After this synode of Marpurge they mett together at Swabache and after that againe at Smalcald the 12. of December but without any effect of vnion or agreement as bothe Sleidan and lauatherus doe testifie After that they had diuers meetings talkes conferences disputations synodes conuenticles at diuers places and times but alwayes departed more enemies than before as you may see in particular sett doune by vadian in his aphorismes After this in the yere 1557. vpon the fowerth day of September there mett at wormes in Germanie 12 Catholiques 12. ministers appointed by the former Councell or dieta of Ratisbone to treate of certaine conditions to be obserued on both parties in practise of theyr religion And when the first question was proposed what articles of faithe eche parte wolde haue allowed by publique authoritie the Catholiques agreed presentlie marie the ministers fell out and therupon a daye or two was allowed them to agree but they grew further and further in dissention for sixtene dayes together and the seuententh daye they were further of than at the beginninge For then had seueÌ„ of the twelue excommunicated the other fyue for heretiques and as vtterlie disagreing from the Confession of Angusta Mary yet those seuen could in no wyse agree among them selues what articles onelie were to be receyued and what to be excluded and so that meeting was brocken of without effect This storie doe write bothe Amsfordius and Gallus Lutherans Lauatherus a Zuinglian And Surius a Catholique After this agayne in the yere 1564. in the moneth of April there was a solemne meetinge or sinode betweene the Lutheranes and Caluinists at Mulbrune in Germanie And on the Lutheranes parte the duke of wittenberge was president for the temporaltie Smidelyne prolocutor for the cleargie For the Caluinistes was president the Countie palatine of Rheine Boquinus was speaker But after diuers dayes spent in disputing chafing chiding they departed lesse agreed than before one parte calling the other sectaries and heretiques as you may reade in the actes of that meeting set furth in print aswell by the one partie as by the other but eche side notwithstandinge reportinge the thinge for theyr owne vantage and blaminge the other And thus muche for solemne meetings and publique actes of concorde declaring the singular vnitie of protestants in the gospell Now for the intercourse of louing letters and godlye vvritings betvvene lutheranes and Caluinists whiche M. Charke nameth but citeth none for proofe of their singular vnitie Yt shall appeare how trewe it is by that whiche I will heere alleage out of their owne writings one against an other And first I haue alleaged before the louing woordes of Luther towardes Caluinists by the verie testimonie of the Tigurines theÌ„ selues whome he calleth an execâ—able sect replenished vvith the deuyl insathanized supersathanized and persathanized And they call hym againe an archeheretique and a â—urious deuyll vvhiche hathe no communion vvith the saincts of God Luther againe calleth Bucer a blasphemouse monster of the sacramentarie spirit and all sacramentaries miserable and blasphemouse heretiques adding further I doe protest before God and the vvorlde that I doe not agree vvith them nor euer vvill vvhile the vvorld standeth but vvill haue my haÌ„ds cleare from the bloode of those sheepe vvhich these heretiques doe dryue from Christe deceyue and kill And againe in the same place cursed be the charitie and concorde of sacramentaries for euer and euer to all eternities Againe in an other place he pronounceth of them Hâ—ereticos serio ceÌ„semus we censure them in earnest for heretiques And after that he pronounceth them as moste certainlie to be damned hovv soeuer they beleeue some articles a-right and doe pronounce them truelie vvith their lyeing and blasphemouse mouthe as his woordes are And finallie two yeres before his deathe he denounced an open excommunication against them all sayeing vvho soeuer vvill not beleeue the breade to be the true and naturall bodie of our lorde lett hym abstayne from me bothe by letter vvriting and speeche neyther let hym expect anie communion vvith me for he shall but leese his labour And this was the agrement of this holie and learned man Martin Luther as M. Charke calleth hym And this was his entercourse of louynge and godlie speeche and vvritings towardes the Zuinglians that is towardes M. Charke and his felowes in England But now yf a man wolde speake of the entercourse of louinge letters betwene the Lutheranes and Zuinglianes after Luthers deathe it were infinite But yet he that desireth to know somewhat thereof let hym reade but Brentius against Bullinger westfalus against Caluine Caluin against Stankarus Heshutius against Beza Also the seuerall bookes of Sneppius Alberus Timannus Stolzius Kemnitius Marbachius Vigandus against the Zuinglians And the vehemeÌ„t treatises of Ochinus