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
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
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
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
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
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
shall serue for this tyme. He hath wryten two large and learned volumes of the corruptions of gods woorde by the heretiques of our tyme where he hath these wooâ—des Est ergo verbum dei c. VVherfore the vvoorde of God is as holie scripture conteyneth the knovvleige of saluatioÌ„ the cleare lanterne and shynyng lampe it is the hydden mysterie the heauentlie Manna the pure and proued golde the learnyng of Saints the doctrine of all spirit and trueth the loking glasse the liuelye fontayne the sealed booke vvhich booke vvho soeuer doe vse vvell they are Gods scholars they are spirituall they are vvyse they are iust they onelye are made the freendes and heyres of almightie God These are Canisius a Iesuites woordes And doe these men speak baselye of scriptures as M. Chark heere accuseth them But now we come to examine the text alleaged by M. Chark agaynst the Iesuites to wytt Lex domini immaculata the law of our Lord is vnspotted or vndâ—filed which M. Charke wolde haue to signifie that the scripture is so perfect playne in sense as no wicked man may wrest or abuse the same For whiche absurd reasoninge and wrestinge of scripture he being now reproued by the Censure heare what he answereth and how he defendeth hym selfe The Censure sayeth he supposeth me to haue but one Byble and that of the olde translation onelie vvhich hathe the lavve of the Lord is vndefiled c. but the original hath the lavve of the Lord is perfect And the best translations haue so translated it your olde translation goeth alone The 70. folovv the rest Heere you see that M. Charke bryngeth diuers reasons for his defense First that he hath diuers Bybles in his house and that of diuers translations Secondlie that the original or hebrew text of this verse in the Psalme hath not immaculata that is vndefiled or vnspoted but rather perfect in that sense as he defendeth it Thirdlie that all the best translations haue it so and that our olde translation differeth from them all Fouerthlie that the septuagint or seuentie greke interpretours are also against vs here in This is all M. Charkes defense But here by the waye wolde I haue the reader to Marke how muche M. Charke getteth to hys cause Yf I should graunt hym all that he hathe here sayd surelie he should gayne onelie that the law of God is perfect And is this against any thinge that we saye or holde or is it against the signification of the woord immaculata in the olde latin translation whiche he impugneth Is not a thinge immaculate or vndefiled also called perfect euen as on the contrarie a filthie or defiled thinge is called imperfect If then we should graunt that the hebrew and greeke textes had the woord perfect in them in steed of the latin woord immaculata yet this dothe not condemne the olde translation for vsing the woord immaculata immaculate For that immaculate as hath bene shewed signifieth also perfect from spot mary not perfect in that sense wherin M. Charke talketh and for proofe wherof he alleaged this sentence to witt that because the law of the lorde is perfect therfore the scripture can not be wrested whiche is a most false and absurd illation vppon the worde perfect For S. Paules epistles are persect together withe other scriptures and yet S. Peter sayeth that many men dyd wrest and depraue them But now lett vs consider the seuerall fower pointes of M. Charkes former answer whiche as yow see if wee should graunt vnto him without contradiction yet had he gayned nothing therby But lett vs examine them Touching the first whiche he answereth that is abowt the varietie of Bybles and translations which he hath at home I will not stand or coÌ„tend with M. Chark Let hym haue as many as he please the matter is howe well he vnderstandeth or reporteth those Bybles and not how many he hath The second poynt is false that the hebrew text disagreeth from the olde latin translation as shalbe shewed after The thyrd is fond that all the best translations doe differe from the olde translation heerin For what best or better or other good latin translation hath he than the olde whiche was in vse in gods Churche aboue thirtene hundred yeeres past as may be seene by the citations of the fathers whiche lyued then whiche was afterwarde also ouervewed corrected by S. Ierom which was also so hyghlye coÌ„mended by S. Augustin what other better translation I saye hath william Charke than this auncient which he so contemneth except he will name some latter of our tyme as of Erasmus Luther or the like whiche Beza hym selfe notwithstandinge affirmeth to be nothing lyke the olde traÌ„slatioÌ„ for exactnes The fowerth poynt which he addeth is a shameles lye that the septuagint in greeke doe dissent from the woorde immaculata in the latin For their woorde is AMOMOS which their owne lexicon will expound vnto them to be immaculate innocent irreprehensible To returne therfore in a woorde or two to the originall text the hebrew woorde is TAMAM or TAM which the septuagint doe interpret as you haue heard AMOMOS that is irreprehensible and the auncient latin translation immaculata immaculate And what refuge then can M. Charke fynde heere I doe not denye but that it signifieth also perfect for that what soeuer is irreprehensible and without spott may also be called perfect as hath bene shewed But how doeth this proue that it signifieth to be perfect in sense in suche sorte as it may not be wrested or peruerted In the 118. Psalme where our auncient translation hath beati immaculati in via your owne englysh bible hath translated it M. Charke blessed are those that be vndefyled in the vvaye and the Hebrew and greeke woordes are TAM AMOMOS as in the other text How then doe you rayle at our olde auncient translation for that wherein your new englishe byble doth the verye same the lyke you may see in infinite other places as leuit 3. v. 1. 6. Also Num. 6. v. 14. VVhere sacrifices are appointed to be immaculate according to the auncient tranflation And your englishe byble translateth it so too sayeinge they must be without blemishe where the hebrew and greeke woordes are TAM and AMOMOS as before By whiche is seene that M. Charke careth not whether he runneth what he forgeth or whome he reprehendeth so he maye seeme allwayes to saye somewhat And of all other shyftes this is the last and the easiest and of most credit and least able to be spyed of his reader as he thinketh to inueighe against the olde latin translation when he is pressed vnauoydablye with any place of scripture alleaged For this shyft besides the present couering of the difficultie yeeldeth also some opinion of Learning to his Maister gyuinge men to vnderstand that he is skillfull in the learned tongues whereas God knoweth the refuge is vsed for bare
we talke when we compare them with scripture impeache the teaching of Christe and his Apostles what doeth the spirituall authoritie of the pope vnder Christe diminishe the kinglie power and authoritie of Christe how doeth the preesthode of mē as from Christe or the sacrifice of the Aultar instituted by Christe disgrace Christs presthoode or his sufficiēt sacrifice ones for all offered on the crosse There is noted in the Margent the epistle to the Hebrewes where it is saied that that sacrifice on the crosse was ones offered for euer for oure redēptiō VVhiche we bothe graunt and teache in that manner as then it was done but yet that impeacheth nothing this dayly sacrifice of ours whiche must be in the churche vntill the end of the woorde as Daniel prophecyed and that in euerie place amongest the Gentiles that is in all the worlde is Malachie fore-tolde being called by Sainct Cirill and other fathers incruentum sacrificium the vnbloodie sacrifice which being one and the selfe same with that which was offered once vpon the crosse is appointed by Christe to be offred dayly in remembrance and thanks geuing for that bloodie sacrifice as Sainct Chrisostom doeth proue at large vpō the epistle to the hebrewes whom other his like yf M. Chark his felowes wolde not disdaine to reade beleeue they wold be a shamed to cauill and blaspheme gods mysteries as they doe But for a large and full answere of this common obiection of theirs owte of the epistle to the hebrewes towching Christe once bloodilie offered for all I referre the reader amōges many other to certayne particular auncient and learned fathers of the primatiue churche whoe doe handle this obiection and answere it of purpose The one is Theodoret byshop of Cyrus whoe handleth this question vvhie Christians doe novv vse to sacrifice in the nevv testament seing the olde lavv vvith all sacrifices vvere abolished by the one sacrifice of Christe The other is S. Augustin whoe proposeth this dowbt hovv vve sacrifice Christe euery daye vpon the Aultar seing he is sayd to be sacrificed once for all vpon the crosse And then he answereth it bothe fullie and largelie in that sense as I haue sayd before So that this obiection was a cómon thing in the primatiue churche