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
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
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
the Iesuites All and euery the things contained in holie scripture are so vvrapped in obscurities that the best learned can gather thence no certain knovvleige This is impudent For they haue the plaine contrarie in the verye places by hym cited to witt that not all but some places are hard in scripture as is to be seene in Payuas Andrad li. 2. pag. 12. whiche woordes also M. Hanmer without shame alleageth In his eleuenth assertion he sayeth thus The Iesuites hold that there be many thinges more grieuouse and more damnable than those that repugne the lavve of God and yet the lavve condemneth them not namelie traditions mans lavves preceptes of the church But this is shamelesse also for the Iesuites doe teache the cleane contrarie to witt that what soeuer is sinnne is 〈◊〉 condemned by the lawe of God and what so euer offendeth the lawe of God yf it be donne wittingely and withe consent of harte for otherwise it offendethe not the lawe is sinne and this may be seene in the definition of sinne extant in Canisius a Iesuite And for traditions they holde that yf they be suche traditions as came from Christ and his Apostles then is the wilfull breakinge of suche traditions sinne directlye against God hym selfe But yf they be but traditions or precepts of the churche then the breache therof as also of all other our superiours commandementes are offences against men but yet consequentely also against God for that he hath commaunded men to obey theyr superiours whiche rule them and that in conscience as S. Paul proueth Rom. 13. In his fiftenthe assertion he saith The Iesuites saye that iustification is none other than the seeking or searchinge of rightuousnes or to speake philosophicallie a motion vnto rightuousnes But this is folie besides malice shewinge that he knoweth not what he speaketh him selfe For the Iesuites haue no suche woorde but do gyue a more learned description of our iustification than I thinke he can conceyue whiche is this Iustfiication is the translation of a man from that state vvherein he vvas borne the sonne of the first Adam into the state of grace and adoption of the children of God through the second Adam Iesus Christ our Sauyour Canis pag. 748. VVhat shall we now say of this man In his Nyententhe and Twentith assertions he sayeth that the Iesuites holde a tvvofolde Iustification a first and a second This is true but what more And that our vvorkes are necessarilie required for the first iustification doe merit the amplification of the second This is clearlie false and except this man be besides hym selfe I maruaile what he meaneth by this shamelesse behauyour For the Iesuits doe teache the quite contrarie to witt Iustificari nos gratis quiae nihil eorum quae iustificationem praecedunt siue fides siue opera ipsam iustificationis gratiam promeretur These are their very woordes whiche are englished thus we are iustified freelie with out woorkes for that nothinge goinge before our iustification whether it be faith or woorkes doeth merit vs the grace of our iustification VVhiche woordes allso of thes fathers doe conuince M. Hanmers other slaunder in the 21. assertion where he sayeth The Iesuites holde that the vvorks that are before iustification are meritorious VVhich is moste false for besides the place alleaged they teache the plaine contradictorie therof to witt that merit procedeth onelie of grace in them that are novv iustified Canis pag 786. So that yow see this man hathe no conscience what or how or wherein he lyeth I omitt many exaÌ„ples more of his malice as where he sayeth that Iesuites holde that the lords prayer may be sayde to saintes and that their reliques may be honoured cultu latriae vvith the honour due to God hym selfe Also where he falsyfyeth manifestlie the Councel of Trent sess 4. cap. 1. By puttinge 51 to their woordes about traditions and so peruerting the whole meaning But I will adde onelie an exaÌ„ple or two of his ignorance and then lett the reader iudge whether folye or malice be greater in this minister In his fiueth assertion agaynst the Iesuites he citeth as blasphemous this sentence of theirs Synne is so voluntarie as yf vvill vvere not it vvere no sinne VVhere as this sentence is not theirs but S. Austens and that twise repeated in two seuerall bookes of his Vsque adeò peccatum voluntarium est malum vt nullo modo sit peccatum si non sit voluntarium Agayne in his eigth assertion he citeth this sentence as blasphemous of the councell of Trent VVe accurse them that say the commaundementes of God to be impossible to a man iustifyed and in state of grace VVhere as the verie same is bothe in S. Ierome and S. Augusten whose woords are Execramur blasphemiam eorum qui dicunt impossible aliquid homini a deo esse praeceptuÌ„ Againe in his seuenth assertion he reprehendeth the councell of Trent for affirming that all sinnes are quite taken awaye by baptisme and not rased onelie where as the verie same is woord for woorde in S. Augusten Dicimus baptisma auferre crimina non radere By which is euident that this man hathe eyther redd litle or borne litle away besides certaine notes of raylinge as appearethe And therefore I thought it nedelesse to answer hym any further Now therfore will I returne to the Censure which breeflie gyueth the effect of bothe M. Hanmer and M. Charke his booke as foloweth THE CENSVRE Meredyth Hanmer ansvvereth more quietlie plainlie and more good folovv lyke excepting a fovvle lie or tvvo vvherof I must tell hym vvhen place serueth He offereth also liberallie for his part disputation vvho notvvithstanding is not like to be one of the disputers yf the matter should come to that passe He had gathered some notes out of Sleydan kemniâ—ius and frier Bale against the pope and in derision of the Catholique religion vvhiche he struggleth to vtter in diuerse places vvithout occasion gyuen He oppugneth feercelie and confirmeth diuerse things nether sayed nor denied nor thought of by M. Campian He frameth to hym selfe an aduersarie in the ayer and manfullie fighteth and assaulteth the same Finallie his booke sâ—meth to verie litle purpose but onelie to spreade abrode the copies of the others reasonable offer vvhiche vvas some labour before to vvrite oute to so manie handes as desired it THE DEFENCE To this no man in particular answereth anye thing M. Charke letteh it stand and M. Hanmer onelie sayeth in generall That these are vnreuerent speeches against hys personeâ— VVhiche I denie for that onelie is to be counted personall reproche whiche toucheth maners and this onelie concerneth his fashoode and folye in doctrine And for his persone God knoweth I hate it not but coulde be content to wishe hym as good a personage as he desireth so it might be without the hurt of his parishoÌ„ners But yet that I may not seeme to haue
Tom. 7. vvittemb page 380. * A Lutheran exhortation O pleasant Martin Gen. 1. Currucam cuÌ„ ossibus Iohn 1. Socrat. li. 5. hist. ca. 10. Examples of shifting scriptures and doctours Psal. 75. Against the rocke pag. 153. Math. 19. Against the rock pag. 154. Iacob 2. D. Fulke loco citato Rom. 2. 1. Cor. 7. Math. 19. Hovv protestantes deny all fathers Math 16. Against the rocke pag. 242. Against the roke pag. 291. Ibidem Psal. 14. Against the fortresse pa. 52. Against purg pag. 262. Against purg pag. 237. Against the crosse pag. 146. Hovv protestantes reiect the interpretatioÌ„ of their ovvne vvriters LVTHER CALVINE The final conclusion of protetestants for triall The varietie of triall that Catholiques doe offer 1 Books of scripture 2 Expresse-vvoordes Supremacie HEGOVMENOS Real presence Iustification AbsolutioÌ„ Vovves Traditions Commaundementes VVorkes Penaunce Prayer for the deade Sacrifice for the dead Voluntarie corporall afflictions Almes Prayer of sainctes 3 Necessarie collections vpon scrippture 4 Councells 5 Doctors of the olde Churche Li. 1. contra Iulian. c. 2. Socr. li. 5. hist. ca. 10. Li. 2. contra here 6 The Catholique Churcheâ— Cont. ep fundam cap. 4. In hys booke against the profane innouaâ—ioÌ„s of all heresies in the beginninge Vniuersalitie Antiquitie Consent 7 Succession of Popes Contr. ep fundam cap. 4. Iohn 21. Li. 2. cont Donatist Li. 3. cont haer cap. 3. 8 Infectionâ— vvith olde heresies 1. Tim. 3. Marke this gentle reader Tvvo conditions Iniurious dealinge of our aduersaries Protestantes doe holde olde heresies Aug. li. de he ad quod vult haere 53. Epipha haer 75. Against Brystoes motiues pa. 15. Li. cont vigilantium Against the motiues pa. 54. 9 The manners of olde heretiques Lib. 2. cont lit Petil. cap. 51. De vnitare ecclesiae cap. 12. Li. 3. contr lit peti c. 4. Lib. 2. ca. 9. contr epi. parm ep 169. ad Euseb. Li. 1. cont maximinuÌ„ Lib. 6. cont Donat. Victor depersecutione vandalica Orat. 1. 2. in Iulianum THE PREFACE Intituled a conference betvvene M. D. fulk and the papists iÌ„ vvesoiche castell The maner of protestaÌ„tes disputations of M. HANMER Intituled an ansvvere to a Iesuites chalenge In 2. thes 2 2. Thes. 2. Intituled the Iesuites Banner A fovvle lye Diego Payuas Andradius de orthodoxis explicationibus In opere catechistico pag. 350. Moste false The description of our iustification Gal. 4. Tit. 3. Canis in opâ—re Câ—te pag. 764. Assert 26. 