Alasco Boquinus Clebitius Bullinger and Peter Martyr against the Lutheranes Bullinger calleth Brentius puffed spirit slaunderer scurril iester Mome impure impudent and furiouse Eutychian light and brainelesse sophist Caluine writing to the ministers of Germanye and hoping to gaine them to his parte against westfalus called them honorable brothers most faithfull seruants of Christ. But when he sawe they tooke part against hym he calleth them Knaues Gyants Monsters Beastes Asses Deuylls Heshutius writing against Caluine calleth hym cruel tyrant crastie perfidiouse and contemptuouse Epicure rechelesse lyar vvanton and impudent sycophant one that handled the scriptures as other men doe Ouids metamorphosis The same heshutius called Beza a Beast a Cyclops a Harlot set to sale and generallie all Caluinists impudent knaues Stankerus of a thyrde sect wryteth thus I doe set more by one Peter Lombard whiche notwithstanding he contemneth than by a hundred Luthers tvvo hundred Melanctons three hundred Bullingers fovver hundred Peter Martyrs and fyue hundred Caluines All vvhiche yf they vvere pound together in a
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
a-right but yow will saye perhappes Your spirit within you telleth you soe And my spirit M. Charke telleth me the contrarie One of them must needes be a lyeing spirit and whie not yours as well as myne These are fansies gentle syr william proper to hereticall braynes to assure them selues such knowlege aboue other men Luther sayde many yeres after he was a protestant ego credo fortiter imo ausim dicere scio purgatorium esse I beleeue stowtelie yea I dare auowe that I know there is a purgatorie Yet he denied it after Martin Bucer wheÌ„ he was a Zuinglian knew as he sayd that doctrine to be deliuered from heauen but yet afterward comming backe to be a Lutheran he protested openlie that he knew it was moste false And againe returninge to be a Zuinglian he knew it was true againe and the other false and yet all this while certaine knowlege can not be false Yf a man should aske all the sectaries now lyuing they wold say the same that you doe of theyr certaine knowlege VVherefore me think you might haue spared these woordes of your certayne knovvlege whiche nether helpe your cause nor hurt ours any further than the credit reacheth of your owne bare woorde that also in your owne commendation Of concupiscence Art 2. THE CENSVRE 2. Secondlie you report the Iesuits to say ConcupisceÌ„ce remayning in the regenerate although it be against the lawe of God yet is it not sinne properlye in it selfe or of his owne nature Cens. fo 38. 1 you vvill needes helpe the Iesuits out vvithe that vvhiche maketh for your purpose VVhere fynde you in them the vvordes Although it be against the lawe of God They saye that albeit this concupiscence doe sturre or moue a man sometimes to doe things vvhiche are repugnant to the lavve of God yet yf no consent of harte be yeelded vnto it it reacheth not to the nature of a mortall sinne vvorthie of eternall daÌ„nation 2. And albeit S. Paul doe sometimes call it sinne yet meaneth he not properlie but by a figure vvhereby the name of the cause is ofâ—entimes attributed to the effect 3. as the latin speeche is called the latin tongue because speeche is the effect of the tongue So concupiscence being the effect of original sinne is called sometymes synne but not properlie but onelie figuratiuelie as also S. Paul calleth 4. Christ hym selfe Sinne because he vvas the sacrifice for sinne And all this is S. AusteÌ„s note vvhose plaine vvordes in the same place are ConcupisceÌ„ce is not sinne in the regenerate yf consent be not yeelded vnto her for the accomplishing of vâ—lawâ—â—ll woorkes The same teacheth not onelye S. Augustine in diuerse other places but also all other fathers of the primatiue church as Nazianzenus orat de S. Lauacro Pacianus orat de bap Clemens Alexandrinus li. 1. pedag c. 6 Ciprian ser. de lot pedum li. 2. ep 2. Ambr. li. 1. de vocat gentium cap. 5. Soe that all these good fathers are partakers vvith the Iesuits of this blasphemie vvhiche you ensorce vpon them But hovv doe you proue it to be blasphemiâ—â— Marie because Christ sayeth whoe soeuer shall see a woman to lust after her he hath alredie committed adulterie with her in his harte But are you so ignorant M. Charke Doe you not see that Christ by adding the vvoordes in his hart meaneth onelie of hym vvhich geueth consent of hart to his lust and concupiscence and vvolde put it in execution yf he had time and place and abilitie but this is your common alleaging of Scripture THE DEFENCE The charge of helpinge owt the Iesuits doctrine with these woordes although it be against the lavve of God he layeth vpon Gotuisus But I accept not this excuse For he might haue seene in Canisius pag 184. 