and commōlie answered by euery writer which M. Chark his felowes do make so much a doe abowt now crieing owt that we denie the vertue of Christes passion the effects of his offices and the like See the same answered also by Eusebius li. 1. demonst euang cap. 6. and 10. And by Theophilact in cap. 5. ad hebr And so hauing answered now the substance of all that which M. Chark hathe in his preface I might here make an end but that I haue promised to shew how we offer hym and his felows moste reasonnable meanes of triall and that they in deede admitt none at all For what is it to name scripture in woordes when all thee controuersie is about the sense thereof wherein they admit no Iudge but them selues yf we bring scripture neuer so playne yet will they shift it of with some impartinent interpretation And what remedie or further triall haue we then I will gyue an example or two for instruction of the reader in their procedings The most of the auncient fathers wrote books in prayse of virginitie aboue wedlocke vsed to proue it by the sayeing of Christe There be Eunuches vvhiche haue gelded them selues for the kingdome of heauen he that can take it let hym take it Also by the woordes of S. Paul he that ioynethe his virgine in mariage dothe vvell and hee that ioynethe her not dothe better VVhiche woordes being alleaged against Martyn Luther whoe preferred mariage yea though it were of a vowed Nunne before virgnitie he answered it thus that Christ by his woordes terrified men from virginitie and continence and S. Paul by this speche dyd diswade them from the same Now what could be replied in this case trow you An other exāple may be towching S. Iohn Baptist of whome the scripture sayth first concerning his place of liuinge that he vvas in the vvildernesse vntill the day of his appearing to Israel Secōdlie touching his apparell Iohn vvas appareled vvith the heares of Camels Thyrdlie touching his diet his meate vvas locustes and vvilde honie Of whiche three things the olde fathers of the primatiue Church dyd gather a great and singular austeritie of S. Iohns lyfe and doe affirme with all that Eremits and Monkes and other religious people did take their paterne of straite lyuing from hym For whiche cause S. Chrisostome dothe often call S. Iohn Baptist Monachum principem vitae monastice a monke and prince of Monasticall lyfe whiche protestants being not able to abyde doe rage maruailouslie against S. Chrisostome condemning hym of rashenes and falsehode for vsinge those termes wherefore they fall to interpret the alleaged woordes of scripture farre otherwise sayeinge that by the desert wherein he liued vntill he began to preache is vnderstoode nothing els but his priuate lyfe at home in his fathers ovvne hovvse And for his apparell say they of Camels heare it was not straunge apparell but vsual to Mountain men that is vndulata◠sayeth another VVater chamblet hansome and decent albeit somvvhat plentifull in that countrie And lastlie touchinge his dyet of locusts and wilde hony it was no hard fare say they for the locustes were creuises cast awaye by the fishers of Iordan as vncleane by the lawe but eaten of Iohn by the libertie of the Gospell And the wilde hony was no vnpleasant thing as the fathers doe imagin but it was say Cossius and Strigelius that pleasant Manna whiche Apothecaires vse to kepe in their shoppes So that accordinge to these men all that austeritie of lyfe whiche the scriptures so particularlie doe recounte all antiquitie doeth wounder at in S. Iohn Baptist cometh but to this that he was brought vp priuatelie in his fathers house cladde in chāblette fedde with creuisses swete Manna VVhat great hardnesse was this A thyrd example may be aboute the controuersie of reall presence in the sacrament for whiche we bring plaine woordes of scripture oute of fower diuerse places of the new testament where the same woordes are repeated withoute exposition or alteration to witt hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie VVhiche woordes dyd seme so playne and cleare for the reall presence of Christe in the sacrament to all antiquitie as no man might without great offence doubt thereof as the woords of S. Ambro. S. Ciril are And as the same Ciril in an other place proueth at large to aske onelye quomodo how it may be is the parte of an vnbeleuinge Iewe seinge God was able as he sayeth as well to doe this as to turne the rodde of Moyses into a serpent To whiche purpose allso holy Epiphanius
sayeth that albeit the hoost seme to vs of a rounde forme inseÌ„sible yet who soeuer beleeueth it not to be the verie true bodie of Christe seing he hathe sayd it is excidit a gratia salute Suche a one is fallen from grace and saluation And S. Chrisostom sayeth we must not beleeue sense and reason in this matter Sed quoniam ille dixit hoc est corpus meum credamus etiamsi sensui absurdum esse videatur But because Christ hathe sayed this is my bodye we must beleâ—ue it although it seme absurd to our sense Hoc idem corpus cruentatum lancea vulneratum quod in caelum extulit This is the very same bodie vvhose bloode vvas shed and vvhiche vvas vvounded vvith the speare and vvhiche he caried vpp vvith hym to heauen All whiche notwithstandinge oure aduersaries haue founde out a new exposition of these woordes thys is my bodye affirming that it must be construed this is onelie the signe of my bodie For the whiche construction as they haue neither scripture nor auncient father for theyr warraÌ„t or example so agree they not amongest them selues of this exposition For Luther in his tyme numbreth vpp eight dyuerse and contrarie expositions of Sacramentaries vppon these woordes coÌ„ming from eight diuerse spirits of the deuyll as he affirmeth And a learned byshop of our time hathe gathered 84. gyuen by diuerse sacramentaries vppon the same So that once goe oute of the highe waye and there is no ende of erringe And because I haue here made mention of Doctor Luther a man by M. Charks opinion illuminated singularlie by the holye ghost and compared to Elias by the common phrase of all protestants I will repeate here what he had reuealed to hym by hys holy spirit touchinge this interpretation of M. Charke and his felowes First he writteth thus to the protestants that is to the true Christians as he calleth them of Argentina Hoc diffiteri nec possum nec volo si Corolostadius c. This can I not nor vvill deny but yf Corolostadius or anie man els could for this fyue yeres haue persuaded me that there had bene nothinge in the sacrament but bread and vvine he should haue bound me to hym by a great good turne For I haue takeÌ„ great care and anxietie in discussinge this matter and haue endeuoured vvith all my povver sinovves stretched ovvte to rydde my selfe of the same For I dyd vvell see that by this thing I might hurt the pope more than in anie other matter But I do see my selfe captiue no vvay being left to escape For the text of the gospel is too plaine and stronge and suche as can not easelie be ouerthrovvne by any man and muche lesse by vvoordes and gloses deuised by a phaÌ„tasticall heade For I my selfe God forgyue me for it am too prone to that parâ—e so farre foorthe as I can perceyue the nature of my ovvne Adam Agayne the same prophet in an other place after many most detestable woords vttered against M. Chark and his parteners sayeth thus his spiritibus credat doceri veritatem si quem perire delectat c. Lett hym beleue that these spirites doe teache the trueth vvho deliteth to damne him selfe vvhereas in dede they began not theyr doctrine but by manifest lyes and novv doe defend the same onelye by lyes diuulging the same by corrupting other mens bookes not vouchsafing to heare the anguishes of our consciences vuhich crie saye the vvoordes of Christ are cleare and manifest eate this is my bodye And againe in a certayne treatise intituled against the phanaticall Spirits of sacrameÌ„taries He sayeth talking of this interpretation of the woords This is my bodye Age ergo quando adeo sunt impudentes c. Goe to then seing they are so impudent therfore I vvill geue them a Lutheran exhortation accursed be their charitie and concorde for euer and euer And after coÌ„ming to the expositioÌ„ of the sayde woordes he sayeth thus Doctor Carolostad vvresteth miserablie this pronoune this Svvinglius maketh leane this verbe is Oecolampadius tormenteth this vvorde bodye other doe boucher the vvhole text and some doe crucifie but the halfe thereof so manifestlie doeth the deuyll holde vs by the noses And agayne in the same worke he hathe these wordes To expound the vvordes of Christ as the sacramentaries doe this is the signe of my bodie is as absurd an exposition as if a man shoulde interprete the scripture thus In the beginning God made heaueÌ„ earthe that is the Cuckovve dyd eate vp the Titling or hedge Sparrovv together vvith her bones Again in S. Iohn And the vvoorde vvas made fleshe that is a croked staffe vvas made a kyte This was the opinion of holy Luther towching our aduersaries interpretatioÌ„ or rather euasion and shift whiche I haue alleaged somewhat more at large against M. Chark for that he esteemeth and defendeth the man as a rare instrument of the holy ghoste VVhich yf it be true then woe to M Charke and his comparteners whose spirit is