27. Assert 2. The vnlearned â—olye of Meredith Hanmer Li. de vera reli c. 14. lib. 1. â—etr c. 13. sess 6. c. 18 Ierom. in expos simb ad Dam. Augu. ser. 191. de temporeâ— Sess. 5. Li. 1. cont 2. ep pelag c. 13. The effect of M. Hanmers booke Cap. 1. In iniâ—io Fol. 2. Fo. 5. 26 ImpertineÌ„t matters folovved by M. HaÌ„mer The effect of M. Charks booke The order diuisioÌ„ of this booke 1 Nickenames against Iesuites Mat. 12. Luc. 6. Act. 6. Rom. 8. Athan. in vita S. Anthonii Eremitae THE PROTESTANTS Rayling scurrilitie in vritinge Hanmers sâ—urrilitie Against purgatorie pag. 241. D. Fulks tallent in rayling In his reteÌ„tiue against the motyues In his ansvver to the booke of purgatorie prayer for the dead Intituled AN OVERTHROVVE of StapletoÌ„s forâ—resse of faythe Intituled A REIOYNDER to Martials replye Iohn Caluin his spirite in raylinge Against Stapletons fortresse pag. 75. Luthers prerogatiue in rayling Rom. 8. Lib. cont regem An. To. 2. vvitt teÌ„b fo 331. Fol. 333. O impure spirit of a prophet Fol. 334. Fol. 335. Fol. 337. Fol. 338. Hovv intollerable is this in a renegate fryar Fol. 339. See the pride of an apostata against three famouse vniuersities Fol. 442. Fol. 345. Fol. 333. Fol. 337. Luthers speeche against Caluinistes and of Caluinistes against him Tigurini tract 3. coÌ„t supremam Lutheri confessâ—onem * Ergo luther had deuills vvhiche after Charke denyeth Et nunc semper in saecula saeculâ—rum In sathana siâ—tum supersathanasiatum persathanasiatuÌ„ Pag. 61. Iesuytes no Secte 1. 2. 4. Reg. 1. 4. Reg. 2. Dan. 1. Marc. 1. 3 The description of sactaries 4 The name of Iesuits 1 OF ELIAS and vvhether he be a paterne of monkes Ep. 13. ad paulinum ep 4. ad rusticum Elyas Elyzeus monkâ— of the old testament Ge. 2. 3. 4. 2 OF S. IOHN Baptist vvhether he vvere a president to monkes Cap. 6. Plin. li. 5. c 17. nat hist. Ioseph li. 2. ca. 7. de bello Iudaico Cap. 6. S. Ihon a monke of the nevve testament 3 THOVCHINGE the true definition of a sectarie The difference betvvyxt heresie and a sect The signification of heresie more generall then of a secte A fond argument 1. Cor. 1. Schisme Ad quod vult hae 69. Heresie Error Tract 5. in Ioh. The erroneous schisme of the Corinthians 1. Cor. 1. The exposition of S. Pauls vvoords 1. Cor. 1. An exaÌ„ple Heresies of the pharises HOVV THE PHARISES vvere a sect in tvvo senses A sect or heresie may sometimes be taken in good parte Act. 26. Tyrannis Against Bristovvs Motiues pag. 14. M. Charks definition of a sect Great absurâ—â—â—â—â—â— M. Charcks fond ouersight Act. 26. Gal 5. 2. Pet. 2. VVhether the Iesuites be a sect by M. Charks definition Nath. 28. Mark 16. Math. 10. Coloss. 3. Gal. 5. 6. Rom. 12. Chastizing of oure bodies Mat. 3. Marc. 1. Heb. 11. Ca. 10. li. 3. Ep. 22. ad Eustoch * But you vvill saye S. Ierom. vvas no protestant In ca. 16. li. 3. Reg. An offer of coolinge physicke to the ministers of England In LondoÌ„ In Banberie Charks belyeing of the Iesuites Gab. prateol in haer de flagellantib Ger. tract cont flagel The heresies of vvhippers Pratcolus vbi supra Alphon. lib. 3. cont haeresee 4 THE NAME of Iesuites ImpudeÌ„cie Turianus in apologetico cap. 1. 5. Fond exclaming for nothinge An euideÌ„t example * Intituled Gentle girckes for Iesuites to be-come true Israelytes Monks and friars In psa 132 Li 11. hist. cap. 3. Li. 3. cont li. Petil. ca. 40. Books vvriten in the commeÌ„dation of moÌ„kes and fryars Luc. 9. Ioh 11. Mat. 19. 1 Of the vvorde religious D. Tho. secunda secuÌ„dae q. 18. art 1. Marc. 10. 1. Cor. 7. Câ—EROS Orig. ho. 7. in Iere. Hier. in 12 Ierem. 2 Of Good euel religious Against Sâ—â—pleton pag. 96. VVHETHER THE State of our monks Noâ—â—es be the same as vvas in the primatiue church 1. Cor. 4. Hereticall consequences Charks bolde slaunderinge of all religious peopâ—e TOVCHING RELIGIOVS VOVVES De mor. eccl cap. 31 de opere monachâ— c. 14. 15. Cogginge foystinge In Psal. 75. circa fineÌ„ Questione vel regula 14. fusius explicaâ—a Ep. 6. ad Theodorum lapsum Heb. 13. Nonnes In psa 83. Lib. cont Iouinian Li. 1. ep 11. Li. de vir cap. 29. Li. ad vir lap cap. 5. De bono vâ— duitatis c. 9â— Ibid. ca. 8. Against
tauernes fieldes stables barnes douecotes or palaces vnsearched for vs. And how then is it possible to answere you by wryting Or what maruayle is there yf we offer you some tymes halfe a booke for the whole I doubt not but what soeuer extremitie or crueltie you vse which shalbe no greater nor longer than God will permit yet you are sure allwayes to be answered by some meanes or other that God wyll prouide Hytherto you haue had litle quyet repose in your intrusioÌ„ vpon gods Churche we contynuynge styll our claymâ— and tytle And heerafter you are lyke daylye to haue lesse as I hope vntill your heresie be rooted owt again as all her sisters haue bene heeretofore It is a great argument to the people that the credit of your cause is now crushed euen in your owne conceytes seyng you flye openlye and without shame all kynde of quiet tryall what soeuer and with furye moue the magistrate onelye to violence agaynst vs. VVhich thoughe we be redy to be are with all humiltie according as God shall gyue vs patieÌ„ce yet will we neuer yeeld to you therby in your heresies but in the myddest of our afflictioÌ„s will we resist your falshoode more than before This I thinke you sawe in the late martyrdome of good M. Campian and his companions whoe thoughe they dyed moste ioyfullie protesting their innocencie in all and singular the slaunders deuised against them thoughe I saye they protested pure innocencie therin both in thought word and deed and that vpon the eternall damnation or saluation of their owne sowles though also they forgaue moste franklie from the verie bottom of their hartes all their vniust accusers condemners tormentours executioners and you also ministers whoe of their deathe and tormentes were the onelie or principall instigatours yet dyd they amyddest all that humilitie modestie and Christian charitie detest with all possible vehemencie of their sowles all and singular your false and fowle heresies and so dyed moste constant pure and innocent martyres of their Lord Maister Iesus Christ. VVhose bloode I dowbt not but will fight agaynst your errours and impietie many hundred yeres after bothe you are past this worlde together And albeit yf they had lyued especiallie two of them being indued with suche gyftes and rare partes as they were which with you were greate causes of hastenyng theyr deathes they might no dowt haue done muche seruice in gods Churche and hurt to your cause yet could they neuer haue done it so strongly as they haue and doe and will doe by theyr deathes the crye wherof worketh more forciblie bothe with God man thaÌ„ any bookes or sermons that euer they could haue made VVherfore I can say no more but that they were well bestowed vpon you You haue vsed theÌ„ to the best Our Lord his holy name be blessed therfore And I beseeche hym of his infinite mercie to pardon your great offences iâ— the powring owt of their bloode And now to speake a woorde or two M. Charke as to your owne persone in particular there are twâ— things whiche principallie in this matter coÌ„cerne yoâ— The one is your writing heere answered the other your behauyour and demeanour towardes your aduesarie after that by gods permission he came to be withâ— some reache of your ministeriall power and authortie The one of these shall soâ—ewhat declare the othe For towching the first the discrete reader shall easiliâ— learne by this booke that what vaunt so euer you makâ— vnto your freendes or how great soeuer your owt-facing of M. Campian myght seeme to be in the Tower 〈◊〉 London by reason of your hygh place gaye apparel greate woordes assistance of freendes countenance â—f authoritie applause of protestants standing by yet shâ—l it appeare that you are not that maÌ„ in deede eyther fâ—r substaÌ„ce of learnyng or fidelitie in dealyng which yâ—u wolde be content to be taken for in the world abroâ—e For as for learnyng there are shewed so many brode examples heer of your grosse ignoraÌ„ce and that inâ—erye common matters bothe of diuinitie and philosophie as no man that hath iudgement can frame my other opinion of your skyll therin than as of a tâ—ing vtterly vngrounded in any of these two scieÌ„ces wherin it is well knowne that M. Campian was most excellent and coÌ„sequentlye you had litle cause to seeke triumph ouer hym as you dyd in this matter Mary as touching the second whiche is false dealing to deceyue you may haue the principalitie not onelie ouer hym whoe had to saye the trueth no talent at all therin but euen aboue the cheefe maisters of your owne syde most expert in that facultie For I assure you that of all shameles men that euer I read wherof this age God amend them hath brought forth many you maye weare the garland for bothe audacitie constancie in auouchyng open vntruthes against your ovvne coÌ„scieÌ„ce The treatise folowyng will make this playne y almost infinit exaÌ„ples Yet one or two for a tast will not omitt to touche in this place Martin Luther after his apostacie from the Caâ—â—olique church gaue counsaile to all good wyues that â—ad cold husbandes to lye pryuilye with the next of â—ynne or other that were of stronger complexion And â—ecause he was yet in some feare of the pope yf he soulde openlye haue putt in execution this doctrine h onelye counsailed husbandes for the tyme to gyue teir secret coÌ„sents heervnto Mary afterwardes when â—artin became so strong as he feared the Pope no moâ—e for that he was now pope of Germanye hym selfe â—e sayde that nowe he wolde gyue other counsayle â—owt this matter Heere M. Charke breaketh of and â—â—lleth into a sharp and bytter inuectyue agaynst the â—ensurer for charging Luther with a fowle doctrineâ—â—at after he recanted This seemeth a verie reasonable dfence But what are the woordes that immediatlye foow in Luther forsoothe that nowe he wolde doe wâ—â—se than before for nowe he wolde coÌ„pell the poore hubandes to graunt there wyues that libertie or els woâ—lde he tugge them by the lockes of the head And caâ— there be any more shameles dealynge than this of M. Chark hath that man any conscience trow yow whâ—â—e against hys owne knowleige wolde put this deceyâ— in printe heere can be no ignorance for the woordes folowed immediatlie whiche of purpose he left owt VVhat conscience then hathe this man in defending hys cause An other example may be this There was a controuersie betwene the Censurer and M. Charke whether concupiscence after baptisme be synne in the regenerat without consent And the Censurer to proue that it is not bringeth S. Augustins Authoritie in many plaine places wherby M. Chark being sore oppressed fyndeth no other releefe of his credit with the reader but to forge a place of S. Austen to the contrarye by corruption and so he doeth For wher as S. Augustin sayeth that coÌ„cupiscence is not so forgyuen in baptisme that it is not meaning therby that it is not