73â— which Gotuisus citeth also for the same as well as the Ceâ—sure of Coleâ— and whiche M. Charke confesseth to haue reade that Gotuisus belyed the Iesuits in his reporte for that there is no suche thinge in the places alleaged of Canisius as by reading any man may see VVhichâ— declareth euidentlie that yow haue no playne meanyng but a secret intention to deceyue As also when you assure your reader that I denyeing concupiscence to be a mortall sinne according to the question betwene Monhemius and the Iesuits doe thereby graunt vnder-hand that it is some kinde of sinne VVhich was no more meant by me than you denyeing before Martin Luthers mariage to be sacrilege dyd meane thereby to graunt vnder-hand that it was adulterie fornication or any other lesser sinne of the fleshe The exposition of S. Pauls woordes callinge concupiscence improperlie sinne quia peccato facta est because it was wrought in vs by originall sinne as S. Augustin sayeth M. Charke reiecteth calling it a wraÌ„gling exposition though it be the exposition of the primatiue churche and so recorded by S. Augustin in many places of his woorkes as lib. 1. de nuptio concup ca. 23. li. 1. contr 2. ep pelag c. 13 lib. 1. retract c. 15. li. 2. cont Iul. c. 13. and li. 6. c. 11. All whiche M. Charke as better learned in S. Paul than Austen all the fathers of that time contemneth as easilie as yf it were the exposition of some vnlearned boye and beginneth hym selfe like a doctor to discourse a-new vpon S. Pauls meaning mary as it commonlie falleth out to suche malapert marchants he is no sooner in but he is ouer the eares in absurdities For his discourse is this S. Paul proueth sayethe he that though the lavve sturreth vs to synne yet is it no synne VVell this maketh for vs. For soe we may reason that though concupiscence doe sturre vs to sinne yet is it no sinne But what inferreth he therfore sayeth he yf the lavve vvhâ—che is holie doe come in question notvvithstanding of synne for that it prouoketh our corrupt nature to synne hovv muche more concupiscence vvhich is vncleane in it selfe This proueth nothing M. Charke but from the place a disparatis where commonlie children and distracted men take their arguments For how holdeth this yf the lawe for sturring to sinne be called in question of sinne and be no sinne then concupiscence for sturring to sinne must be called in question of sinne and be sinne in deede but he will saye perhappes the force of the argument standeth in the woordes holie vncleane in this order yf the lawe being holie be called in question of sinne what shall we saye of concupiscence which is vncleane and what more can you say M. Charke than to call it in questioÌ„ of sinne that somewhat more than the lawe is called in question which is bothe pure and holie and no wayes ether vncleane or euill or the effect of sinne as we graunt concupiscence is and yet for all this not properlie sinne without consent of hart as S. Augustin in the places alleaged proueth
he placeth concupiscence of the fleshe wherof we talke in the reasonable parte of the mynde and not in the sensityue parte which is as much as yf a man should appoint seeyng to be in the nose smellyng to be in the eyes For the motioÌ„s of coÌ„cupisceÌ„ce are nothing els but the rebellioÌ„s of our seÌ„sitiue partes against the parte wherein reason is and how then are not they in the parte sensityue are they not called the concupiscence of the fleshe Dothe not S. Paul saye the fleshe coueteth or hathe concupiscence agaynst the spirit Dothe not he saye playnlie I feele an other lavve in my members repugnyng to the lavve of my mynde Is not heere concupiscence placed in the members and reason in the mynde what intollerable ignoraÌ„ce is this in a preacher yea in a conquerour of learned M. Campian eauen vnto Tyborne But his second absurditie is yet greater than this in affirmyng that the sensuall parte of man is not so muche corrupted by originall synne as is the reasonable part whiche is cleane false and the contradictorie therof is true For albeit all partes be corrupted yet the sâ—â—sible parte more by reason of the rebellyon of the sensityue parte against the reasonable whiche I haue named before and euerie man by experience dothe fynde more temptation in his sensitiue partes to witt in his senses imagination and other like partes and members of his bodie than he dothe in his reasonable partes to wytt in his iudgement and wyll especiallie good men who fynde greate rebellyon often tymes in their sensuall partes thoughe their iudgement be ryght and their wyll most holye and firme S. Paul felt this when he sayd O vnhappie man that I am vvho shall delyuer me from the bodie of this deathe And agayne I my selfe doe serue the lavve of God in my mynde but in my fleshe I serue the lavâ—e of synne signifyinge therby the violent rebellion of the fleshe In whiche sense also it is sayd by the wyse man the bodye that is corrupted aggreueth the mynde And S. Paul sayethe I doe not that uuhiche I vvolde but