so contrarye to this mans holy illumination By this now it appeareth that the controuersie is not betwene vs whiche part prouoketh to scripture which doeth not but as it hathe allwayes bene betwixt heretiques and Catholiques which part alleageth true meaning of Scripture whiche thing accordinge to the councell of wise Sisinius to Theodosius the Emperour we desire to be tried by the Iudgement of auncient fathers indifferent in this matter for that they lyued before our coÌ„trouersies came in question But our aduersaries will allow no exposition but theyr owne whereby it is easie to defeate what soeuer is brought against them ether scripture or doctour For examples sake to proue that we may lawfullie make vowes are bouÌ„d also to perform the same being made we alleage the plaine woordes of the prophet vouete reddite domino vowe ye and reÌ„der your vowes to god how will the aduersarie auoyde this think you M. Fulke answereth this text belongeth onelye to the olde testament But what may not be wiped awaye from vs that lyue vnder the new testament by suche interpretations Again to proue that there is some state of lyfe of more perfectioÌ„ in Christianitie than other we alleage the cleare saying of Christe Si vis perfectus esse vade vende quae habes da pauperibus habebis thesaurum in caelo veni sequere me Yf thow wilt be perfect goe sell all thow hast and gyue to the poore and thow shalt haue a treasure in heauen and come folowe me VVhat answer haue they trow you to this M. Fulke answereth this vvas spoken onelie as a singular triall to that yong man alone and not to others beside hym VVhat a deuise is this May not he as well say also that the other woordes immediatelie going before were onlie spokeÌ„ to this yong man to witt Si vis ad vitam ingredi
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
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
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
hiis omnibus sequitur ê™ nullum vsque in terris sit peccatum preter incredulitatem Of all this that I haue sayed enseweth that there is no sinne any where vpon the earthe besides incredulitie Now lett the world iudge wheâ—her I haue reported Luther amisse or whether M. Chark be a true maÌ„ in denyeinge the matter so absolutely with suche vehemencie as he dothe affirming that Luther nether in woordes or matter hath anye such thing VVill you beleeue hym in other things which faceth a lye so openly in this But a lacke the poore man must saye somwhat for credites sake in their broken cause The second doctrine Secondlie I reported Luther to say the tenne commaundemeÌ„ts appertaine nothing to vs VVhich verie woordes bothe M. Hanmer and M. Charke doe graunt to be in Luther Marie they make long discourses vpon his meanyng whereby it is easie to putt on a colourable defence or excuse vpon any thing But lett the reader considerâ— how these woordes doe sownd in the eares of the people especiallie being ioyned with the doctrine goeing before of onelie vnbeleefe to be sinne And albeyt it be true which M. Chark sheweth out of S. Paul that we are not vnder the ceremoniall lawe of the Iewes any longer Yet this can not verifye luthers woords that the tenne commaundements appertayne nothing to vs. No nor that which M. Hanmer alleageth out of Luther as interpreting hym selfe sayeing that the teÌ„ne coÌ„mandementes appertaine to all but not for that they vvere commaunded by Moyses but for that they are vvriten in the nature of euery man For that by this means they should no more appertaine to vs than vnto gâ—ntiles into whose nature also they were writé But S. Augustin doeth proue that the ten commaundementes doe appertayne to Christians not onely more than vnto Gentiles but also more than vnto the Iewes them selues to whoÌ„ they were prescribed by Moyses And Christ saieth talkinge of this part of the law called Morall I came not to breake the lavv but to fullfill yt And S. Paul sayeth VVe doe not desâ—roye the lavv by faithe but doe establishe the lavv therby The third doctrine Thirdlie I reported of Luther that he sayd It is a false opinion to be abolished that there are fovver gospells For the gospell of Iohn is the onelie fayre true and principall gospell This report M. Hanmer graunteth wholie M. Chark graunteth the effect of the first and cheefe vvoordes but the latter concerning S. Iohns gospell he findeth not And therevpon thinketh that Luther neuer wrote any suche preface to the new testament as I cyte and therewithall inueigheth against me as citing at large and often times bookes vvhiche are not found as that de missa angulari Also as layeing downe one title for an other and the like For answere whereof other suche cauylls of our aduersaries against vs in citing of Luthers woorkes yt is to be noted that Luther wrote not all in latin but many things in duche whiche are notwithstanding alleaged by many men in latin skillfull in the duche tougueâ— After this diuerse men translated diuerse partes of Luthers woorks gaue them titles accordinge as yt seemed good to them as may appeare by the diuerse titles alleaged here by M. Chark and me of the selfe same woorke Beside this there be diuerse prints and editioÌ„s of Luthers woorks whiche doe greatlie varie VVhereupon hathe ensewed greate quarell in Germanie betwene the roughe and the softe Lutheranes about the false and corrupt edition of Luthers vvorkes And this treatise whiche M. Charke dowteth of de Missa angulari so printed and alleaged by all learned men hitherto is now come furthe except I be deceaued in the edition of wittenberge thoghe muche altered vnder this title de Missa priuata vnctione sacerdotum Mary yet Gesnerus a Caluinist maketh mention of fyue treatises de Missa priuata whiche are not to be gotten in England as I imagin and yet it were no reason to say therfore that no suche treatises were euer writen by Luther as M. Charke dothe Further more Luther hym selfe often chaunged his owne woorkes as the same Gesner testifieth that the book whiche he wrote against kyng henrye in latin was nothinge lyke that he wrote before against the same in duche Besyde this dyuerse other did alter Luthers woorkes bothe Suinglians and lutherans euen in Luthers owne tyme therby to draw hym to theyr deuises and partes And of Suinglians Luther hym selfe complaineth greuouslie against Martin Bucer And of Lutherans it appeareth not onelie by the contention aboue named abovvt the corrupt edition of Luthers vvoorkes But also by the often altering of the confession of Augusta writen by Luther and Melancthon and accounted as a Gospell amonge the Germane protestantes yea preferred before the Epistles of S. Paul as Alasco a Caluiniste dothe write but yet many tymes altered as ye may see in Andrevv fabritius which hath putt furthe all the editions from the beginning muche differing repugning one from an other by all which appeareth that heretiques doe prepare them selues starting holes for all needes But now to the matter Albeit M. Charke and M. Hanmer doe glose vpon the woordes of Luther wolde haue hym say onelie that the fower gospels were but one gospell and the lyke yet the matter is playne to hym that is not partiall that Luther speaketh in detraction of the three former gospells for whiche cause he sayeth in the place by M. Charke alleaged you may more rightlie call the epistles of Paul a gospell than those things vvhich Mathevv Marke Luke haue vvritten VVhiche signifieth some toothe against these three gospells Now for the last point touching S. Iohns Gospell it is to be seene iÌ„ the preface by me alleaged which yf you can not finde it is not my fault For that such a preface is extant that in latin yf you will not beleeue me reade but the Index of Luthers latin woorkes in Coclaeus where you shall finde it named As also in Gesnerus one of your owne religion in the Cataloge of Luthers woorks fo 504. suae bibliothecae And in that preface you shall reade not onelie so muche as I haue affirmed but also these woordes The epistles of Paul and Peter doe farre passe the three gospells of Mathevv Mark and Luke VVhich yet more proueth Luthers euell opinion of those three gospells And immediatlie it foloweth Iacobi autem epistola prae illis straminea est The epistle of Iames is of straw in respect of those of Paul and Peter which I haue added to shew the intollerable impudeÌ„cie of you your felowes in the Tower against M. Campian for that he could not presentlie shew out of your bookes where these woordes were written by Luther especiallye of M. VVhitaker who to the admiration laughter of all other natioÌ„s hathe set foorthe in latyn that Luther neuer called the Epistle of S. Iames Stramineam