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
gyuen this censure of his booke without all cause I will breefelie runne ouer the principall pointes thereof I sayd therefore that he answered more quietlie and plainlie for that he rayled in his first booke lesse than william Charke dyd as may appeare in that which foloweth where bothe their woordes against the Iesuites are put downe also more good felovv like For that he draweth not all things to treason as the other doeth but ioyneth familiarlie with M. Campian calling hym hys felovv student in Oxforde thoughe hym selfe were but a poore ladd when M. Campian was of credit and woorshipp in that place And finallie he persuadeth M. Campian to take parte of felicitie with hym and his felow ministers to leaue his vovves to be performed by other Iesuites beyond the seas and ioyning vvith them to abaÌ„donne this austeritie of lyfe and to taste hovv svveete the lord iâ— whiche is as muche to saye as to take a wyfe and a benâ—fice and other sweete morsells which commonlie fall to ministers lottes in England Is not this spoken like a good felow trow yow As for the fovvle lye or tvvo that I charged hym withall they are to haue theyr place of examynatyon after That he vvas not like to be one of the disputers yf the matter came to disputation was hut onelie my coniecture Marie yet since the sequele hathe proued it true for there hath bene disputation and M. Hanmer no disputer His notes against the pope gathered out of Sleidan frier bale and others vttered from the purâ—ose vvithout iust occasion doe appeare in euerie page of his booke That he oppugneth and confirmeth mâ—niâ— things neyther sayd nor denied nor thought of by M. Campâ—an and consequentlie frameth his aduersarie in the â—ayer I might shew by many examples throughout his booke as fol. 6. where he proueth by many authoritiâ—s that the place maketh not a man holie yf he haue no spirit but who denieth this also fol. 7. where he laboureth to coÌ„firme that vnder a holie garment there maye lurk wickednesse but what then Also fol. 9. vvhere he bestirreth hym selfe vehementlie to shew by scripture doctors that we must obey superiors and temporall magistrates who dowbteth of this And yet this course he holdeth throughout that litle booke whiche were to longe to repeat in particular And therfore I might well conclude that this booke vvas to small purpose other than to spread abrode the copies of M. Campians equall offer to their hands whiche either could not or durst not haue it in writing before VVhereof I dare say many gentlemeÌ„ in EnglaÌ„d will beare me witnesse who tooke securitie of getting or retayning the same by countenance of this booke whiche before they could not safelie doe And this shall suffice for iustifyeing of this first Censure Now to M. Charke THE CENSVRE VVilliam Charke dealeth more subtilie for he reporteth the Chalenge onelie for his purpose and that also sometimes falsified except it came corruptlie to his handes He vtereth also muche more malice by dravving euery thing to disloiltie rebellioÌ„ vvhich is done by the Catholiques for conscience religioÌ„ He flattereth the higher states vvhiche can pleasure hym palpably He vvearieth his hearer vvith the infinite repition of the vvorne out tearmes of pope and poperie He exceedeth in inuention of rayletiue speache He vndertaketh all maner of lyes vvithout blushing and ventureth vpon anye assertioÌ„ vvhat soeuer for the bringinge of the Iesuites in discredit vvith the reader Vpon this ansvvere therfore of M. Charke I meane to enlarge my selfe a litle iÌ„ brotherlie charitie not omitting to remember also the other vvhere occasion shall be gyuen And for the restrayning of M. Charks rouing to some certain points I meane to consider first of that vvhiche he vttereth touchinge the Societie of Iesuites Secondly touching the man vvhome he ansvvereth Thirdlie touching the matter or demaunde propounded Lastlie touching the Apostata brought in for the defacing of Iesuites and the Catholique religion THE DEFENCE All those thinges appertaining to the Censure of M. Charks booke though misliked and denied by hym yet for that they come after to be verified in their particular places I passe ouer now without examination onelie aduertising the reader that thexceptioÌ„ he taketh against my order and diuisioÌ„ of partes in the Censure as diuised for myne owne ease thereby to be large or short touche or passe by ansvvere or omitt at my pleasure is a causelesse quarell For that I chose this methode of necessitie as well for M. Charks ease in replyeing as for myne owne in answering especiallie for the readers commoditie in vnderstanding the whole matter when the pithe of all that whiche laye dissolutelie before in his booke enuironed with long and bitter inuectiues embreued with spitefull and contumelious speaches and euerie waye cast about with odious accusations light suspitions insufficient collections and vaine surmises of treasons rebellions dissimulations practises what soeuer els a fond malitiouse head could deuise to obiect should be drawen out clearlie and orderlie to fowre generall points and therein indifferentlie and without cholar be examined to the reader The which thing yf I haue not performed my desire was at least to performe and my endeauour shall be now to supplie any thing that wanted then Albeit I persuade my selfe that nothing was omitted then of any weight or importance in M. Charks booke as may well appeare both by his and M. Hanmers replies Now then let vs enter vpon the first part of the diuision sett downe by the Censure THE FIRST PART OF THE CENSVRE touching the Societie of Iesuites THE CENSVRE Maister Charke imployeth all his povver and laboureth painfullie to bring in defiance the oder of Iesuits containyng most notable learned vertuous men For the vvhich purpose he vseth diuerse means and first his ordinarie vvaye of railing by calling them A blasphemouse sect new and detestable Iesuits a weake and shamefull order Scorpions heretiques Iebusites poisoned spyders wicked monkish friers and frierlie monkes scoutes to rebellion frogges and caterpillers of Aegipt absurd and blasphemous doctors bellowes to kindle persecution of Beggerly estate traitours swarmes of grashoppers noysome beasts To vvhome M. Hanmer addethe That theye are the broode of a cryppled souldiour and of the lowsiest order of all All vvhiche I lett passe vvithout aunsvvering for that it proueth nothing but one vvhich is that they lack all Christian and honest modestie vvhiche abuse so muche so many good men vvhose vvisdome learning and honestye of lyfe is better knovvne to the vvorld than anie such railers can be credited to the contrarie THE DEFENCE To all this M. Charke ansvvereth by this coÌ„fessioÌ„ I acknouleige my labour imployed to bring in discredit the Iesuits And agayne also I grannt the speaches vvhich in all hatred of popish practises I vtered And yet he complaineth grieuouslie in his preface that the papists fashion is to discredit the men for their doctrines sake But