that vvhiche I hate By all which is shewed that the inferiour parte of man called the sensatyue parte is more corrupted by the fall of Adam than the reasonable for that by the force of concupiscence placed principallie in it it maketh warre and offerreth violence to the other So that heerin also M. Charke was fowlie ouerseene His third absurditie is ioyned with flatt pelagianisme where he sayeth that the necessarie actions of lyfe and sense remayne novv in man as they vvere before hys fall Heerof S. Austen shalbe witnesse whose woordes are these Yf any man shall affirme that by the offence of preuarication in Adam the vuhole man that is man bothe in bodie and sovvle is not chaunged into vvorse c he is deceyued vvith the errour of pelagians and is contrarie to the scriptures The lyke teacheth Prosper lib. 1. de vocat gent. ca. 7. Into these errours and heresies falleth M. Charke whiles leauing the sure doctrine of the Catholique Churche he deuiseth owt newe wayes after the fashion of all heretiques wherby to excuse naturall actions from sinne VVe excuse them from sinne and doe saye the cause to be for that they are not voluntarie whiche is one principall point required aswell in sinne as in vertue as hathe beene shewed M. Charke deuiseth he can not tell what him selfe in this pointe but onelie that he wolde not saye willinglie as we doe thoughe he haue nothing to saye besides But yet against this poynte of voluntarie he obiecteth once more originall sinne whiche as he sayeth is not voluntarie But it hathe bene answered before shewed how it is voluntarie not onelie in men of discretion but also in infantes SecoÌ„dlie he alleageth owt of Genesis that the cogitation of mans hart is euill euer more To whiche I answere that it inclineth to euill by reason of concupiscence left in vs but yet is not that inclination synne without consent as hathe bene proued before Thirdlie he obiecteth the commaundemeÌ„t thovv shalt loue thy God vvith all thy hart vvith all thy sovvle and vvith all thy strength By whiche commaundement he imagineth the first motions of concupiscence to be also forbydden and consequentlie to be sinnes whiche is false For as S. Austen well writeth in dyuers places thoughe we be sturred by this commaundement to all perfection that we can in this lyfe yet no more is inioyned vs therby vnder payne of synne and damnation but onlie that we doe not yeeld consent to sinne as hathe bene shewed before in the Censure and is now presentlie to be examined more at large in explication of the tenthe commaundement whiche contayneth the verye same meaninge that this commaundement dothe Vpon all this that goeth before VV. Chark maketh this conclusion agaynst vs. Therfore to saye vve must not or can not pull in the raynes of our first lustes c is in deede to teache a beastlie libertie and to laye open the vvaye to all vncleannesse vvithout controllement Heere now is shewed the ordinarie practise of all lyeing heretikes and speciallie of protestantes whose fashion is to charge the Catholique Church with odious conclusions deduced of false principles deuised by them selues For which parte doeth enlarge or pull in the raynes of our lustes the protestant or the Catholique doctrine surelie yf to pull in or enlarge the raynes of our lustes be to gyue them scope or to represse the motions as all men I thinke will confesse then consider I pray you whoâ— doe this ether VV. Chark and hys felowes or we They teache that these first motions of lust are naturall and doe present them selues vnto vs without our wyll and when they doe so come we can not lett their effect but that they woorke sinne in vs whether we consent or not consent So that by this doctrine protestantes doe not onelie lett owt the raynes but doe qwyte take awaye bothe raynes and brydle owt of our handes For yf lustes come without our will and woorke sinne in vs without our consent what raynes are there left in our handes to pull in Yf they be sinne in me whether I consent or not consent shall I stryue agaynst a thyng that is impossible whoe will not rather execute his lustes with pleasure than resist them with payne yf whether he consent or not they are sinne So that in deede this is that libertine doctrine of protestantes which looseth the raynes and layeth open the waye to all vncleannesse as bothe by experience nowe appeareth in the worlde and by reason is euident And our contrarie doctrine is that whiche pulleth in the raynes of lust and layeth the foundation of all vertue among Christians yf it be executed accordinglie To witt the doctrine vvherby vve teache that albeit these first motions be naturall and doe present them selues vnto vs many tymes without all