and affirmed that the husband ought to geue consent to his wife in this matter and that yf he refused then shee might prouide for her healthe by secret flyeing from him and goeinge into an other countrie might marie an other This counsaile I gaue when I was yet in feare of Antichrist But now my mynde should be to geue farre other counsaile that is layeing my hands vppon the locks of suche a husbaÌ„d that should so craftelie deceyue a woman I wold shake hym as the prouerbe is and that vehementlie and the same is my Iudgement of the woman also albeit it falleth out more seldome in women than in men to neede this counsaile Now let the reader Iudge whether M. Charke be a true man or no in cutting of the woordes that folowed immediatlie in Luther after the sentence by hym alleaged and notwithstandinge with a moste impudent face to crye out and insult against me as reading a peece of Luthers senteÌ„ce against the manifest purpose of the vvriter can this be excused from extreme impudencie and moste willfull falsehoode against his owne coÌ„science Lett hym defend this yf he can with all the helpes and deuises of his felowes or else lett the reader by this one point of open dishonestie discouered Iudge of the rest of their dealings with vs of their slaundering of vs without all coÌ„scieÌ„ce in their sermons where they are sure not to be controlled Lutheâ— goeth on to inueigh against that husband that wolde not in this case permitt his wyfe to lye with an other he being not hable to serue her turne hym selfe coÌ„cludeth egregie deberee solucre eiusmodi imposturam that he ought to pay sweetly for deceauing her so And in an other place he sayeth that yf a man haue tenne vvyues or more â—ledde froÌ„ hym vpon like causes he may take more so may vvyues doe the lyke in husbands VVhereupon Alberus one of your owne religion noteth that IOHANNES Leidensis tooke many wyues and one KNIPPERDOLLINGE tooke thirtene for his parte So that this doctrine was not onelie taught but also practized vpon Luthers authoritie The fifthe dostrine Fyftlye Luther is reported to teache Yf the vvyfe vvill not come let the mayd come To this M. Hanmer answereth You â—ather vpon Luther an impudent slaunder being not in deede his ovvne vvordes but alleaged by hym as spoken by an other M. Charke graunteth them absolutelye to be Luthers owne woordes but seeketh an interpretation for Luthers meanyng sayeing In this place Luther speaketh of a thyrd cause of diuorse vvhen the vvomaÌ„ shall obstinatlye refuse her husbands companie So that these men doe litle care what they answer so they say somewhat and we may see how trymlye they doe agree But the truthe is they are Luthers owne wordes deliuered to the husband to vse to his wyfe as the woordes before were for the wyfe to vse against her husband and they can not be excused eyther by M. Hanmers shamelesse deniall or by M. Charks impartinent interpretation thus they stand in Luther Hic nunc oportunum est vt maritus dicat si tu nolueris alia volet si domina nolit adueniat ancilla Here now is oportunitie for the husbande to say to the wyfe yf you will not an other will yf the mistresse will not lett the handmayde come And that this was practized in Germanie to all kynde of lasciuiousenesse yea among the ministers them selues Sebastian flaske a preacher once of Luthers owne familie doeth testifie And when you are not a shamed to defend the doctrine you are more bolde than the Lutherans them selues who for verie shame doe suppresse the Germane booke wherein it was written as Cromerus a Germane testifieth And Smideline hathe no other waye to answere it against Staphilus but to aske vvhy Luther might not retract this as S. AusteÌ„ dyd maniâ— thinges but yet proueth not that euer he offered to recant it Now whereas you seeke to couer this dishonest doctrine of your prophet by alleaging two positions of the Catholiques about deuorse in mariage as absurd in your sight as this the one that a man may deuorce hym selfe from his vvyfe for being a bondvvoman yf he kuevv it not before the mariage the other that he may do the same for couetousnes in her by Peter lombards opinion the first is true allowed by all lawes of nature Ciuill and Canon that vpon great reason for that he which marieth a bondwoman vnwittinglie leeseth his free choyse by ignorance nor can not haue power ouer her bodie as mariage requireth she beyng in bondage to other Also he can not beget childeren but bonde cum partus sequatur ventrem And coÌ„sequentlie can not bring them vpp at his pleasure nor instruct them necessarilie which things doe repugne to the state of mariage The second albeit it be but the sayeing of one man yet his meanyng is that yf this couetousnes or other notoriouse vice of the wyfe should break out to the husbands notable dammage or daunger as yf she should fall to stealing or the like then he might dimittere eam as lombards woordes are that is dimisse her from his companie but not dissolue the knott of wedlock as bothe S. Thomas doeth expounde it 3. p. q. 59. art 6. and Dominicus Sotus in 4. sent dist 39. art 4. But yet what are all these things to the lasciuiouse doctrine of Martin Luther The last fovver doctrines The other fower doctrines foloweing for that you graunâ— them as they lye think them sownd enough to â—tand with your gospell I nede not to repeat in particular or alleage other places where Luther holdeth the same By your Censure they are curraÌ„t Catholique and good But yet in the first where you preferre matrimonie before virginitie yt may be noted of the reader for examples sake how farre you differ from the spirit of the primatiue churche whiche condemned this position as an intolerable heresie in IOVINIAN and others onelye to make equall matrimonie with virginitie as appeareth by S. Ierome in his two moste learned and vehement bookes against Iouinian and by S. Augustin recounting the 82. heresie of his time And by S. Ambrose also in his epistle to Syricius the pope and by other fathers And yf this auncient churche whiche our aduersaries in woordes will graunt to be the true and pure churche dyd detest this heresie in IOVINIAN HELVIDIVS BASILIDES I mean to affirme matrimonie paris esse meriti cum virginitate as their woordes are that is to be of equall meritt with virginitie what wolde the same churche doe to M. Luther M Chark for preferringe mariage before virginitie And yf to omitt all others S. Cyprian Athanasius Basil Ambrose Chrisostom and S. Augustin did write whole books in commendation and preferment of virginitie aboue all other states of lyfe comparing it to the lyfe of Angels and affirming the dignitie thereof to be incomparable what
others haue greatlie to reioyse for that you shew your selfe in your replie a moste zealous Puritane But now after all these matters discussed M. Charke to discredit all that hitherto had bene sayde bringeth in a false reporte of Lyndan as he sayeth touching the fowle deathe of Martin Bucer in Cambrige And for proofe hereof he alleageth a sentence of M. Carre then a protestant in his epistle to M. Cheeke a protestant also contayning some commendation of the death of M Bucer But I ask you M. Charke why doe you accustome to belye men so haue you no conscience in so doyngs For shame reporte as you fynde and no otherwyse Lyndan auoucheth it not as you saye But onelie he reporteth as he had heard for his woordes are these Mâ—rcatores quidaÌ„ Coloniae non ignobiles narrant certaine woorshipfull marchantes of Colen doe report you see he auoucheth it not whie showld you him belie so falselie as you doe I haue noted now this in you diuers tymes I hope yt will doe you good against you write agayne And this of the report But for the matter yt is of small importance how soeuer yt be For as Lyndans authoritie were litle auaylable against you yf he had affirmed yt as he dothe not so M. Carrs authoritie writing at suche a time and vpon suche occasion and for suche an end and to suche a man as he dyd is not of great weight with me for the deniall Lett the matter be as it will it litle importeth vs. Yet one historiographer of our tyme doeth wryte that some of Bucers owne disciples haue reported that he dyed a Iewe denyeing Christ to be the Messias VVhat soeuer his deathe was Martin Luther writeth that he was a verie vntrue and wicked man yea more then that that he was a verie Monster And for his constancie in doctrine you haue litle cause to bragge so of hym For first of a Dominican fryar he became a Lutheran After that he bacame a Zuinglian as appeareth ep ad Norimb ep ad Essingenses And thirdlie in the Sinod Holden at Luthers house in wittenberge the yere 1536 he came backe agayne to be a Lutheran recantinge openlie bothe the article of baptisme of infants to be vnnecessarie as he had written before vppon the third chapiter of S. Mathewes gospell and also the article of the supper as he testifieth of hym selfe vpon the sixt of Iohn and 26. of Mathew VVhere he asketh pardon also of God and of the Churche for that he deceyued so manye with the heresie of Zuinglius as he calleth yt and yet notwitstanding a litle before in his epistle to them of Norimberge he affirmeth the doctrine of Zuinglius to be moste diuine and deliuered immediatlye by Christ from heauen and Luthers doctrine to be new and repugnant to the scriptures Also in his epistle ad Essingenses he calleth the Lutheranes fanatical and furiouse teachers But dyd this thyrd or fowerth recantation holde thinke you no surelie For coÌ„ming into England he bacame a Zuinglian agayne as you will not denye and in that opinion dyed as you saye but I thinke he might dye a Iewe well enough as pontacus writeth for any reason I see to the contrarie For he whiche had so many times chaunged his faythe seemeth to haue had no religion at all by lykelyhode in his harte and therfore might easilie bothe dowt and wauer not onâ—lie in pointes of the Catholique