blinding of the people but heerof you shall see more after when we come to speake of theyr dissention And this shall be enough of this matter for this time Now we come to examine whether the Iesuites be a blasphemous sect or no as M. Charke calleth them and the Censure denieth for thus it foloweth vpon that whiche went before OF sectes and sectaries THE CENSVRE Mary I cannot let passe to tell M. Charke that to call the Iesuites A blasphemous sect seemeth not onelie levved but also vnlearned And as for their blaphemies they come to be examined after but hovv they may be termed A secte I cannot see For yf liuing more straitlie then the common sort in apparell diet or order of lyfe doe make a sect then not onelie Iesuites but Elias Elizeus Daniâ—l and Iohn Baptist are also to be called sectaries for that they are reported in the scripture to haue led a different and more straite lyfe in those points than the common sorte and yet are commended in scripture for the same But yf sectaries are onelie made as in dede they are by cutting them selues of in opinion of religion from the generall bodie of the Catholiques churche as braunches from the tree and by holding a seuerall faith in religion to them selues then can not Iesuites by your ovvne confession be anie secte vvhoe differ not one Iote in opinion of religion from the vniuersall Catholique churche but as yovv say defend euerye litle point of the same be it neuer so vntrue or absurd in your sight VVherfore vnlearnedlie yovv call them a sect as also vnseemelie yovv skoffe at theyr name of Iesuites vvhiche they chalenge not to them selues nor euer vse it in theyr vvritings or speeche but onelie naming them selues a Societie dedicated peculiarlie to the honouringe of the name of Iesus by preachinge the same in all places of the vvorld vvithout any revvarde and vvith vvhat daunger bodelie soeuer THE DEFENCE The answer to this is somewhat confuse and vnorderlie But I will reduce it to the order heere set downe To the examples alleaged he sayeth As for the exaÌ„ples of Elias Elizeus Daniel and Iohn Baptist they are no lesse vvickedlie than vnlearnedlye alleaged to auovve the Iesuites order This is a hoote entrance as you see ioyned with a manifest cauille For these examples are not alleaged to auow the Iesuites order absolutelie but in one point onelie of different lyfe from the common sorte whiche point notwithstanding is fownd also in other besides Iesuites But marke his reason VVhat are you able sayeth he to bringe out of the vvorde of God vvhie Elias should after more thaÌ„ tvvo thovvsand yeres be brought in for a patrone of friers I answer first as before that these examples are onelye brought to proue that differeÌ„t apparell dyet or straite order of lyfe doe not make sectaries as you haue affirmed and now can not defend and therfore hauing nothing else to say you make these vaine and idle interrogatioÌ„s in steade of proofes For you aske agayne vvhat vvas there in Elias Elizeus or Daniel that may liken them to Iesuits I answere there was to our purpose now in hand different maner of lyfe from the common sort of men whiche notwithstanding made them no sectaries as you wold haue the Iesuits to bee for that cause To this I add which is more than I nede that S. Ierom. proueth plainlie that Elias and Elizeus were the beginners captaines and patrones of Monks and monasticall lyfe whome he calleth for that cause Monachos veteris testamenti monks of the olde testamen The same hathe Sozomenus of Elias L. 1. Hist. cap. 12. Now deale you with these men M. Charke about the matter And as for the number of two thowsand yeres whiche you cite so preciselie as though antiquitie should lett these prophetes to be examples of monasticall lyfe It is an argument woorthie suche a diuine as you are for by that reason nether Adam could be a patrone of maried men nor Abell of Shepheardes nor Cain of husbandmeÌ„ne nor Enoch of citizens nor Iabell of dwellers in Tents nor Iubal of Musicians nor Tubalcain of smithes for that they liued twise as long a goe as Elias dyd And yet the scripture sayth they were begynners and patrones of all these things Genes 2.3.4 To the example of S. Iohn he answereth Iohn Baptist that may seeme to make moste maketh nothing at all for you for that it is to be thought he vvas an extraordinarie a perpetuall Nazarete therfore his calling vvarranted hym for hys austere extraordinarye attyre dieâ— vvhiche restraint or the like is not novv layd vpon those vvhiche teache in the church You alwayes do willfully mistake the question M. Charke For we affirme not that extraordinarie austeritie of lyfe is layd vpon any man of necessitie but onelie that it is lawfull and maketh no sect when it is voluntarie taken and vsed Moreouer yf we graunt S. Iohn were a Nazaret yet that proueth not that all his austeritie of lyfe was layd vpon hym by necessitie of that vocation as may appeare in the booke of Nuâ—bers where the lyfe of a Nazaret is described and Plinie with Iosephus describing the lyfe of Esseans muche harder than the Nazarets doe mention no such great austeritie as the scriptures doe in the lyfe of S. Iohn Baptist. VVherfore though he were a Nazaret yet moste of his austeritie was voluntarie and so might be an example platforme to Monks especially seing Nazaretes also dyd make a religious vowe for theyr dedication to God as our religious people also doe vse as appeareth in the booke of Numbers And finallie that S. Iohn was a Monke of the new testament and a paterne of Monasticall lyfe though this be more than I am bound to proue all these fathers foloweinge doe testifie with one consent S. Gregorie Nazianzen orat de S. Basilio S. Chrisostome ho. 1. in Marc S. Ierome ep ad Eustochium Cassianus collat 18. cap. 6. Sozomenus li. 1. hist. c. 12. Isidorus li. 2. de diuin offic ca. 15. Theophilact in cap. 1. Luc. Nicephorus li. 8. Hist. c. 39. and others Next after these examples he reprehendeth my description of a sectarie sayeing that it bevvrayeth great vvant of learning for that it confoundeth heretiques vvith sectaries and maketh no distinction betvvene the generall and the speciall for all heretiques are sectaries sayeth he but all sectaries are not heretiques For learning heere I striue not lett the opinion therof fall where it best lyketh the reader to place it But in matter of truthe M. Chark is greatlie ouer seene in this place and doeth vnwoorthelie chalenge the credit of a learned man for this answere hauing incurred two grosse errors in the same For first among diuines Ecclesiasticall writers an heretique and a sectarie is all one there is no generall and speciall betwene theÌ„ as he imagineth
dishonour of his Maister yet maketh he mention bothe of this feare and also of the deathe of his companion and graunteth it to haue bene one principal motiue of his entraunce into religion His wordes are these Hos terrores seu primum seu accerrime sensit eo anno cum sodalem nescio quo casu interfectum amisisset Luther felt thes terrors feares eyther first or moste sharplie that yeare wherein he lost his companion slayne I know not by what chaunce Nay Martin Luther coÌ„fesseth the matter him selfe in an epistle to his father Iohn Luther to whome he yeeldeth a reason of hys runninge owt of religion by his vnlawfull entrance thervnto Memini nimis sayeth he praesente cum iam placatus mecum loquereris ego de coelo terroribus me vocatum asserereÌ„ Neque enim libens cupiens fiebam monachus sed terrore agone mortis subitae circumuallatus voui coactum necessarium votum I doe remember too well when yow beinge pacified talked with me present I affirmed that I was called by terrours from heauen to enter into religion For I was not made a friar willinglie and of my owne desire but beinge enuironed with terrour and with the agonie of suddain deathe I made a vow vpon necessitie and enforcement Heere the matter is euident by Luther hym selfe whiche M. Charke so confidentlie denieth and cryeth out against bishope Lindan for reporting the same sayeing That he vvill not beleeue Lyndan in this no more than he vvill beleeue his reporte that the Caluinistes doe vvorship the Image of the deuyll In deede he sayeth that Caluinists doe adore theyr owne imaginations suggested by the deuyll aboue all authoritie or proofe besides as all other heretiques doe and in that sense doe honour the deuyll Againe he sayeth that in the yeere of our lorde 1572. when Caluinistes went to ouerthrow a monasterie at a towne called Leyden in flauÌ„ders they erected the signe of the deuyll in theyr publique banner whiche neuer Christians dyd before Yf M. Chark could haue refuted any of these particulars he should haue done well But by his generall reporte though he seeke to bring Lyndan in hatred yet it turnethe to his owne discredit releeueth nothing his cause in haÌ„de For the deuyll crieing out of Luthers mouthe thoughe M. Chark woolde seme to denye yt yet bringeth he not one syllable in disprofe thereof so many particulars are put downe by Coclaeus whoe liued with hym as euerye man may see that the matter was euideÌ„t And no protestant in Germanie where the matter was done as where also being Lutherans they doe esteeme Luthers honour more than Caluinistes doe neuer yet hathe bene able to reproue the same But now come we to the doctrines of libertie and carnalitie whiche the Censure affirmeth Luther to haue taught after he had once coped with a Nonne VVhiche M. Charke after his ministeriall phrase expresseth in these woordes VVhen the lorde had opened hys eyes thinkinge hym selfe no longer tyed to hys vnaduised and superstitiouse vovv he maryed in the lorde and all this vvas laufull But how soeuer you name the lorde M. Chark to couer this lasciuiouse lecherie of a renegate frier with his vowed ladie yet I haue shewed before out of the auncient fathers that this pretended mariage on bothe partes was esteemed worse than adulterie in the primatiue churche whereof he that will see more lett hym read S. Basil de monast const cap. 22.34 35. Also quest 14. fuse explicat Also S. Augustin in Psal. 78. 