commaundement against grauen Idoles where as they leaue it not owt but doe include it in the first commaundement and that for the same reasons whiche moued S. Austen to doe the same as hath bene sayde These earnest odious slaunderous accusations whiche our aduersaries in theyr owne coÌ„sciences doe know to be meere false doe argue nothing for them but onelie great malice in theyr hartes singular lacke of modestie and great shame in theyr behauyour and extreeme pouertie and necessitie in theyr cause M. Charkes second charge that I make the seuerall breaches of tvvo diuers commaundementes but one synne is also false For I make them two distinct synnes though they haue one generall name gyuen them by Christ that is I make the breache of the nyenth commaundement after our account whiche is thou shalt not couer thy neyghbours vvyfe to be mentall adulterie yf it goe no further but onelie to coÌ„sent of mynde And the breache of the sixt coÌ„maundemeÌ„t thou shalt not commit adulterie I make to be the sinne of actuall adulterie when it breaketh owt to the woorke it selfe which two sinnes thoughe they agree in the name of aldulterie yet are they distinct sinnes often tymes and one seperated from the other and coÌ„sequentely may be prohibited by distinst commaundementesâ— And so in lyke wyse I make actuall theft to belong to the seuenth commaundement and mentall theft vnto the tenth This is my meanyng M. Charke whiche you myght haue vnderstoode yf you wolde and consequentlie haue forborne so malitiouse falshode in misreporting the same There remayneth onelie to be examined abowt this article the reason touched by the Censure and fownded on the scripture for the coÌ„firmation of S. Austens Catholique exposition of the commaundement thou shalt not couet VVhiche lawe sayeth the Censure forbyddeth onelye consent of hart to the motions of lust and not the verye first motions them selues which are not in our power consequentlie not comprehended vnder that prohibition of the lawe as the scripture signifieth when it sayeth this commaundement vvhiche I gyue thee this daye is not aboue thee To this M. Charke answereth first that our first motions are not altogether ovvt of our povver For that the guyft of contineÌ„cie dothe more and more subdue them VVhiche is true if wee vnderstand of yeelding consent vnto them But yf we vnderstand of vtter suppressing and extinguishinge of all first motions of lust and concupiscence as M. Charke must needes meane our question beinge onelie therof then must we know that albeit good meÌ„ doe cutt of by mortification infinite occasions and causes of motions and temptations whiche wicked men haue yet can they neuer during this lyfe so subdue all motions them selues of theyr concupiscence but that they will ryse often against theyr willes as S. Paul complayneth of hym selfe in many places and all other Saints after hym haue experienced in their fleshe whoe notwithstanding had the gyft diligence of mortifieing theyr fleshe asmuche I weene as our ministers of England haue whoe talke of continencie mortification eche one hauinge hys yoke mate redye for hys turne as those good felowes doe of fastynge whiche sitt at a full table according to the prouerbe To the place of Moyses he hathe no other shyft but to saye that the translation is false and corrupt for that Moyses meant onelye the lavve is not hydden from vs and not that it is not aboue our povver as yt is euidentlye declared saythe he by the playne text by explication therof in the Epistle to the Romans This sayeth M. Charke mary he proueth yt nether by the woordes of the text nor by S. Pauls application But yf I be not deceyued S. Ierome whose traÌ„slatioÌ„ this is esteemed to be or els before himâ— corrected by him knew as well what the Hebrew woords of Moyses imported in the text also how S. Paul applyed theÌ„ as williaÌ„ Chark dothe S. Pauls application of that parte of this senteÌ„ce which he towcheth maketh wholie for vs as after shalbe shewed The Hebrew woord of the text is NIPHLET coÌ„ming of the verb PHALA which as I denie not but it signifieth to be hidden so signifieth it also to be maruailous to be hard difficult As appeareth psa 139. 2. Sam. 1. where the same woord is vsed The same signifieth the Chaldie woorde Mâ—PHARESA coÌ„ming of the verbe PHARAS that besides the significations signifieth also to seperate The greke woord HYPERONGOS signifieth as all men knowe exceeding immesurable greate passing all meane c Howe then doe not these three woordes vsed in the three auncieÌ„t tongues hauinge a negation putt before them as they haue in the text expresse so muche as S. Ierom hathe expressed by sayeing the lavve is not aboue thee Doe not all these woordes putt together importe that the lawe is not more hard or difficult than thy abilitie may reache to perfourme or that it is not seperated from our power that it is not exceedinge our strengthe wolde any horse but bayard haue beene so bolde with S. IeroÌ„ and withe all the primatiue churche whiche vsed this our common latine translation to deface them all I saye vppon so lyght occasion VVolde any impudencie