Lutherane and zuinglian religion but also of the Messias and Christ hym selfe as diuerse wryte that some of his scholars haue reported VVherfore thoughe I passed ouer this man as scarse worthie mentioninge yet haue you gayned litle by bringinge hym in as farre as I can see And therfore lett vs now returne to the Censure againe Of the Iesuites doctrine THE CENSVRE Fourthlie you vvill needes bringe the Iesuits in discredit by certaine blasphemous doctrines vvhich yovv saye they holde in a booke vvritten by common consent called Censura Coloniensis out of vvhich you haue for example sake put dovvne thirtiene blashemies in their ovvne verie vvordes as you say noting the leafe and adding the cleane contrary doctrine out of the vvoorde of God And that men should knovve that you deale playnlie and bring their verie vvordes and no sillable of your ovvne you haue put their sayeings dovvne in a differeÌ„t Romane letter But M. Chark in brotherlye charitie let me reaso the maâ—ter a litle vvith you Are you not ashamed of this falsehode dyd you not think that this your booke might be examined by some man or other in dede you haue all the printes to your selues and your searchers are so vvatchefull as nothing caÌ„ passe their hands to the discoueryng of your doeings therefore you may boâ—h saye and print vvhat you vvill And our eares may vvell burne on this syde the sea our harts revv at the shameles vntruthes vvhich vve heare see vttered there among you dayly But vve can not remedye it this that I vvrite novv I make accompt yt may asvvell perishe as diuers things of greater importance haue done heretofore But surelie me thynketh a vvyse man that had care of his soule might see the light at a litle hole descrie the coÌ„clusion by a fevv premisses If you in so short a pamphlet vtter so many so manifest so inexcusable vntruthes as I vvill novv shevv vvhich notvvithstanding you might reasonablie doubt least perhaps they might be disclosed vvhat vvill you and your felovves dare auouche in your sermoÌ„s speeches and discourses vvhich you are sure shall neuer come to examination But novv lâ—tt vs consider these vvicked blasphemies of the Iesuits vvith vvhome yf you haue dealt truelie and honestlie then let all be beleeued vvhich you speake dayly of vs. Yf you haue done othervvyse then the same malice vvhiche droue you to abuse your selfe tovvardes them may also iustelye be suspected in the rest of youre doeings and sayeings tovvards vs. THE DEFENCE Sir william in this place as a byrd taken by the legge for lyeing a fether or two pulled of his pryde by exaggeration of the â—ame beateth hym selfe greatlie to gett out and thrusteth his head in euerie hole to be gone And first he sayeth I haue reported moste intolerable slaunders of Martin Luther vpon the credit of three or fovver vvitnesses And why then might not he reporte these things of the Iesuits vpon the credit of one Gotuisus But the differeÌ„ces of these matters shall appeare after And how I haue iustifyed bothe my selfe and my Authors in my reportes about Luther the reader hathe now seene Yf M. Charke can discharge hym selfe so he shall passe blamelesse Secondlie he sayeth I haue made fovver lyes vvithout shame in one sentence For sayeth he vve haue not all the printes to our selues as may appeare by this your booke imprynted Our searchers are not so vvatchefull as nothing can passe for this your booke hathe passed VVe can not saye or prynt
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.
Augustin hath written but one booke of this matter I wolde gyue a good thing that I were by you whyle you reade this to see whether you can blushe or no. But yet I call backe my wishe agayne For I thinke you wolde make me more a fearde than I you a shamed for that your Purseuantes are stronger than our argumentes And this is but concerning the quotation of S. Augustin for about the text it selfe M. Charks behauioure is a great deale worse and suche in verie deede as yf a man had care of his owne sowle he wolde neuer trust suche a felow more that against all honestie trueth shame and respect bothe of conscience â—redit falsifieth so learned a fathers writinges against his plaine and euident woordes and meaning For whereas S. Augustin alleaged by the Censure in many places else of his woorkes sayeth auoucheth confirmeth and proueth that Concupiscentia iam non est peccatum quando â—lli ad illicita opera non consentitur concupiscens nowe in the regenerate is not sinne when consent of mynde is not yeelded to vnlaufull woorks M. Chark answereth S. Augustins place is expounded by him selfe afterward sayeing CoÌ„cupiscence is not so for gyuen in baptisme that it is not synne but that it is not imputed as synne this seemeth plaine and Augustin appeareth contrarie to hym selfe But what is the principall woorde in this sentence that maketh moste for M. Charke The word Synne you will say for that being taken away in the former clause the sentence maketh quite against hym VVell then that woorde hathe he added of hym selfe and yet hathe corrupted the whole senteÌ„ce besides For S. Augustines woordes are these quaeritur c. si in parente baptizato potest esse concupiscentia peccatum non esse cur eadem ipsae in prole peccatum sit The question is sayth S. Augustin whie this concupiscence is sinne in the childe before it be baptized yf it be no sinne in the parent nowe baptized heere you see by the way that it is holden as a matter out of doubt that concupiscence is no sinne in the parent whiche is baptized and the reason S. Augustin yeedelth immediatlie in the answer sayeing Ad haec respondetur dimitti concupiscentiam carnis in baptismo non vt non siâ— sed vt in peccatum noÌ„ imputeâ—ur quamuis reatu suo iam soluto manet tameÌ„ c. To this is answered that the coÌ„cupiscence of the fleshe is forgeuen in baptisme not that it is not or remayneth not but that it is not imputed into sinne Yt remaneth still though the guylt be taken awaye Heere now we see that S. Augustin affirmeth onelie that concupiscence is not quite taken awaye by baptisme but yet the guilt thereof is so that it is no more imputed into the nature of a sinne The cause whie it is left he vttereth in diuers places as when he sayeth ad agonem manet non sibi ad illicita consentientibus nihil omnino nocitura Concupiscence remaneth to fight withall but yet in such sort as it can hurt vs nothing at all yf we coÌ„sent not to her vnlaufull suggestioÌ„s Secondlie we see that S. Augustin in this verie place proueth directlie our verie position that concupiscence in the baptized is not sinne also that it hath no guilt and that it doeth hurt nothing vvithout consent vvherby M. Charkes lacke of Iudgement and shame may be noted in bringing this place of all others against vs adding that hovv soeuer the Iesuits distinguish yet these sinnes the first motions of concupiscence â—vhich by the Iesuits doctrine are so called figuratiuelie except vve fynde mercie vvill fynde no figuratiue condemnation Thyrdlie vve may beholde and lament the pityfull desperate resolutioÌ„ of our aduersaries whoe seing and knoweing their owne vveaknes yet to couer their miserie dare abuse forge and falsifie playne authorities as in this place this shamelesse creature hath done in so many points For first vvhere as S. Augustin sayeth Concupiscence is forgyuen in baptisme he translateth concupiscence is not so forgyuen in baptisme Secondlie vvhere as S. Augustine saythe it is forgyuen not that it be not or remaine not he traÌ„slateth not that it is not sinne Thirdlie for imputed into synne he traÌ„slateth imputed as sinne Fowerthlie he cutteth of the woordes immediatlie goeing before where S. Augustin sayeth concupiscence in the parenâ— baptized is no synne as also the voordes immediatlie foloweing and affirming that concupiscence remayneth but vvithout guilt and consequentlie can not be sinne Hathe this man anye conscience any trueth any good meaning any sparke of grace seeketh he to instruct or to deceyue to proue and defend or to couer dissemble Is this he whiche protested suche sinceritie in his dealing as before God and Angels is this the credit of a puritane protestant O how miserable are those people whiche hange their soules vpon the trust of such disseÌ„bling and deceyuing men And this for the fyrst place cited by M. Charke for his sentence of S. Augustin for he citeth two chapiters in one booke the first thereof hath as you haue seene the other hath no one woorde tendinge that waye but cleane to the contrarie For S. Augustin layeth downe proueth our position of purpose in muche more ample and vehement maner than I can against M Charke and sheweth it also by examples how the Apostle called concupiscence sinne improperlie vocatur peccatum quia peccato facta est cum iam in regeneratis non sit ipsa peccatum Si autem vocatur lingua locutio quam facit lingua manus vocatur scriptura quam facit manus Concupiscence is called sinne because it is made in vs by originall sinne whereas it selfe is not sinne now in the regenerate euen as the speeche whiche the tongue maketh is called the tongue and the writinge whiche the hand maketh is called the hand The verie same hath S. Augustin against Iulian the pelagian towching S. Pauls calling of concupiscence sinne whiche in deede properlie is no sinne except consent be yeelded thervnto as there S. Augustin proueth by the woordes of Paul hym selfe VVherfore M. Charke doeth fraudulentlie alleage his woords against the same Iulian to proue that all concupiscence is sinne For S. Augustin sayeth onelie of concupiscence in generall that it is synne and the punishement of synne and the cause of synne whiche is true of concupiscence in generall as it comprehendeth all her braunches and all estates of men for concupiscence is the punishement of sinne in all men In them that gyue consent it is the cause of sinne in them that are not baptized it is sinne it selfe whether they gyue consent or no. But yet is it not nedefull that all these points should be verified in euerye particular braunche of concupiscence as for example Manslaughter in generall comprehendeth murder chaunce medley execution by Iustice and the like and in respect of these braunches a man may say