99. also Concill Chalced cap. 26. Also fulgentius de fide ad Pet. ca. 3. And finallie S. Leo. ep 92. ad Rusticum But now to the doctrines them selues in whiche I will be as short as I may in defence of my reportes being moste true as shall appeare by luthers owne wordes and that in those books of his and editions whiche are to be had in England publiquelie So that the aduersarie shall haue no more refuge to saye he can not finde the booke And as M. Charks vntrue dealing hathe bene indifferentlie discryed by that which went before so shall it be muche more by these doctrines of Luther And because bothe M. Hanmer and M. Charke haue taken vppon them seuerallye to answer the same I will couple them together where soeuer they haue any thing woorthe the notinge aduertising the reader by the waie that whereas Luther hathe diuerse editioÌ„s of his woorks and diuerse of them diuerslie traÌ„slated out of duche into latin he must not maruayle yf the same booke some tymes haue diuerse titles though I meane now to cyte them vnder such names as nighe as I can as they are to be sene in the editioÌ„ of wittenberge sett furthe and as I haue seene them my selfe in England by melancthon Anno 1562. The first doctrine Fyrst then I affirmed Luther to teache that there is no synne but incredulytie neyther can a man damne hym selfe do vvhat mischefe he can except he vvill refuse to beleue M. Hanmer denieth not this doctrine but defendeth it onelye addinge that I haue racked Luthers vvoordes vpon the tentors of preiudice and then sheweth at large how all synnes doe lye sooking in the roote of increduâ—itie VVhiche is some what too fine for me to vnderstand M. Chark goeth further sayeing I may plainlie pronounce that in this place you doe in vvoords and matter reporte an open vntruthe For M. Luther hathe no suche doctrine Heere is no agreemeÌ„t in the deffeÌ„ders the one grauÌ„tinge it the other so flatly denyeynge the same But who wolde think M. Charke could answer thus without blushing heare Luthers owne woordes Ita vides quà m diues sit homo Christianus siue Baptizatus qui etiam volens non potest perdere salutem suam quantiscunque peccatis nisi nolit credere Nulla enim peccata eum possunt damnare nisi sola incredulitas So thou seest how riche a Christian man is who can not leese his saluation though he wolde with neuer so great sinnes except he will not beleeue For no synnes can damne hym but onelie incredulitie Again in the same tome he sayeth Infidelitas sola turbatio est conscientiae onelie infidelitie is a trouble of conscience Is not heere now as muche as I haue sayed If nothing must trouble a mans conscience but onelie vnbeleefe then nothing is sinne but onelye vnbeleefe Again yf a man can not leese his saluation yf he wolde neuer so fayne by committing neuer so greate sinnes except he will not beleeue then may a man doe what he will so he fall not into incredulitie But yet to shame these shamelesse men a litle further and to shew the wicked licentiouse doctrine of this loose apostata heare more what he sayeth in an other place Nihil prauum facit praeter infidelitatem Nothing maketh a man euell besides infidelitie And a litle after he concludeth thus Ex
And this now of consequent supposinge the Antecedent were true as it is moste false For who will graunt those absurd impious propositions The lavve sturreth vs to sinne the lavve prouoketh our corrupt nature to sinne S. Paul sayeth I had not knowne sinne but by the lawe but he neuer sayeth that the lawe sturred hym vpp to sinne but onelie that it discouereth sinne vnto hym euen as the looking glasse discouereth the spotte in a-mans face and maketh vs to see it whiche we did not before but yet procureth not that spotte And S. Paul gyueth an example sayeing I had not knovvne concupiscence yf the lavve had not sayd thovv shalt not couet In whiche woordes that he meaneth of voluntarie coÌ„cupiscence that is whereto ether consent or delectation is yeelded S. Augustin besides the places alleaged testifieth li. 1. de nup. concup c. 29. li. de spiritu litera cap. vlt. li. 19. con Faustum c. 7. cont 2. ep petil li. 3. c. 7. And it is moste woorthie of laughter which M. Charke for filling vp a page discourseth of S. Pauls estate sayeing Paule coÌ„pareth his staâ—e before his knovvlege of the tenth coÌ„maundemeÌ„t vvith his state aftervvard He knevv other synnes before by the light of nature but he knevv not coÌ„cupisceÌ„ce till he knevv the teÌ„th coÌ„maundemeÌ„t I praye you Sir what was S. Pauls state before his knowlege of the tenth commaundement was not S. Paul borne a Iewe brought vp from his youth in the law at the feet of Gamaliel how then coulde he be ignoraÌ„t in â—he tenth coÌ„maundemeÌ„t and yet be hable to discerne other sinnes by the light of naturall reason doe you thincke vppon your woordes before you send them to the print S. Augustins example of the latin tongue M. Chark reiecteth for that the tongue is not suche a cause of the speche as originall sinne is of concupiscence But what a reason is this to reproue so learned a man as S. Augustin was for vvhoe knovveth not as I haue shewed before that comparisoÌ„s or similitudes are not of necessitie to holde in euerye pointe but in that onelie wherein they are compared Though then the tongue be onelie the instrumeÌ„tall cause of speeche originall sinne the formall cause of concupiscence yet is it sufficieÌ„t to shevve that effects may take vppon them oftentimes the name of their causes and consequentlie asvvell concupiscence the name of sinne as the tongue the name of speeche Nether is it necessarie as M. Chark reasoneth that euery effect of originall synne should be synne in the regenerate For that all our penalties as hungar thirst sicknesse the like are effectes of originall sinne in vs but yet not sinnes in them selues as nether coÌ„cupiscence in the baptized vvhose guylt is vtterlie taken avvay by baptisme as S. Ambrose and S. Augustin doe proue To like effect is alleaged by the Censure the exaÌ„ple of Christ called sinne in the scripture not for that Christ and concupiscence are like effectes of sinne as M. Charke quareleth but to shevve that a thinge may be called sinne by the scripture figuratiuelie and yet be no sinne properlie albeit yf vve consider Christ as he vvas hostia pro peccato a sacrifice for our sinne in vvhich seÌ„se onelie S. Paul calleth him sinne No maÌ„ can denie but Christ so considered vvas a certayne effect of our sinnes also that is Christ crucified or the crucifieinge of Christ vvas a certayne effect of our sinnes for that our sinne vvas the cause of that deathe and sacrifice And vvhere you controll my quotation of the â— to the Romanes as though there vvere no suche thing in that place doe you reade but the third verse and confesse your ouersight And yf you will not beleeue the text reade Origen and S. Augustin and they will tell you the cause whie he is called sinne by S. Paul in that place But nowe for the auncient fathers alleaged in the Censure as partakers of the Iesuits blasphemie I maruaille M. Charke vouchesafeth to examine them sâ—ing in other places he contemneth vtterlie their authorities calling them my breade zovvle of fathers Mary here belike he hathe gotten some sleyght to shyft them of or at leastwise some part of theÌ„ For as for S. CypriaÌ„ and Pacian he passeth ouer without sayeing any woord vnto them To S. Ambrose and Clemens AlexaÌ„drinus he answereth that they haue no suche thynges in the places alleaged whiche is somewhat worse than passing ouer for it is a flatt vntruethe seing in those places as the reader may see by conference they proue all sinne to be taken awaye in the regenerate by baptisme and the sowle left pure cleane as the light it selfe whiche can not stande yf concupiscence remayning be a fowle sinne as M. Charke affirmeth but he addeth that Clemens in an other place hathe some what against vs to witt that hy conâ—npiscence onelie a man coÌ„mitteth adulterie whiche is true yf a man gyue consent therunto as appeareth by Christ Math. 5. But the first motions onelie without any consent or delectation in them I maruaile M. Charke is not ashamed to call adulterie seing Clemens in the same place exhorteth the gentiles to resist these motions of concupiscence and not to yeelde vnto them and so to auoyde adulterie whiche he wolde not haue done yf these very first motions theÌ„ selues which are inauoydable were adulterie without yeelding any consent vnto them To Gregorie Nazianzen alleaged in orat de S. Iauacro he answereth that Nazianzen neuer vvrote any such oratioÌ„ as I dreame of But if he dreamed not yet I thinke at least he was halfe a sleepe wheÌ„ he wrote this ether vnderstoode not the books name being writteÌ„ somewhat short whiche were too badde in so greate â— diuine or else neuer sawe NazianzeÌ„s woorkes which were worse or else not able to answere the place wold shyft it of with suche a sleyght which were worst of all That which he hathe for shyfting of S. Austen I vnderstande not his woordes are these lett the reader skanne them you vvere deceyued sayeth he in citing Augustin tvvyse as hauyng vvriten but one booke de nuptiis concupiscentia Heere yf he meane that S. Austen hathe written but one booke de nupt concup and that I was deceyued in citing hym twyse as hauing written two bookes then is S. Austen hym selfe against hym whoe sayeth in his second booke of Retractations that he had written two bookes de nuptiis concupiscentia But yf M. Chark meane that I thynke S. Austen to haue wrytten but one booke de nupt concup and so doe erre in citing hym he is deceyued For I cite hym thus in the Censure li. 1. de nupt concup whiche signifieth the first booke and no man citeth a first booke which thynketh not that there is a secoÌ„d Vherfore this fond charge eyther tasteth of ignorance or of greate desire to quarrell VVill you stand to it that S.