haue durst it besides the pryde of an heretique If S. Ierom will not satisfie you take S. Austen who haÌ„dleth bothe the woordes alleaged of Moyses and also the application vsed by S. Paul of parte of the sentence and proueth owt of bothe the verie same conclusion that we doe to wytt that the lawe is not aboue our abilitie to kepe it and for confirmation therof he addeth many other textes of scripture as my yoke is svvete and my burden is lyght also his commaundementes are not heauye and the lyke concluding in these woordes vve must beleeue moste firmelye that God being iust and good could not commaunde impossible things vnto man And in an other place VVe doe detest the blasphemie of those men vvhiche affirme God to haue commaunded any impossible thing vnto maÌ„ The verie same woords of detestation vseth S. Ierome in the explication of the creede vnto Damasus byshope of Rome And the same proueth S. Chrisostome at large in hys first booke of impunction of the hart and S. Basil his breefe rules the 176. interrogation Of defacing of scripture Artic. 4. THE CENSVRE You report the Iesuites to saye The holie scripture is a doctrine vnperfect maymed lame not coÌ„taynyng all things necessarie to saith and saluatioÌ„ Cen. fol. 220. you are too shameles M. Charke in setting forth these for the Iesuites vvoordes Lett anye man reade the place and he shall finde noe such thing but rather in contrarie maner the holie scripture vvith reuerent vvordes most highlye commended Notvvithstanding they reprehend in that place Monhemius for sayeing that nothing is to be receyued or beleued but that vvhiche is expreslie found in the Scripture For reproofe of vvhich heresie they gyue
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
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
miserie as it alwayes appeareth when it coÌ„methe to examination And this shall suffice for this sixt article HEERE the Authour vvas interrupted by a VVritte de remouendo so as he could not for this present passe on any further as more at large is shewed at the beginning in an epistle to M. Charke A BREEFE TABLE OF THE PRINCIPALL matters contayned in the defence of the Censure THe foly and badd dealyng of Hanmer pag. 3.4.5.6 How to discerne a cleane spirit from an vncleane page 11 12.13â— The ordinarie fashion of heretiques in raylyng as appeareth by Fulke Chark Hanmer page 11.13.14.15 33.34.35.36.38.158.159 And as appeareth by Caluin page 15. And by Luthers raylyng speache against kyng Henry the eight page 15.16 17. And against Caluinistes page 17.18 VVhat a secte and sectarie is and hovv it may differe or agree with heresie page 19.21.22.26 The Iesuites are no sect page 19. The pharises a secte page â—4 Charkes absurde ouersyght in definynge a secte page 25. Religious men odius to heretiques pag. 30.31.32.33 The religious vocation consisteth in three vowes pa. 38 The monkes of olde tyme made vowes page 36. The religious state of these tymes and of the primatiue churche all one insubstance page 38. Elias Helizeus and S. Iohn Baptist paternes of religious men page 19.20.21 S. Augustin a religious man page 38. Austeritie of life and voluntarie pouertie practized by auncient fathers and by Christ hym selfe page 27.39 Mariage of votaries is worse than adulterie page 37. 43 44â—50 Luther for feare entered into Religion page 49. His horrible doctrine and impietie page 45. 51. and so forthe to the 66. page Hys bodilie conference with the deuill page 68.69 Hys dronken deathe page 66.70.71 The dissention of protestantes 74.75.76.77.92.93 Iohn Caluin his falling into heresie pag. 78. His burning in the shoulder for Sodomye page 78. His ambition and vainglorie page 81.82 His maner in raysing of the deade page 82. His casting owt of a deuyll page 83. His lasciuious lyfe and dayntynes page 84. Hys horrible siknes and deathe page 89. Beza his wicked disposition Simonie and lasciuiousnes pag 86â—87 88.89 The six reformers of religion what kynde of men they were page 90.91.92 Bucer his inconstancie and deathe 92.93 M. Chark caÌ„ not be certaine of his good estate pag. 112. Luthers absurd doctrine that a woman is as necessarye for man as meate drynke and sleepe page 63. The definition of synne pag 101. c. to 109. page Not onelie incredulitie is sinne against Luthers doctrine pag 51. Synne is a reasonable action pag. 104. Synne is voluntarie page 105. Madde men and vnreasonable creatures can not sinne pag 108. Concupiscence is not properlie a sinne in the regenerate pag 116.117 c. M. Charks maruailous impudencie in translating S. Austen page 121. It is the opinion not of Catholiques but of Caluin that God is the author of euill page 124. The first motions how they are no synne pag. 125. 126. The true diuision of the tenne commaundementes pag. 132.133 Traditions of equall force with the written woord pag. 159 160. Tradition is called an vnwritten law page 160. Fulks impudencie in discrediting 8. auncient fathers and all antiquitie page 158. 