truelie manslaughter is vvicked and prohibited by godâ— lavve And againe manslaughter is good and commended by gods lavve for bothe these are verified in some of her braunches So in respect of diuerse braunches of concupiscence S. Augustin might saye concupiscence is synne the punishement of synne and the cause of synne But yet this is not true in euerie particular braunche of concupifcence and namelie of that braunche we now dispute of that is of concupiscence in the regenerat without consent as a man can not saye that euerye manslaughter is good nor that euerie manslaughter is euill And the cause why S. Augustin vsed this sentence against Iulian was for that Iulian dyd prayse concupiscence as a thing commendable for that it was a punishement of God sor sinne But S Augustin refuteth that sheweing that concupiscence in generall is not onelie a punishement for synne but sometimes also and in some â—eÌ„ it is sinne it selfe the cause of sinne thersore an euill thinge though no sinne without consent For so he sayeth against the same Iulian. Quantum ad nos attinet sine peccato sen per essemus donec sanaretur hoc maluÌ„ si ei nâ—nquam consentiremus ad malum sed in quibus ab illo rebellame eâ—si non lethaliter sed venialiter tamen vincimur in hiis contrahimus vnde quotidie dicamus Dimitte nobis debita nostra â— As for vs that are baptized we might be allwayes without sinne vntill that day when this euill coÌ„cupisceÌ„ce shall be healed that is in heaueÌ„ yf we wolde not consent vnto yt to euill But in these things wherein we are ouercome by this rebelliouse concupiscence veniallie at least though not mortallie by these I saye we geather matter daylie to saye forgyue vs our trespasses Heere Loe S. Augustin proueth concupiscence to be euill against the pelagian yet not to be sinne without consent against the protestant Thyrdlie that accordinge to the mesure or degree of coÌ„sent yeelded it may be ether veniall or mortall sinne against M. Charke a litle before obstinatlie denyeinge this distinction of sinnes And finallie S Augustin doeth not onelie proue this our pâ—sition purposelye in almoste infinite other places of his woorkes but also in his second booke against Iulian doeth confirme it by the vniforme consent of other fathers of the Churche as of S. Ambrose Nazianzen and others VVhat then shall we say but onelye pittie william Charke whiche fyndeth Augustin the doctor as hard against hym in all pointes as Augustin the monke The woordes of Christ alleaged by you to ouerthrow our position to witt euerie one that shall see a vvoman to lust after her hathe novv committed adulterie vvith her in his hart are truelie sayd of the Censure to be alleaged by you bothe ignorantlie against your selfe Fyrst for that the woorde hart there expressed importeth a consent without whiche nothing defileth a man as may be gathered by Christ his owne woordes in an other place sayeing that the things which defile a man doe procede froÌ„ the hart Secondlie for that the woordes import a voluntarie looking vppon vvomen to that ende to be inflamed with lust as bothe the latin muche more the greeke and Syriake textes insinuate and S. Chrisostom interpreteth hom 8. de poenitentia as S. Augustin also expoundeth them sayeinge qui viderit mulierem ad concupiscendam eam id est hoc fine hoc animo attenderit vt eam concupiscat quod est plene consentire libidini He that shall see a woman to lust after her that is shall looke vpon her to this end and with this mynde to lust after her which is in deede fullie to consent vnto the lust Now what replieth Sir william to all this surelie nothing but maketh along idle speake of praedicatum subiectum as pertinent to the matter as charing crosse to byllingsgate And in the end to quite the Lorde as he saythe moste carefullie from synne he alleageth S. Iames sayeing that God tempteth no man but euerie man is tempted dravven and allured by his ovvne concupiscence and then concupiscence vvhen it hathe conceyued bringeth furth synne But what is this against vs Doe we charge God with this sinne of coÌ„cupiscence when we denie it to be sinne at all except onelie when a man consenteth to it or rather doe you charge God withe it when you affirme it to be sinne as it is of nature without consent are we or you they that make God author of sinne is not Caluin condemned of our churche for this impretie a doeth he not holde that God is author of sinne in diuers places of his woorkes b Doeth he not condemne S. Augustin by name for holdinge the contrarie c Doeth not Peter Martyr his scholer holde the same How then talke you of quitting carefullie the Lorde from synne as though he were charged or accused therof by vs what hypocrisie what dissimulation what falshode is this in you Now the place of S. Iames as commonlie all other thinges that yow alleage maketh singularlie against your selfe Heare S. Augustins exposition argument whiche proueth our position out of the same woordes Cum dicit apostolus Iacobus vnusquisque tentatur a concupiscentia sua abstractus illectus deinde concupiscentia cum cònceperit parit peccatum profecto in hiis verbis partus a pariente discernitur Pariens enim est concupiscentia partus peccatum Sed concupiscentia non parit nisi conceperit non concipit nisi illexerit hoc est ad malum perpetrandum obtinuerit volentis assensum VVhen the apostle Iames sayeth euery one is tempted drawen awaye and Intised by his owne concupiscence afterward concupiscence when it hathe conceyued bringeth furthe sinne surelie in these woordes the childe is distinguished from the mother the mother that beareth is concupiscence the childe borne is sinne But concupiscence beareth not except she conceyue and she conceyueth not except she obtaine the consent of hym which is willing to doe euill Now goe M. Charke and acquite your selfe of grosse follie and ignorance whereof you are conuicted which wolde so carefullie quitte the Lorde of that wherewith we neuer meant to charge hym Of the first motions of concupiscence THE CENSVRE Thyrdlie you reporte the Iesuits to saye That the first motioÌ„s of lust are without hurt of sinne CeÌ„s 54. 89. It is moste true and playne as they delyuer it but you by clipping their vvoords make euerie thing to seeme a paradoxe They say the first motions of lust yf they come of naturall instinct only vvithout any cause gyuen by vs are no sinnes so long as vve geue no consenâ— of hart vnto them And the reason is because it lyeth not in vs they being naturall to prohibit them to come no more than it dothe to prohibit our pulse from beating And therfore seing no sinne can be coÌ„mitted vvithout our vvill consent of harâ— as I haue shevved before the first motions
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
Prince or people euen as a man may frame a nose of vvaxe vvhat vvay or to vvhat forme he liste And vvill you of this make them to saye that the holye Scripture is a nose of vvaxe Christ is lykened to a serpent and yet is no serpent Also to a couetous Vsurer and yet is none Nether doth the Scripture committ blasphemie in vsing such similitudes But hovv proue you M. Charke that the scripture maye not be vvrested into manye senses before the rude people as a nose of vvaxe maye be into manye formes Because it is coÌ„trarye saye you vnto the vvordes of Dauid The lawe of the Lorde is perfecte conuerting soules Suerly I vvould you might be feed euen for the sauing of your credit M. Chark to alleage one place vvithout corruptioÌ„ Doe you translate Lex domini immaculata The Lavve of the Lorde is perfecte in sense soe that it maye not be vvrested to a vvroÌ„g interpretation This is maruelous Immaculata signifieth in these countries vnspotted voyde of filthe or dishonestie vvherevvith prophane vvritinges are often times defiled But the lavv of God is deuoyde of all suche thinges and therefore conuerteth soules vvhereas other vvritinges doe often tymes corrupt them But that Immaculata can not be translated perfecte in sense it is euidente by this that euerye sillable and vvorde in Gods Lavve is vnspotted but yet not perfecte in sense muche lesse so cleare as it may not be peruerted to an euill meaninge vvherby your fraudulente translation is discouered THE DEFENCE To auoyde the reproche of belyeing and slaundering the Iesuits in this place M. Charke hath this refuge I appealle