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
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
reckoned some small parte onelie in the Censure VVhiâ—he notwithstanding I wolde not haue troubled M. Charke withall yf I had supposed hym so grosse therin as by examination I fynde hym A lacke poore sir william And by this you see how substantiallie he hath proued all these seuen poyntes to be expresselie in scripture If we shoulde beleeue no more in all thesâ— mysteries than is expressed in scripture our faythe wolde be verie obscure and confuse heerin Bâ—t these men are wonderfull lordes of scripture They can exclude what they will and drawe in what they please VVheÌ„ we are to proue a matter to be founded on scripture no testimonies will serue except they be so playne and euident as by no wayes they may be auoyded But when they will haue a thing in scripture euerye litle gesse at theyr pleasure is sufficient to proue yt Hearâ— D. Fulks woordes to M. Bristoe abowt certayne lykâ— matters For the diuision of parishes excommunicacion suspension publique solennizing of Mariage vvith the lavves therof and punishing of heretiques by deathe they are all manifestlie proued ovvt of the scripture This he sayeth alleaging no one place of scripture to proue it And for the fyrst fower I thynke the puritanes will hardlie graunt them to be manifestlie in scripture And the last was for a long tyme denyed by them selues to be eyther in scripture or allowable by scripture vntill now they haue burned some for religion them selues in England But theyr former bookes are extant to the contrary and all theyr companions yet in other countries where they raigne not as our protestants doe now in England are styll of opinion that no heretique ought to be putt to deathe for religion And thus he auoydeth seuen of the pointes obiected affirming them to be euidentlie in scripture For the rest sayeth he of these tvvelue pointes as they are not â—uidentlie contayned in the vvoord so a christian is not absolutelie bounde to beleeue them Beholde the last refuge of a proude hereticall spirit in breakinge where he can not otherwise gett owte Dare you M. Charke to sett men at libertie to beleeue or not to beleeue that the common crede was made by the Apostles whiche Origen Tertullian Ierom Ruffinus Ambrose Austen and all the primatiue Church doe so coÌ„stantlie affirme to be theyr doeinge Dare you to sett at libertie the obseruation of Easter daye whiche Eusebius calleth Apostolicam traditionem A tradition of the Apostles and abowt whiche was so great sturre in the primatiue churche and so many decrees made in councels against heretiques But aboue all other dare you putt at libertie the beleefe of our blessed ladies perpetuall virginitie Remember you not that Heluidius was condemned of heresie for denieing the same in the primatiue Churche Remember you not the solemne curse for this matter of so many holie Byshopes recorded and confirmed by S. Ambrose of Millan I will conclude and stoppe your mouth yf I can with these woordes of S. Austen Integra fide credendum est c. vve must beleeue vvith a sounde faith blessed Marie the mother of Christ to haue conceiued in virginitie to haue brought foorthe her sonne in virginitie and to haue remayned a virgin after her childbyrth nether must vve yeeld to the blasphemie of Heluidius Loe M. Charke S. Austen maketh it bothe a matter of faith the dowting therof to be blasphemie how will you auoyde thys For the mention which S. Paul is thought to make to the Colossians of an epistle written by hym to the Laodicenses M. Charke denyeth it and condemneth both me and S. Ieroms translation of ignorance for reporting the same for that as he sayeth the greeke text hath onelie of an epistle written by S. Paul from Laodicea and not to Laodicea But me thynketh M. Charke should not obiect ignorance so pereÌ„ptorilye to others except he were sure of his owne opinioÌ„ If I had had no other vvarrantize for my allegation but onelye the olde latin translation being of suche antiquitie as it is and the matter of no importance to our purpose yet ought I not so rigourouslie to haue bene reprehended for the same But besides this I haue two editions in greeke the one of learned Paguine in folio the other of Plantyne in octauo both whiche make playnlie for me Then haue I the iudgement of S. Ambrose and oâ— S. Ierome whiche knew the true greeke editions Also the consent of Tertullian Philastrius and Epiphanius a greeke writer whiche may be sufficient to wype away M. Charkes bytter reproche against me in this matter Of the scriptures misalleaged for the contrarye by M. Charke THE CENSVRE But hovv doe you novv ouerthrovve this doctrine and prooue it blasphemie M. Charke By a place of S. Paule All the scripture is geuen by inspiration of God and is profitable to teach to confute to correcte and to instructe in iustice that the man of God maye be perfect and throughly instructed to euery good worke VVherof you inferre that the Scripture is sufficient to perfection but hovv vvrongefullye it shall novv appeare And first I let passe your ordinarie misusinge of scripture by adding fiue vvordes of your ovvne in this litle sentence to vvit the is and and throughâ—lie vvhich audacitie if it vvere in translating of Aesops fables it vvere tollerable but in the holie Scriptures vvhere euerie vvorde must be taken as from the holie Ghoste it is impious Secondlie this place maketh nothinge for your purpose vvhich I proue by tvvo reasons The first is because S. Paule saieth not here that the Scripture is sufficient to perfection but onelie that it is profitable Novv you knovv that a thinge maie be verie profitable yea necâ—ssarie to an effecte and yet not sufficieÌ„t to doe the same vvithout all helpe As meate is profitable and necessarie to maintaine lyfe and yet not sufficient vvithout naturall heate clothes and the like The second reason is for that S. Paule signifieth in this place that euerie parte or canonicall booke of Scripture is profitable to make a man perfecte but yet vve can not say that euerie part or booke is sufficient for then all other bookes of scripture besides that vvere superfluous And that S. Paule meaneth in this place euerie seuerall canonicall booke or parte of Scripture by the vvordes Omnis scriptura it is euident by that he vseth the vvorde Omnis and not Tota vvich tvvo vvords hovv much they differ both in Greeke and Latine all Logisioners knovv For omins homo signifieth euerie man And M. Charke him selfe in this verie same sentence hath translated Omne oâ—us bonum Euerye good worke And yet deceatefullye hath he traÌ„â—lated Omnis scriptura All the scripture As though S. Paule had meante onelie that all the Scripture put together is sufficient to perfection vvhich sense can not stand First for that all the Scripture at such
time as S. Paul vvrote this vvanted diuers important partes as the Ghospel of S. Iohn the Apocalips and some other vvhich vvere vvriteÌ„ after coÌ„sequeÌ„â—lie should haue bene superfluous yf the other before had bene â—ufficient Secondly because vve lacke at this daye many parts of scripture vvhich of likelyhoode vvere in S. Paules time As the booke of Nathan the Prophetâ— vvith the volume of the Prophet Gad. 1. Paralip vlt. The booke of Ahias salonites and the vision of Addo the Prophet 2. Paral 9. Many of the Parables and verses of Salomon for he vvrote three thousande of the one and fiue thousand of the other 3. Reg. 4. Also the epistle of S. Paul to the Laodicenses Colos. 4. vvhereof it folovveth in M. Charkes ovvne seÌ„se that if all the scripture put together is onely sufficient to perfection then our scripture novv lacking dyuers partes of the same is not sufficient And so me thinkethe M. Charke vvrestethe this place againste hym selfe THE DEFENCE After a long apologie in defence of loose translatyng of scripture wherin M. Charke will perforce retaine opinion of honest dealing he coÌ„meth to refute the first reason about profitable and sufficient sayethe that sometimes profitable may stand for sufficient As where the Apostle sayeth to Timothie Exercise thy selfe to godâ—ynes For bodilye exercise is profitable but to a litle but godlynes is profitable â—o all thyngs hauyng promisse bothe of this lyfe of the lifâ— to come Heer sayeth M. Chark it can not be denyed but by profiâ—able is mente suffâ—cieÌ„t VVhich suppose were true yet were it but a slender argumeÌ„t of one particular to inferre an other But in myne opinioÌ„ M. Charke is vtterlie deceyued in this matter For as S. Ambrose S. Ierome S. Austen doe expound this place S. Paules meanyng is to putt an antithesis or differeÌ„ce betwene corporall exercise pietie sayeing that the one is but litle profitable but the other that is godlynes hath her promysse of rewarde in all actions taken ether for this lyfe or for the lyfe to come Out of all I say she reapeth coÌ„moditie and is profitable For in all actions whiche are taken in hand for charitie and loue of God whiche is true pietie therin is merit and rewarde whether the actions be about matters of this lyfe or of the lyfe to come And whoe wolde say heere that profitable signifieth sufficient His second reason he frameth in these woordes vpon the place of S. Paul before alleaged that vvhiche is profitable to all the partes that may be required to perfectioÌ„ can not be but sufficient for the perfection of the vvhole but that the scripture is profitable in suche maner the Apostle doeth fullie declare in rehearsing all the particular partes vvhiche are necessarie as to confute to correct and instruct in iustice ergo the scripture is sufficient God help you M. Charke I assure you you are a simple one to take controuersies in hand VVhat boye in Cambrige wold euer haue reasoned thus If you had sayed that whiche is sufficient to all the partes in particular is sufficient to the whole you had sayed somewhat But how foloweth it that what soeuer is profitable to all particular partes should be sufficient to all haue you not Learned that there is causa sine qua non whiche is not one he profitable but also necessarie to all partes wherof it is such a cause and yet is not sufficient alone ether to the partes or to the whole As for example the heade is profitable yea necessarie to all the actions of this lyfe as to sing weepe dispute and the lyke for without a heade none can be done and yet is not the head sufficient alone to performe these actions as we see by experience For that euery one whiche hath a heade is not able to doe these thinges Hys thyrd reason and argument is taken from the woordes of S. Paul immediatlie goeinge before in the place now alleaged to Timothie whiche are these for that thou hast learned the holye scripâ—ures from thy infancie vvhiche can instruct thee to saluation throughe the faythe vvhich is in Iesus Christ. Loe sayeth M. Charke heer the scriptures are sayed to be sufficient to saluation But I denye this For the Apostle sayeth they can instruct Timothie and shew him the waye to saluation and can bryng hym also to it yf he will folow them But doeth it folowe heerby that they are sufficient for the whole churche and in such sort as all doctrine by tradition is superfluous Euerie epistle of S. Paul instructeth a maÌ„ to