159. The sufficiencie of scripture page 149. M. Charks three fond reasons concerning the sufficiencie of scripture page 151.152 How hereticall wrestinge of scripture is compared to a Nose of waxe page 66. The faultes correcte thus Pag. 10. lin 25. for embreued Reade imbrued Pag. 11. lin 9. for oder Reade order Pag. 12. in the margent for Act. 6. Reade Act. 8. Pag. 16. in the margent for Fol. 442. Reade Fol. 342. Pag. 17. lin 13. for Angelicam Reade Anglicam Pag. 18. lin 16. for Caluinistes vvhoe say theyr maisters doe call Reade Caluinistâ— vvho are theyr maisters doe call Pag. 29. lin 26. for your Reade you Pag. 29. lin vlt. for men Reade man Pag. 32. lin 15. for Nounes Reade Nonnes Pag. 33. in the margent Reade Pag. 96. 98. Pag. 40. lin 36. for Loyalas Reade Loyolas Pag. 47. lin 19. for Praeolus Reade Prateolus Pag. 61. in the margent for ingenius Reade ingenuus Pag. 64. in the margent Reade concil const act 4. can 2. conci Nic. 2. act 1. can 2. Pag. 69. lin vlt. for actibus Reade ictibus Pag. 74. in the margeÌ„t for pag. 17. 19. Reade 17. 18. Pag. 9â— lin 6. for Burtin Reade Bursin Pag. 102. in the margent for cap. 14. Reade lib. 14. Pag. 103. in the margent for de vnct Reade de virt Pag. 138. lin 2. for Niphlet Reade Niphleth Pag. 143. lin 38. for yeares Reade dayes See this handled at large aftervvard in the defence pag. 56. 57. See of this after pag. 120. Vide postea Arâ— â— See aftervvarde in the defence pag. 2. 1. Iohn 4. VVhiche parte more desirethe triall of spirites VVho doe offer best meanes of tryall Onely scripture Li. 2. de nu concup ca. 31. li. 3. cont don cap. 15. Three causes of appealinge onelie to scripture De captiui Babilon in initio Cap. de Sacram In aeditio vlt. loc coÌ„ In institut Com. in Amos. Vide Ench. Eck. Luth cont latom de incendiariis D. Fulk against Bris. mot pa. 98 Artic. 28. cont louaÌ„ toÌ„ 2. vvitteÌ„b â—o 503. AgaiÌ„st Br. mot pa. 82. In his defence of his ansvvere to the admoninition The advaÌ„tage that heretiques haue by onely scripâ—ure 1. Iohn 4. 1. Iohn 4. Diuersitâ—e of inteâ—pretations Tom. 7. vvittemb Fol. 414. M. Charks grace iÌ„ interpretinge scriptures Theyr mysteries are the ouerthrovv of all gouernors as M. VVhiâ—g proueth against M. Cartvâ— Tovvâ—hâ—ng the masse Heb. 7. 9. Dan. 12. Malac. 1. In declarâ— Anath 11. Auâ— 20. coÌ„ faust c. 21. Naz. oraâ— 1. in IuliaÌ„ Hom. 17. In ca 8 ep ad Hebr. Ep. 23. ad Bonif. The aduersarie admitteth no triall Math. 19. 1. Cor. 7. Lib. de votis Monast. in initio Of S. Iohn Baptist. Lu. 1. 3. Math. 3. Marc. 1. Cent. 5 c. 6. pag. 711. a Sarcer in ca. 1. Lu. mag Cent. 1 li. 1. ca. 20. (b) Mariorat in ca. 3. Math. Cytraeits in ca. 3. Math. COSMIOS EVPORISTOS c Ma. Câ—Ì„ 1. l. 1. c. 4. et 6 In cap. 1. Math. In cap. 1. Marc. Mat. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. a Lib. 4. de sacram c. 5 b Catach 4 c Li. 4. in Io. cap. 13. In Ancorano Ho. 83. in Math. 60. ad pop Antioch Hom. 24. in epist. ad Cor. In confess breui tom 2. germ fol. 257. Claud de San. l. 1. rep 1. de Euch. The letter beginneth thus Charissimis in Christo ami cis Christianis Argentinae This vvas an honest man in the meane space vvhiche laboured to peruert this sacrament thereby to hurt the pope Luthers latin vvoords are ex capi â—e vertiginoso confictis Epis. a. I0 harâ—agium Tipographum ArgentinenseÌ„ cuius etiam mentionem vide apud Biblioth Gesneri fo 501. * Mat. 26. *
7. Ver. 12.14 VVeake resonynge Rom. 7. Exo. 20. 2. Cor. 11. Phil. 3. Act. 22. 3 Au. li 1. de nup. coÌ„ cup. c. 23. Aâ—b ser. 27. Au. li. 2. de pecca merit c. 27. 28. Orig. in huÌ„c locum Augu li. 3. cont 2. â—p peâ—ag c. 6. Ambr. li. 1 de voc geÌ„t ca. 5. Clem. Aâ—e li. pedag c. 6. Clemens Ale exho ad gentes pag. 38. Cap. 53. Aug. li. 1. de nup. câ—cu c. 23. Li. 1. de nu coâ—cup c. 23. 25. Cap. 25. Li. 11. de peccat meriâ— remiss ca. 4. Great impudencie Rom. 7. ca. 23. li. 1. de nup. concup Hovv S. Paul called concupisceÌ„ce synne improperlye Li. 6. c. 11. Li. 5. c. 3. An example Lib. 2. cont Iulian circa finem Math. 6. Veniall mortall sinne Vide Au. li. 1. cont 2. ep pelag c. 13. li. 2. de pecc merit c. 28. Sâ—rm 6. de verb. apost lib. 1. de ciui c. 25 In expos prop. ex ep ad Rom. propâ—sitione 17. 45. 47. com ad Gal. c. 5. de pecca orig c. 39. coÌ„ 3. in psal 118 alibi Math. 5. Math. 15. Marck 7. PROS TO EPIDVMESAI AVTEN Au. li. 1. de serm domi in monte ca. 23. Iacob 1. v. 14. 15. â— Li. 1. iust 8.17 18. Li. 2. inst ap 4. In com li. reg ca. 2. Aug. li. 6. cont Iul. cap. 5. The third Article Exo. 20. Deut. 30. Li. 1. de nu concup ca. 23. Ecc. 18. Li. 2. cont Iul. circa finem Li. 2. de gra pec orig c. 40. Ep. 200. ad Asell * This kinde of speeche is called implicatio in adiecto Fyrst motions voluntarie sometimes An euideÌ„t example Deceytful auoydinge of similitudes Greatâ— surdities ConcupisceÌ„ce in vvhat place it is Gal. 5. Rom. 7 The sensatiue parteâ— of maÌ„ more corrupted than the reasonable Rom. 7. Sap. 9. Rom. 7. Vide Au. in psa 145 li. 14. de ciuit c. 19. Necessarie actions of lyfe and seÌ„se corrupted by originall synne De eccles dogm c. 38. Ge. 6. 