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
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
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
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
repugneth to the lawe of God The vvhich definitioÌ„ the Censure of Colen affirmeth uot to be in all respectes perfecte but that diuerse vvordes should be added to the same as for exaÌ„ple in steade of that he sayeth Sinne is vvhat soeuer c. 2. He should haue sayd Sinne is an action for that there be diuerse things vvhiche repugne against the lavv of God as euill men euill lavves the deuills and the like vvhiche not vvithstanding are not properlie sinnes for that they are not actions 3. Secondlie he sâ—ould haue sayd not onelie Sinne is an action but Sinne is an humane or reasonable action For yf a mad man a foole or a beaste should committ an acte prohibited by gods lavve as for example kill a maÌ„ it vvere properlie no sinne 4. Thirdlie he should haue added voluntarie for yf a man should doe a naughtie acte against his vvill as the virgins vvhiche vvere rauished by violence in the primatiue Churche dyd it vvere not synne Lastlie he sâ—ould haue added 5. done vvittinglie For although Iacob lay vvith Lya vvhiche vvas not his vvyfe yet because he knevv it not but thought her to be Rachel his vvyfe he sinned not Soe that the perfect definition of sinne is not that vvhiche Monhemius dyd putt dovvne and the protestants folovve but rather that vvhiche the Iesuits together vvith S. Augustin and other learned fathers haue sett dovvne to vvitt Sinne is a humane acte voluntarilie and wittinglie commiâ—ted against the lawe of God And this to be vnderstoode of actuall sinne properlie THE DEFENCE That these wordes are guilefullie reported out of the Iesuits doctrine maye appeare by this example A learned counsailer hauing discoursed vpon the lawes of our lande and shewed that albeit all breache of publique lawes doeth tende against the Prince and coÌ„mon wealth as in dede it doeth Yet euery suche traÌ„sgression is not treason but some felonie some trespasse some no offence at all being done without malice will or knoulege wolde you not think hym a maliciouse wrangler that should come and frame this odious proposition vpon the others large discourse it is not treason vvhat so euer is against the Prince and common vvealthe For albeit these woords may be verifyed in a good sense as the Censure sayeth of M. Charkes report yet being layd downe barelie without sheweing the occasion and discourse they sownde odiouslie as though what soeuer were done against the Prince and common wealthe were no treason In like sorte deale these heretiques with the Iesuits who doe shew that albeyt euery synne doeth repugne the lawe of God yet euery thing that so repugneth is not equally synne but some veniall some mortall synne and some no synne at all yf it be without will or consent as the first motions of concupiscende are VVherevpon our aduersaries come and frame this odiouse proposition before sett downe to witt it is not synne vvhat soeuer is against the vvord of God without expoundinge how and in what sense it was spoken And to lett you see M. Charks nypping and shufling in this one litle line to make it sownd more odious thaÌ„ ether kemnitius or Gotvisus froÌ„ whome he tooke it doe delyuer the same The Iesuites wordes are reported by them thus the Iesuits say they in their definition of synne do saye Peccatum est non quicquid legi dei repugnat Sed c. Synne is not what soeuer repugneth the lawe of God but c. And then foloweth the rest of the Iesuits definition towched in the Censure And thus is it reported by M. Charks Maisters But he to make it seme more absurde in ignorant mens eares layeth it downe absolutelie thus yt is not sinne vvhat soeuer is against the vvorde of God As thoughe the sentence ended there Also as though it were no parte of a definition Againe he chaungeth the place of the negation whiche in framing of propositions altereth often the sense So for peccatum est non quicquid c. he sayethe non est peccatum quiquid c. And lastely for repugneth the lavve of God he putteth It is against the vvoorde of God And all this to helpe out a litle suspition of absurde doctrine in the Iesuits whiche argueth in hym a dishonest intention thoughe for the doctrine it selfe in the Iesuits meaning I thinke the Censure hathe sufficientlie defended it and what soeuer M. Charke hath therto replied shall now be examined notinge by the waye that M. Charkes common and onelie refuge of credit to saye vve muste eyther absolutelie graunt or absolutelie deny all these propositions fathered on the Iesuites is ridiculous and moste vayne For we admitt so muche of them as ether in woorde or sense the Iesuits euer vttered and the rest eyther coyned falsified wrested or otherwise abused by you we turne home agayne with shame vpon your selues But now to the defence of the Iesuits definition of sinne against whiche M. Charke hathe dyuers impertinent obiections whiche serue to spend tyme but yet they must be answered First then to proue that sinne is no acte he obiecteth that iniustice is a sinne and yet no acte To whiche I answer that iniustice maye betaken for an acte and so properly a sinne as yf a man wolde saye yt was great iniustice to putt to deathe so innocent and learned men as M. Campian was those that dyed with hym heere iniustice signifieth an iniust acte But yf you take iniustice for an habite onelye that is onelie for a procliuitie or facilicie to an iniust acte then you must learne that aswell this as all other euell habits are called by diuines vitia non peccata vices and not sinnes For that an euell habit may be in a man without sinne except by consent to yt he bringe furth an euell acte as S Augustin proueth in the habit or procliuitie to dronkennes contracted before a mans conueâ—sition and remaining after the same it is no sinne except it bring furthe some acte of dronkennes etheâ— in consent or operation And the lyke is to be sayde of all other euyll habites or inclinations whiche may remayne in the mynde without any acte and consequâ—â—lie without sinne as experience teacheth and as S. Austen also proueth in an other place For in a good man after his conuersion there may remayne euyll habites called vitia as procliuitie to lye to steale to carnall sinne or the lyke and yet are they no sinnes except they bring furthe some acte ether of consent in harte or of operation in worke So that you see how iniustice as it is an habit that is onelye an inclination or procliuitie to doe vniustlie may be in a man withoute sinne For that it is no sinne of it selfe withoute an acte as hathe bene shewed And this point perhappes you learned not before Secondlie you obiect agaynst this first member that the synne of omission is a synne as where Hely was punished for not chastising his children and the watchemen
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
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
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