saluation wolde also bryng any man to heauen that shoulde folow the same exactlie But is therfore euerie epistle of S. Paul sufficieÌ„t for the whole Church wherof onelie our question is and are all other supeâ—fluous Againe it is to be noted that S. Paul speaketh heere principallie of the olde testament For he speaketh of the scriptures which Timothie beyng nowe a byshope had learned from his infancie whiche was before the newe testament was wryten And will M. Charke saye that the olde testament is sufficient to Christian men such as Timothie now was for their saluation without any other write You see this man lyke the hare in the nett the more he struggleth the more he encombreth and intangleth hym selfe To my two reasons in the Censure to proue that S. Paul in the place alleaged spoke not onelye of all the whole scripture together but also of euery particular booke therof whiche notwitstandinge can not be sayed to be sufficient of it selfe without other he answereth in effect nothinge but for excuse of his fraudulent translating Omnis scriptura all scripture where as he translated omne opus bonum euerie good vvoorke euen in the same sentâ—nce he alleageth a place or two owt of the scripture where this woord omnis signifieth all aswell as euerie one VVhiche I denye not but some times it may be especiallie in greek but yet that there is ordinarilie a difference betwene these two propositions omnis homoâ—est corpus and totus homo est corpus I â—row your logicians of Cambrige wherof you talke will affirme with me And yf there be ordinarilie such a differeÌ„ce and your selfe obseruing the same in the former parte of the same sentence why you showld alter your translation in the second part therof I can not imagine except you mente fraude But now to my two reasons In the first I saye that S. Paul coulde not meane to Timothie of all the scriptures together which we now vse For that all was not then written as the Gospell of S. Iohn and some other partes To this he answereth that there was enough written then for the sufficient saluation of men of that tyme and that the other partes added afterwarde were not superfluous But this is from the purpose For I graunt that in all tymes when there was least writen vvord yet was there sufficient for the
peoples saluatioÌ„ of that tyme. For God supplied it otherwyse that is by woorde of mouthe vnwritten And this maketh for vs for in suche tymes the written woord was not sufficieÌ„t without all other helpes as you affirme it is as for exaÌ„ple when onelie S. Mathewes Gospell was written and nothing els of the new testament yet graunt I that this scripture was sufficieÌ„t for that tyme. For that God supplied yt otherwyse by the woordes and speeches of his apostles So before Moyses wrote the lawe the patriarches had sufficient for theyr saluation thoughe they had ether nothinge or verie litle writen woorde And yet you can not saye that the written woorde of that tyme was sufficient of it selfe without all tradition by mouth VVerfore this answere is against your selfe as also that is whiche you frame to the secoÌ„d reason affirming that albeit dyuers partes of scripture be wanting now whiche was in S. Pauls tyme yet still it is sufficieÌ„t whiche I denye not being ioyned to the other supplies that God vseth For God supplieth by tradition and woorde of mouthe But whether in all tymes the onelie written woord that is extant be sufficient of it selfe to the whole Churche without all other helpes deliuered by tradition that is our question And of times past when the law was not written no man without impudencie can affirme that the written woorde was then sufficient And of our tyme that is after the writinge of the new testament Epiphanius sayeth Non omnia a diuina scriptura accipt possunt quapropter aliqua in scripturis aliqua in traditione sancti Apostoli tradiderunt All things necessarie can not be had from the scripture And therfore the holie Apostles left vnto vs some thinges writteÌ„ and some thinges by tradition VVhich signisieth sufficientlie what Iudgement the primatiue Church had of this matter as more at large shalbe shewed in the article foloweing whiche is also of this same argument Of teaching traditions besides the scripture Art 5. THE CENSVRE 5. You reporte the Iesuites to saye That the want of holy Scriptures must be supplyed by peeciâ—ge it out by traditions Cens fol. 220. This is coyne of the former forge all false and noe one such vvorde to be found in all their booke But yet as though they had sayed soe you fight manfullye agaynst this your ovvne sâ—ntence sayinge in manner follovvinge Contrarye to this is the lawe in Moyses Thow shalte not adde to the woordes which I speake to thee nether shalte thou take froÌ„ theÌ„ But vvhy do you breake the lavv M. Charke in reportinge the lavv you haue heere added the singuler nuÌ„ber in the Verbe and the plurall in the Noune and haue taken avvaye the numbers vvhich the lavv gyuer vsed chauÌ„ged the same at your ovvne pleasure and that for a purpose vvhich I could gesse at But let all thinges be lavvfull vnto you vvhat maketh this lavv for your pourpose By your meaning the Apostles and EuaÌ„gelistes did offend in adding any thing besides the lavve of Moyses vvhiche is absourd Nether did Moyses in this place forbiddinge to adde or take avvaye speake of his vvrytten lavve for he had not yet vvritten it but of those thinges vvhich he deliuered theÌ„ by vvorde of mouthe at that time the vvhich he vvilled them to keepe and obserue vvhollye and perfectly vvithout chaunginge it by addition or diminution or by their ovvne corrupte gloses as naughtie men are vvonte to doe And this is the true meaninge of that place and not as you vvould haue it that nothinge should be beleeued besides that vvhiche Moyses set dovvne for a litle after Moyses hym selfe commaundeth the lâ—vves to heare the Prophet vvhich God should rayse afâ—er hym as hym selfe meanynge therby Christ. THE DEFENCE Heere agayne M. Charke disburdeneth hym selfe vpon Gotuisus sayeing If the Censure of Colen hathe no suche vvordes Gotuisus fayled in vvriting their booke But gentle sir wiliam this matter is not so shyfted of You knew that Gotuisus tooke these woordes from kemnitius against whome they were proued false by Payuas before you wrote your booke as the most of his other reportes were How chaunceth it then you wolde vtter theÌ„ agayne without seeing the originall whether they were true or no Besyde this Gotuisus citeth Canisius for the same woordes where no one suche woorde is to be fownd whye looked you not in Canisius to see yt or whye had you not cited Canisius in your Margent as well as the Censure of Colen which you well knew was not to be had whye dyd you conceale Canisius I saye can you be excused from willfull dishonest dealyng in this matter No no your desperate resolution is to-too euident But saye you we holde the doctrine thoughe the Iesuites haue not the woordes VVhat doctrine M. Chark that the want of holie scripture must be peeced owt by traditioÌ„s It is false VVe speake not so vnreuereÌ„tlie of the scripture as shall better appeare by the article foloweyng VVe doe not teach that the scriptures are wanting or neede to be peeced It is your hereticall malice which deuiseth these woordes Though bothe partes of gods woord that is both written vnwritteÌ„ be necessarie vnto gods Church yet both of theÌ„ do staÌ„d in their full perfection assigned them by God nether is the one a mayme or impeachement to the other no more than is S. Lukes Gospell to that of S. Mathew or S. Pauls epistles to any of them bothe For as you may not saye that S. Mathewes Cospell is maymed for that S. Lukes is also admitted or that S. Pauls epistles are a peecing vp of the former Gospells no more can we saye that gods woorde left vs by mouthe in tradition is a â—ayme or detraction to that whiche he hath left vs in writing or that in writing to be a disanullyng of that whiche we had by tradition for that bothe are partes of gods woord of equall authoritie as shalbe shewed more largelie in the twelueth article together with certaine meanes how to knovv and discerne the same VVherfore these odious speeches against the dignitie of holie scripture doe procede onelie from the malice of you our aduersaries and of no cause or matter ministred by vs. After certaine tryflyng speeche to litle purpose M. Charke concludeth peremptorilie this article in these vvoordes To conclude it is a great iniquitie to adde traditions or your vnvvritten verities to the vvrytten vvoord of God vvherunto no man may adde because nothing is vvantynge and to hym that addeth shall the curses vvritten in the booke be added for euer cityng in the MargeÌ„t the place of the Apocalips vvhiche sayeth that vvho soeuer addeth or taketh avvaye from that booke of prophecie shall incurre the plagues vvritten in that booke But good Lorde when vvill these men leaue to abuse the scriptures learne to speake to the purpose yf vvee beleeue all that is vvritten in that booke of reuelations and other things besides reuealed vnto
vs els vvhere by God doe vve incurre this curse of S. Iohn therby S. Iohn sayeth nothing may be added or taken awaye from the perfectioÌ„ of that most excelleÌ„t mysticall booke of reuelations but dyd he meane heerby that nothing should be credited besides that vvhiche is there vvritten S. Iohn hym selfe vvrote diuerse things vvhich are not in the Apocalips yea by the iudgement of kemnitius a protestant he vvroote hys vvhole Gospell after the Apocalips And yet I thynke by this additioÌ„ of his Gospell he did not runne into the curses of that booke How theÌ„ is this place alleaged agaynst vs for beleeuyng those thynges whiche our auncetours haue delyuered vnto vs as receyued from the mouth of Christ and his Apostles how holdeth this argument no man may adde to the booke of Apocalips ergo no man may beleeue a traditioÌ„ of Christ or his Apostles May not a man aswell inferre ergo we may not beleeue the actes of the Apostles But this is their common alleaging of Scriptures It is Lamentable to see the sleight dealings of these men in matters of suche importance It is a great iniquitie sayeth Charke to add traditions or your vnvvritten verities to the vvritten vvorde of God VVhat meane you Sir by adding whoe doeth add or in what sense If God left any doctrine by tradition vnto the Churche and our auncetours haue deliuered the same vnto vs especiallie those of the primatiue Churche what shall we doe in this case shall we refuse yt It seemeth daungerous and I see no reason For the same men that delyuered vnto vs the scriptures and sayed this is gods written woorde and sayd of other forged scriptures this is not gods written woorde the same delyuered vnto vs these doctrines sayeinge this is Gods woorde vnwritten As for example S. Austen and Origen doe teache vs that baptizing of infants is to be practized in the Churche onelie by tradition of the Apostles S. Ierom and Epiphanius tell vs that the fast of the lent and other the lyke is a traditioÌ„ of the Apostles Dionisius and Tertullian saye that prayers and obâ—ation for the dead are traditions of the Apostles S. Basil teacheth that the consecration of the font before baptisme the exorcisme vppon those that are to be