8. Deut. 6. Matth. 22. Au. de spi. lit c. vâ— li. 1. de do Christ. c. 2. li. de nat gra 69. li. 2. de pec merit c. 6. Catholikes doe represse lustes anâ— not the protestants Protestants doctrine Catholique doctrine of lustes Exo. 20. Li. de nup. concup cap. 23. Eccle. 18. Abovvt the number and order of the commaundemeÌ„tes Deut. 5. Quaest. 71. in exod concione 1. in psa 32. The reasoÌ„s vvhy coÌ„cupiscence of the fleshe and concupiscence of temporall goods make tvvo commaundementes 1. Iohn 2. A doubt resolued 1. Ioh. 2. a Li. 3. ant ca. 6. 8. B Li. de decalog c Li. 2. cont haereses ca. 42. a Ho. 8. in Exod. B in ca. 20. Exod. c Li. 6. StroÌ„ d in ca. 26. Leuit. e in cap. 6. eph f in ca. 10. Ose. An. quâ—st 71. in exo alibi su citat VVhether Catholikes leaue ovvt the second commaundement against Idoles Hovv one generall sinne may belong to tvvo commaundemeÌ„â—es that is the consent of hart to one the exâ—ernall vvoorke to an other Exod. 20. Deut. 30. VVhether all motioÌ„s of lust may be extinguished by mortification VVhether the coÌ„maundemeÌ„tes of God be impossible or no. The lavve and commaundemeÌ„tes are not aboue vs. Aug. li. de nat gra cap. 69. Math. 11. 1. Ioh. 5. Li. de nat gr c. 69 Ser. 191. de tempore All things not expressed in scriptures Things beleeued vvhiche are not in scripture Colos. 4. A simple euasion Payu in orthodox explicat In opere ca tech. Canisii fol. 126. 160.161 162. An euideÌ„t example Luc. 10. Ioh. 14. Math. 18. 1. Tim. 3. The true state of the question Of thinges not expressed in scripture Tvvo natures tvvo vvilles in Christ. Rom 1. 34 Math. 26. Syn. 6. Act. 4. Proceeding of the holy ghost Ioh. 15.26 Ciril in ca. 15. Ioh. Athan. in symb The vnion of the vvoorde Ioh. 1. v. 14 Baptizinge of infantes Ge. 17. 12. Câ—aud de Sainctes in Apol. aduers Beza Chaunge of the Sabbothe day Apo. 1. 10. Of the knovveinge of scripture Ho. in Luc. Orig. ho. 1. in Luc. Epiph. li. 1. cont heres hebion li. 1. hae 46. Au. li. 28. cont faust cap. 2. The maner hovv God the father begat hys sonne Ioh. 1. 1. Rom. 9. 5. That Chrâ—st is the sonne of God Protestâ—Ì„ts lordes of scriptures to make theÌ„ say vvhat they lyst Against the motiues pa. 98. Lege Lutherum coÌ„tra Latomum de Incendiariis Hereticall audacitie a In prâ—em lib. de prin b ad praxeam c ep 61. ad paÌ„ d in exp simb e ep 81. ad Syr. f ser. 181. de tem g Li. 5. hist. cap. 22. Sozom. li. 7 Ierom. cont Heluid Amb. ep 81. 79. Aug. in Enchir. cap. 34. Col. 4.16 a in c. 4. ad coll b in catalog scrip in ver Paulus c li. 5. contra Marcion d in Catal. haer c. 89. e li. 1. cont haer ObiectioÌ„ 2. Tim. 3. Profitable Necesâ—arie Part of scripture loste 1. Tim. 4. a Com. in hunc locuÌ„ b ibidem c de morib Eccles. li. 1. cap. 33. Pietie meriteth in all actions 2. Tim. 3. Luâ— 21. The true state of the controuersie abovvt the sufficiencie of scripture Epiph in haer 61. Addinge to scripture Deut. â— Non addetis ad verbum c. Deut. 8. Gotuis ca. 1. antith 2. Canis in opere Cate. fol. 162. * Greate iniquitie to adde one veritie to an other or to beleeue tvvo verities together Apoc. 22. â—n exami â—oncil trid â—ag â—01 a Li. 10. de gen ad lit cap. 23. b in c. 6. ep ad Rom. c Ep. 54. ad marcellam d Her 75. e de Eccles. hier cap. 7. f de coronae milit g Li. de spi. S. cap. 27. Against Martiall pag. 170. Ibidem pa. 178. Ibidem pa. 178. Against Bristoes motiues pa. 35 Against D. Allen For prayer 303. Ibidem pa. 362. 363. A provvd question Against Br. motyues pag. 36. Li. de spi. S. cap. 27. Traditions of equall force vvith the vvriten vvoord Li. 1. demoÌ„ Euang. c. 8. Heresi 61. 1. Cor. 11. 14.15 Hom. 4. in ca. 2. ep ad Thess. 2. Thess. 2. Diuers apostolical traditions in particular S. Austens testimonie for diuers particular traditions The scripture may be vvrested to an euill sense Nu. 21. Ioh. 3. Math. 25. Psal. 18. Payâ— Andrad orth expl lib. 2. pag. 104. pag. 102. 103. Shameles dealing of M. Charke Gotuisus in Antithetis pag. 216. A ridiculous euasioÌ„ 2. Pet. 3 It is no fault of scripture that heretiques abuse it Rom. 9. In ca. 1. ep ad Gal. In verba ps 10. ecce peccat c. Iren. lib. 1. cont haer cap. 1. Naz. ad Nicob Tertull. de praescrip Lyrin contra haereses Luthers testimonie In postilla conc 2. in dom 8. post trinitatem Vide sixt sent li. 7. biblio Against purg pag. 209. Against M. CampiaÌ„ pa. 18. The Iesuits most reuerent speeche of holie scripture In prefat ad lectoreÌ„ iÌ„ li. de corruptelis verbi dei pro Io. Ba. Psal. 18. v. 7. 2. Pet. 3. The olde latin traÌ„slation Ierom. ep 102. in fine catalo Augu. ep 10. ad hieron Praefat. in Nouum tes an 1556. AMOMOS TAMAM or TAM Abouvt the traÌ„slation of immaculata An. 1549