sayeth he froÌ„ your Censure to Andradius playne confession He defended the Iesuitesâ— in these poyntes agaynst kemnitius vvhiche you defend agaynst me This Andradius in handlyng this article doeth not at all crye ouâ— as you doe but acknovvlegeth defendeth the matter vvithouâ— suche needles scoffes VVhat scoffes the Censure vseth or what cryeing out there is in this article the reader seeth and can Iudge of your report M. Charke But that you are the same man which you were before that is most false and shameles in your avouchementes it shall nowe appeare You saye heere of Andradius twoo things First that he playnlye confesseth and acknowlegeth the matter Secondlye that he cryeth not owt agaynst kemnitius for this report And for bothe these things you quote Andradius in the hundred fowertie page of his second booke As for the first lett anye man see the place by you quoted and yf Andradius confesse any more of the matter than is sett downe in the Censure it selfe lett hym beleeue you an other tyme vppon your woorde For the second it is to-too impudent For albeit Andradius had not altogether so much cause to take stomach against kemnitius as I haue against you for makyng a greater lye than he dyd as shalbe shewed yet lett the reader vewe ouer but the two pages whiche goe immediatlie before that whiche you cite he shall see nothing els in them but a moste earnest sharpe inuectiue against kemnitius and all other protestaÌ„ts for malitious slaundering and misreporting the â—esuites And among other things Andradius sayeth there that for a greatâ— tyme he tooke pytie of the protestaÌ„ts thiâ—king that they had erred of ignorance But nowe seeyng their malice in forging open lyes against their owne consciences that is which they must needes know and vnderstand to be lyes his affection of compassion was turned into hatred This and much more hath Andradius in that place against kemnitius for shameles lyeing And yet M. Charke sayeth that he cryeth not owt as I doe but câ—fesseth all VVhat may be sayd to such But as I sayed before Andradius had not so much cause of Choler against kemnitius as I haue against M. Charke for that he doeth not onelie report againe an open vntrueth whiche he knewe to be a lye before he repoâ—ted it but also hath corrupted and falsified that lye to make yet a greater lye VVhiche thyng that you may see I will heere laye downe the verie woordes bothe of kemnitius of Gotuisus M. Charkes author for that their woordes are the selfe same and Gotuisus tooke them syllable for syllahle from kemnitius Gotuisus woordes then are these The Iesuites saye that the holye scripture in those thyngs vvhiche it contayneth and settetb forth is as it vvere a nose of vvaxe not yeelding any certaine and immouable sentence but such as may be vvrested into any interpretation Censura Colon. fol. 117. in opere catechestico Canisij fol. 44. For this false report of kemnitius against the Iesuites Andradius falleth into the loÌ„g and vehement inuectiue wherof I spake before But what should I doe heere with VV. Charke or rather what should the reader think of hym for so great a falshoode as in this place he vseth for first he concealeth the quotatioÌ„ of Canisius fol 44 as well in his first book as also in his second replye And the cause heerof is as often hath beene noted before for that the quoting of Canisius according as he found hym quoted in his author wolde haue discouered the lye which M. Chark hoped to conceale by passing ouer Canisius and cyting onelye the Censure of Colen whiche he was sure no man coulde fynde in England And is this dealing excusable Secondlie owt of the large sentence of Gotuisus nowe repeated M. Charke tooke onelie three or fower woordes that seemed most odious and yet falsified too therby to make them more odious For wher as Gotuisus sayeth the Iesuits holde the scriptures to be as it vvere a nose of vvaxe M. Chaâ—ke writeth that the Iesuits saye the holye scripâ—ure is a nose of vvaxe and quoteth for it Censura Colen fol. 117. whiche he knewe was not to be had concealeth purposelie bothe kemnitius Gotuisus and Canisius where the forgerie was to be discouered VVhat shall a man say of this ministers falshood shall we beleeue any longer this puritane protestation of playne and simple dealing in the lord what hypocriticall deceyuing of the reader is this And thus muche for the slaunder and falshoode in reportinge But now to come to the matter it selfe the Censure graunteth that vppon certayne circumstances the Iesuites doe compare the hereticall wreâ—ting and detorting of scripture vnto the boweâ—ng of a nose of waxe into many formes Mary the circumstances of this comparison are these Fyrst that they speake not in respect of the scripture in it selfe but in respect of heretiques and other wicked men which abuse scripture Secondlye they add apud rudem populum qui iudicare non potest This abuse and wrestinge of scripture happeneth commonlie before the rude and ignorant people whiche can not iudge of the deceyt Thirdlye they adioyne vt palpentur vitia principum aut vulgi Heretiques doe it to flatter the princes or people present in theyr vices By whiche woordes
they signifie the fauour of the hearers All these circumstances the Iesuits laye downe when they compare the scripture abused to a nose of waxe wrested And who is so foolishe but will coÌ„fesse that a lewd and wicked man in an ignorant audience where all men fauour his doctrine for that he flattereth them in theyr sinnes maye wrest abuse the holye scripture as men are wonte to bend a nose of wax to what plausible sense it lyketh hym best No mary sayeth M. Chark it can not be For albeit an hereretike may vvrest and peruert the scripture yet S. Peter teacheth that it shalbe to hys ovvne destruction and the scripture notvvithstanding shall remayne perfect and vndefiled As though we did holde the contrarie to this or as though we did impute the wrestinge of the scripture vnto imperfection of gods woorde not to the malice of the wrester or as though we sayd that this wresting were not destruction vnto the wrester VVho euer heard suche kinde of answering he sayeth the scripture may be wrested and peruerted and yet he will euen with these woords answer and refute vs which holde also that it may be wrested He sayethe the very same that we doe and yet will he haue men beleeue that he sayethe the contrary VVhere were your wittes sir william when yow wrote this answer But you storme greatlie agaynst the comparison sayeing shall Iesuits mayntayne this directlie or in directlie in a kâ—ngdome vvhere the gospell is preached VVhat els good syr euen in the kyngdome of you ministers to the confusion of your false named Gospell whiche is nothing els but the letter of scripture peruerted and woorse abused and wrested by yow to all errors and licentiousnes than euer waxen nose was yet bended to diuers fashions It is no fault of holye scripture that wicked men may abuse it For the more excelleÌ„t a thing is the more easie and pernicious is the abuse therof Christ was the excelleÌ„test benefit that euer God gaue vnto this worlde and yet is he called notwithstanding lapis offensionis petra Scandali the stone of offence and rock of scandal not for any fault or imperfection in hym but through the wickednes of suche as abuse that benefit So when S. Ierome dothe call the scripture alleaged corruptlie by Marcian and Basilides euangelium Diaboli the deuills Gospell yeelding this reason that the Gospell consisted not in the vvoordes of scripture but in the sense Also wheÌ„ S. Austen calleth the scripture arcum haereticorum The bowe of heretiques And Ireneus compareth it abused by heretiques to a Iewell stamped with the forme of a dogge or fox In Lykewise when Gregorie Nazianzen compareth it to a syluer skaberd with a leaden swoorde within yt Tertullian to the deceitfull ornaments of harlots Vincentius Lyrinensis to poysoned herbes couered in the apothecaries shoppe vvith fayer titles and superscriptioÌ„s on the boxes where they lye No doubt these fathers meaÌ„t not by suche comparisons to detracte any thinge from the dignitie and excellencie of holie scripture no more than the Iesuits dyd in comparing it to a nose of vvax abused and vvrested by malitious heretiques And I vvolde knovv of M. Charke for that he exaggerateth so muche the indignitie of this comparison hovv he vvill interpret hys holy man Martin Luthers ovvne vvoordes vvhiâ—he after a long discourse to proue that all heresies seeke theyr foundation in scripture are these Quare verum est sicut dicitur Scripturam sanctam esse librum haereticum hoc est eiusmodi librâ—Ì„ quo potissimùm haeretici nituntur VVherfore it is true vvhiche is sayde that the holye scripture is an hereticall booke that is suche a booke as heretiques most of all leane vnto And a litle after Haereseon liber biblia sunt The bible is a booke of heresies Oh that the Iesuites had vsed suche vvoordes hovv vvold VV. Chark and his felovves haue triumphed against them for the same And yet thoughe Martin Luthers fashion vvas to runne ouer the shooes in what soeuer he tooke in haÌ„d I thinke he meant nothing in these vvoordes against the dignitie of scripture For he addeth in the verie place alleaged Scriptura sancta haereseon liber est non sui causa