baptized theyr anointing with holie Chrisme and diuers lyke thinges are delyuered vnto vs by prescript of Christ and his Apostles Thus testifie these men and no man in the Churche controlled theyr testimonie at that tyme wherby it is euident that all that Churche beleeued it Nowe what shall we doe when these and many other lyke things are delyuered vs by our fore-fathers the doctors and cheefe pyllers of Christ his Churche shall we reiect and discredit them wherfore or vppon what ground these men were nearer to the Apostles tymes than we are by many hundred yeeres and therfore could better tell than we can what the Apostles left by tradition or left not Agayne they were no dishonest men and consequentlie wolde not write a lye or deceyue vs wittinglie And yf they wolde yet other men wolde haue controlled them VVhye then should it be suche iniquitie in vs to receyue and beleeue the traditions which they deliuer vs as M. Chark sayeth it is If they come from the mouthe of Christ his Apostles as thes fathers doe affirme then are they parte of Gods woorde also as well as the other whiche are written But you will saye I knowe they come not from Christ and his Apostles And how I praye you can you proue that to me whye should I beleeue you rather than these holye fathers whiche lyued so long agoe I doe not see fot example sake why I should beleeue a CHARKE or a FVLKE commyng but yesterdaye from the Grammer Schoole before a Cyprian a Tertulian a Basil a Ierome a Chrysostome an Ambrose or an Austen especiallie in a matter of fact as our case is seyng they lyued more than twelue or thyrtene hundred yeeres nearer to the deed doeing than these ministers doe and yet to this extremitie am I driuen For hearken a litle how D. Fulck handleth these men about traditions S. Cyprian is alleaged agaynst hym sayeing that the mynglyng of wyne and water in the Chalice is the tradition of Christ hym selfe Fulke but yf Cyprian had bene vell vrged he vvolde haue better considered of the matter Tertulian is alleaged sayeing that the blessing with the signe of the crosse is a tradition of the Apostles Fulke Tertulians iudgement of tradition vvithout scripture in that place is corrupt S. Basil is alleaged for the same matter affirmyng the custome of blessing with the signe of the crosse to be an Apostolicall tradition Fulke Basil is an insufficient vvarrant for so vvoorthie a matter S. Ierome is alleaged sayeing that Lent fast is the tradition of the Apostles Fulke Ierome vntruelye ascribeth that tradition to the Apostles S. Chrisostom is alleaged sayeing â—hat the Apostles decreed that iÌ„ the sacrifice of the Aultar there should be made prayer for the departed Fulke vvhere he sayeth it vvas decreed by the Apostles c he muste pardon vs for crediting hym because he can not shevv it ovvt of the Actes and vvritings of the Apostles But dyuers fathers are alleaged together beside Chrisostome for the same matter Fulke vvhoe is vvytnesse that this is the tradition of the Apostles you vvill saye Tertulian Cyprian Austen Ierome and a great many moe But I vvolde learne vvhye the Lord vvould not haue this setforth by Mathevv Marke Luke or Paul vvhy they vvere not chosen scribes heerof rather than Tertulian Cyprian Ierome Austen and other suche as you name But this is a counterfait institutioÌ„ fained traditioÌ„ And in other place beyng vrged by the lyke he discrediteth all antiquitie sayeing It is a coÌ„mon thing vvith the Aâ—ncient vvriters to defend euerie ceremonie vvhiche vvas vsed in their tyme by tradition of the Apostles Heere now are sett before me a payre of balances with fulke and Charke in one ende and Cyprian Origen Tertulian Basil Ierome Chrisostome Epiphanius and Austen in the other ende for all these fathers as you see affirme constanlie traditions of Christ and his Apostle besides the written woord Fulke and Charke denye the same They alleage particular examples Fulk opposeth hym selfe to them all But whiche in reason should I rather beleeue You shall heare some of them speake S. Basil the great was a maÌ„ I trow to be matched in credit with Charke the minister His woords are these Dogmata quae in ecclesia praedicantur quaedam habemus e doctrina scripto tradita quaedam rursus ex apostolorum traditione in mysterio id est in occulto tradita accepimus quoruÌ„ vtraque parem vim habent ad pietatem nec hiis quisquam contradicit quisquis sane vel tenuiter expertus est quae sint iura ecclesiastica Among the doctrines whiche are preached in
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
32. 33. 34. By agreement of our aduersaries with auncient heretiques in maners page 35. How heretiques falselie accuse Catholiques of olde heresies page 33. How all heresie is Beggarie page â—6 How the Catholique cause is honorable page 36. 37. VVhye the Author hath put downe the Censure it selfe in this defense whiche foloweth pag. 37. A DEFENCE OF THE CENSVRE AGAYNST VVILLYAM Charke minister THE CENSVRE THERE came to my hands tvvo bookes of late in ansvvere of M. Edmund CaÌ„piane his offer of disputation the one vvryten by M. Hanmer the other by M. Charke of bothe vvhiche vnder correction I meane to gyue my shorte Censure vntill such tyme as eyther he to vvhome the matter appertayneth or some other doe make more large and leardned replie Aduertising notvvithstandinge the reader that in myne opinioÌ„ this offer of M. Campian and so many other as haue bene made required not so muche ansvvering in vvriting but shorter triall in disputation But yet seinge there can be had nothinge from theÌ„ but vvoordes I vvill examine a litle vvhat they say at least to the matter THE DEFENCE HEERE euen at the verie entrance the replyer leeseth his patience for that we require short triall in disputation VVhoe is Campian sayeth he or vvhoe are the rest of these seedmen that they should presume to auovvâ— popishe religion that hathe nothing to vpholde it but tyranie nothing to defend it but lies nothing to restore it but hipocrisie and rebellion O M. Charke remember your selfe VVe now but begynne you will be farre out ere we ende yf you tread the first step with so much choler Yf the verie naming of disputations make you sweate what will the thing it selfe doe yf it should be graunted yow beganne verie hoote with M. Campian in the Tower but his quiet behauyour cooled you with shame He tooke at your hands reproches and iniuries yea torments also and death it selfe with more patieÌ„ce thaÌ„ you can beare a moste reasonable and iust request But say you vvhat can they gett by renevveing the battaille so often and so latelie refused by their fathers and captaines and you note in the margent D. VVatson M. Fecknam VVe know M. Charke the foolish vaine pamphlet set fourth by D. Fulke in his owne commeÌ„dation touching his being at wesbiche castle and coÌ„ference with the learned reuerend fathers imprisoned there But as they dyd wiselie in contemning his pride coÌ„ming thither vpon vanitie without warrant for that he offered so beside the falsehode of that scrolle discouered sence by letters from the parties theÌ„ selues there is nothing in the same that turneth not to your owne discredit being confessed therein that after you had depriued theÌ„ of all bookes yea their verie writen note bookes which to learned men are the store house of memorie you asked them whether they wold come to Camebrige to dispute or no yf leaue peraduenture might be procured And because they coÌ„teÌ„ned so peart cockishe a marchant that for matter of glory camâ— to pose them without authoritie therfore you publishe bothe in bookes and sermons that these learned men refused disputatioÌ„ where as at the verie same tyme and bothe before and sence hothe we and they haue sued by all meanes possible to be admitted to a lawfull equall and free disputation eyther in Cambrige or anie place els that shall be appointed VVhat dealing is this what proceding M. Charke where are nowe the lies and hipocrisie you talked of on which parte doe they appeare As for tyraÌ„nie being an odious woorde I will saye nothing nor will not turne it to you againe let racking and quartering of those that offered disputation be accompted scholasticall reasonning with you But this I must saye to yow ministers for your good that it were farre better you confessed your feare in playne woordes than so much to manifest it in dedes and thereby to discredit the rest of your sayeings Next after the matter of disputation M. Charke taketh an other thing in greefe and that is that the Censure should saye seing there can be had nothing from them but vvoordes c. And for hym selfe he referreth men to his answer But for M. Hanmer he answereth that he hathe brought more reason with his woords than may well be answered by me But suppose all this were true and that bothe his woordes and M. Hanmers also were reasonable woordes yet are they but woordes in respect of the desired disputation whiche is a deede And so me thinke the Censure doeth offer them no iniurie But how reasonable M. Charks woordes are it appeared partlie by the Censure and shall doe better by this defence For M. Hanmer as I thought hym then not woorthie of particular answere so much lesse doe I now remayning worse satisfyed by his second booke than by his first But yet as I omitted hym not in the Censure when occasion was offered so will I not in this defence allthough finallie I must confesse that albeit I am not willing to increase a proude humour where alredie it doeth abounde yet doe I attribute more to M. Chark than to hym for some discretion in answering to the purpose But for that M. Charke will needes so frendelie take vpon hym the avouchement of M. Hanmers doeinges as thoughe he had not enoughe to defend his owne I will oute of a heape of foolerie falsehoode pached together by M. Hanmer after the fashion of their sermoÌ„s alleage a few things requiring M. Charke in his next wryting to answere for the same And yf he fynde it somewhat hard Lett hym blame his owne tongue for medling in matters whiche he might haue auoyded Nether will I touche any thing now mentioned before in the Censure for that these thinges shall haue their owne place to be discussed after Now purpose I onelie to note a fewe pointes of many which shall declare sufficientlie the mans constitution He hathe in his first book fol. 12. That lyra sayeth Ab ecclesia romana iam diu est quòd recessit gratia VVhiche he interpreteth thus It is long sythence the grace of God is departed from the churche of Rome VVhereas the woordes are Graecia Greece and not grace signifyeinge that the Greeke churche was long since departed from obedience of the churche of Rome How will you excuse this M. Charke For suppose there were anie corrupte booke that had by error Gratia for Graecia whiche I may scarse imagin But yet to help hym to an excuse suppose it should be so yet lyra his whole discourse vppon S. Pauls woordes nisi venerit discessio primum Except a reuolte be first made the ende of the worlde shall not come with all the circumstances and other examples there alleaged of the Romans empire must nedes haue shewed hym yf he haue sense that he talked onelie of the countrie of Grece and not of the grace of God In this second assertion of his second booke he attributeth this sentence to