sed istorum nebulonum qui eam deprauant The holie scripture is a booke of heresies not of it selfe but by the meanes of those knaues vvhiche doe peruert yt This is father Luthers swete benediction vppon sacramentaries vvherof I trowe M. Charke will not deny hym selfe to be one And thus you see that the Iesuites haue not onelie trueth and reason on their syde to vse that comparison but also haue examples in this kynde both of auncient fathers and of our aduersaries them selues VVhat intemperat malice then is this of william Charke so to raue against them for this one coÌ„parison vsed without all derogation of Scripture yf they had spoken euill of any scripture in it selfe yf they had reiected any one booke therof as protestants doe many yf they had discredited or defaced any one sentence therof as Luther dothe most odiouslie the whole epistle of S. Iames yf they should saye any booke of the scripture to be written with a profane and ambitious spirit as your D. Fulk doeth of the Machabies yf they should ieste at the Angell Raphaell in the booke of Tobie as M. VVhittaker doeth or fall to that extreme impudencie as to reuyle in open audience any holie person coÌ„mended in sacred wryte as you dyd M. Chark without shame when you called that blessed womaÌ„ of God Iudith vnchaste Iudith in your disputations with M. Campian yf the Iesuites I saye should saye or doe any of these thynges as you are driuen to doe then myght you iustlie accuse theÌ„ drawe theÌ„ into hatred for deprauing of gods woorde But seing they doe not soe but alltogether the coÌ„trarie seyng they defend gods whole woord agaynst you that offerre violence to the same seyng they maintayne the number of bookes which antiquitie hath left theÌ„ the vnwritteÌ„ traditioÌ„s that the Apostles haue delyuered them the Catholiques expositioÌ„s which auncient fathers haue assigned them seyng they nether choppe nor chaunge nor corrupt nor put owt nor coÌ„teÌ„ptuouslie reiecte anie one thing as you doe infinite for maintainyng of your ruynous and most impious cause you endeuour in vayne to discredit them by exaggerating one poore comparison or similitude whiche they vpon occasion vsed to expresse the wickednes of you heretiques that abuse scripture and not to attribute any imperfection to scripture it selfe No man in the world euer spake more reuerentlie of holye scripture than Iesuites doe And whether they seeke to execute it in lyfe as muche as our ministers of England or no let them be iudges that know bothe theyr conuersatioÌ„s I myght heere alleage infinite testimonies owt of theyr workes how with what reuerence they speak of scripture But one place onelie of Canisius
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
wolde they haue sayd yf they had heard the base scurrill impiouse woordes of M. Luther de natura statuum in sese as his owne explication ys that is of the verie nature of these tvvo states in them selues with out respect of abuse or good vse to affirme I saye matrimonium esse velut aurum the state of matrimonie to be as golde and the other state of virginitie and continencie to be vti Stercus ad impietatem promouens Like stinkinge dung promoting to impietie Can any thing be spoken more abiect or more coÌ„tradictorie to the scriptures fathers than this can hell be more opposit to heaueÌ„ thaÌ„ the carnalitie of this apostata to the spirit of all saincts Againe in your second doctrine where you affirme that Christ S. Paul dyd not counsayle but dissuade virginitie to Christians can any thing be more contrary to Christ and S. Paules sayeinges or the auncient fathers interpretation of their woordes I haue no precept from Christ but I geue counsaile sayeth S. Paul he that marieth his virgin doeth vvell but he that marieth her not doeth better Is this to dissuade or to counsail M. Chark There be Eunuches vvhiche haue gelded them selues for the kyngdome of heauen he that can take yt Lett hym take yt sayeth Christ doeth this dissuade or rather prouoke to virginitie coÌ„tinencie Quasi hortantis vox domini est sayeth S. Ierom milites suos ad pudicitiae praemium concitantis qui potest capere capiat qui potest pugnare pugnet superet ac triumphet It is the voyce of our lorde as exhortinge and styrring vpp his soldiours to the rewarde of chastitie he that can take it lett hym take yt he that can fight let hym fight conquer and triumphe VVith S. Ierome do agree all the holy fathers in this exposition And william Charck can not bringe me one in this case to the contrarye that is to speake for preferment of hym and his wyfe before virgins The thyrd doctrine touching the necessitie of a vvoman to euerie man to be as greaâ— as the necessitie of eating drinking or sleeping whiche also importeth that he may not well misse her fower and twenty houres to gether I maruaile you were not a shamed to maintaine especialie yf you add that other sentence of Luther to it verum est profectò eum lenonem esse oportere qui matrimonium fugiat postque marem faeminam coÌ„mixtionis multiplicationis causa deus condidit It is true verilie that he must nedes be a bawde that flyeth matrimony seing God hath created man and woman for copulation and multiplications sake A wyse reason of a lecherouse apostata for by this euery man must eyther couple and multiplie or else be a bawde How say you then of your present superintendeÌ„tes of Canterburie Salesburie will you saye they are bawdes Nay how saye you to all those true holye byshops named before of the primatiue churche as Athanasius Cyprian Ambrose Chrisostom Basil and Austen whoe bothe lyued without womeÌ„ them selues and wrote seuerall bookes in the prayse and commendation of that lyfe were they all bawdes without exception For your last doctrine wherby you holde your selues and all Christians to be as holie and iust as the mother of God and the Apostâ—es vvere I maruaile not For yf you had not this badge of intolerable pride you should not be knowne to be as you are And albeit you wold seeme to mollifie the matter by sayeing all are aequall in respect of Christ notvvithstanding there may be inequalitie in their guysts Yet Luthers woordes are plaine omnes Christiani aeque sancti sunt ac mater dei all Christians are as holie as the mother of God And to exclude your glose of inequalitie of guyfts he addeth pares sumus Petro Paulo deiparae virgini bonaque omnia habemus taÌ„ largiter quam illi vve are equall to Peter and Paul to the mother of God and we haue all goodnesse as plentifully as they had Yf all M. Charke then was there no inequalitie in measure as vnder hand for a mollifycation you would seeme to graunt but yet in deede you may not in this our case For we talke of the measure of those thinges onelie whiche make men more iust and holie that is of grace and merit The whiche yf you graunt to be more in measure in the saincts than in your selues then graunt you them to be more holie and so flatt against your owne position here defended Yf you denie yt make them no more holy theÌ„ your selues or any other Christians as in deed you doe then besides the apparent absurditie of the thinge haue you against you S. Ciprian de disciplina virg S. Ierom. li. 2. cont Iouin S. Augustin de S. virg cap. 26. And Theodoret in c. 15. ep 1. ad cor whiche proue of purpose bothe by scriptures examples and theological reasons that the merites of men and revvardes are vnequal Also S. Ambrose in ca. 6. Luc. S. Chrisostom hom 22. in ep ad hebr S. Augustin l. 22. de ciuit ca 30. And S. Gregorie hom 15. in Ezech whiche proue expresselie the in equalitie of grace geuen to men in this lyfe and different glorie correspondent to the same grace in the next Also you haue against you all the primatiue churche whiche condemned your opinion for a flatt heresie in Iouinian as S. Augustin testifieth in heresi 82. and S. Ierom. l. 2. coÌ„tra Iouin which church also condeÌ„ned the same heresie in a Councell of Aphrica called Thelense almoste twelue hundred yeres gone approued by S. Ambrose in an epistle of his to Siricius the pope where also he addeth agrestis vlulatus est diuersoruÌ„ gradus abrogare meritorum yt is a barbarouse howling to abrogate the degrees of diuersitie of merits And the same Ambrose answereth your friuolouse obiection that God is no acceptour of persons thus Acceptor deus personarum non est sed meritorum atque virtutum God is no acceptor of persones but yet an acceptor of merites and vertues Finallie albeit you rayle at Dionysius Areopagita for this matter calling hym bastard Denice whose legitimation besides infinite other testimonies was acknowleged in two generall councels not muche lesse than a thousand yeres gone yet the matter is playne by experieÌ„ce yf not otherwise For yf he be iust and holie according to S. Iohns definition qui iustitiam facit that workethe rightuousnes which comprehendeth all maner of vertues and iust lyfe then your neighbours I wene will beare witnesse that you ministers are somewhat behinde S. Peter and S. Paul and the mother of God in holynesse and rigtuousnesse of lyfe what soeuer you say in your owne commendation to the contrarye And thus now haue you seene these nyene points alleaged for examples sake owt of martyne Luthers doctrine which M. Charke calleth diuine and cleare doctrine defended by hym faithefully as