serueth their turnes for the tyme. So Martin Luther after he had denied all testimonie of man besides hym selfe he beginneth thus aboute the number of Sacramentes Principio neganda mihi sunt septem sacramenta tantùm tria pro tempore ponenda First of all I must denye seuen sacraments and appoint three for the tyme. Marie this tyme lasted not long for in the same place he sayeth that yf he wold speake according to the vse of onelie scripture he hathe but one sacrament for vs that is baptisme But yet the confessioÌ„ of Auspurge whiche pretendeth to folow Luther in all things doeth allowe three by onelye scripture Mary Melancthon whiche professeth onelye scripture more than the rest and wolde seme to knowe Luthers meaning best of all men for that he lyued with hym holdeth fower by onelye scripture and Iohn Caluin holdeth two Agayne by onelie scripture Iohn Caluin fownd the title of heade of the church in king henry to be AntichristiaÌ„ vvhich novve our folovvers of Caluin in England doe finde by onelie scripture to be most christian Mary yet the Magdeburgians by onelie scripture do condeÌ„ne the same still In like sorte by onelie scripture the protestantes defended a greate while against Catholiques that no heretiques might be burned or put to deathe whereof large bookes were written on bothe partes But now our protestants in England hauinge burned some them selues haue fownd as they write that it is euident by scripture that they may be burned Luther by onelie scripture found that his folowers and the Sacramentaries coulde not both be saued together and therefore he condemned the one for arrant heretiques Doctor fulke findeth by the same scripture that bothe partes are good Catholiques neyther of them heretiques Finallie how many things doeth M. VVhittgift defend against T. Cartwright to be laufull by scriptureâ— as byshops deanes archedeacons officialls holy dayes and a hundred more whiche in Geneua are holden to be flatt contrarie to the same scripture So that this appellation to onelie scripture bringeth good case in manie mattâ—rs For by this a man maketh hym selfe Iudge and Censurer not onelie of all fathers doctors councels histories examples presidents customes vsages prescriptions and the like but also of the bookes of scripture and sense it selfe reseruing all interpretation vnto hym selfe But Catholiques albeit they gyue the soueraigntie to scripture in all things yet bindinge theÌ„ selues to other things beside for the better vnderstanding of the meaning of scripture as to councels auncient fathers tradition of the Apostles and primatiue churche with the lyke are restrained from this libertie of chopping and chaunging affirming and denyeinge allowinge and misliking at theyr pleasures For albeit they hauing wittes as other men haue might drawe some problable apparaÌ„ce of scriptures to theyr owne deuises as euery heretique hitherto hathe done yet the auncient interpretation of holie fathers and receiued consent of the churche not alloweing the same it wold preuaile nothing Mary the selfe-willed heretique that reiecteth all things but scripture and therein alloweth nothing but his owne exposition may runne and range and deuise opinions at his pleasure for he is sure neuer to be conuicted thereof allowinge no man to be iudge of his interpretation but onelye hym selfe or some of hys owne opinion This we see fullfilled in all heretiques and sectaries that now lyue whome it is vnpossible so to conuince by onelye scriptures but they will alwayes haue some probable shew whereby to defend them selues and theyr owne imaginatioÌ„s M. Charke therfore chanting so muche vpon this point of onelie scriptures treadeth the pathe of his forefathers and pleadeth for a pryuilege of ease which whether we will allovve hym or no he entreth vpon it of his ovvne authoritie and dravveth scripâ—ure to euerye deuise of his owne braine so violentlie as a man may take coÌ„â—â—ssion to see yt I shall haue many examples hereafter in this ansvver but yet one vvhich is the chefe ground of this his preface I can not omitt After he had proued ovvt of Saincte Iohn that vve must trie spirites and not beleeue euerye nevv spiritt whiche is true he will nedes alleage owte of the same Apostle a full and plaine rule as he termeth it whereby to discerne and trie his oure spirites The rule is this Euery spirit vvhiche acknovvlegeth Iesus Christe to haue come in fleshe is of God and euerye spirit vvhiche dissolueth Iâ—sus is not of God but of Antichriste Here now may be sene what difference there is in exposition of the scriptures For the auncieÌ„t fathers interpreted this place as of it selfe it is most euident â—o be gyuen as a rule against the Iewes which denied Christe to haue taken fleshe Also against Ebion and Cherinthus heretiques nowe gone into the worlde as fore-runners of Antichriste dissoluing Iesus that is denieing his godheade and coÌ„sequently denyeing the sonne of God to haue come in fleshe Martin Luther interpreteth this place to be vnderstoode of M. Charke and his felowes sayeinge That spirit is not of god but of Antichriste vvhich dissolueth Christs fleshe in the sacrament But to vs Catholiques how can it be by anie deuise wrested who neyther denye Christe to haue come in fleshe nor yet do dissolue the name of Iesus by anie doctrine of ours But yet Marke how M. Charke interpreteth this place and coÌ„fesse that he hathe a singular grace in abusing scripture VVhat soeuer spirit sayeth he shall confesse Christe to haue come in fleshe as a prophet alone to teache as papistes doe not teaching traditions besides the vvritten vvoorde also as a kinge alone to rule as papistes doe not defending the popes authoritie also as a preest alone to sanctifye as papistes doe not vpholding the Masse this spirit is of God and the other of Antichriste Is it maruaile yf these men build what they list vppon scripture when they can fovvnde so many absurdities vppon one sentence thereof I wolde here aske first whether M. Chark thinketh that vve exclude Christe vvhen vve allovve prophetes to teache vnder hym kinges to raigne vnder hym preests to sanctifie vnder hym or no If he thinke we exclude Christe he is to fond to reason against sensible men knowing not what they holde But yf he thinke we allowe prophets kings and preests vnder Christe onelie and in hys name how can he call this the spirit of Antichrist doe not the scriptures allowe Prophets and teachers vnder Christe in the churche Ephes. 4. Act. 5 Also kinges and rulers thoughe puritanes wolde haue none 1. Pet. 2. Act. 2 Also may not preestes sanctifie by the woord of God 2. Timo. 4 How then are these things accompted Antichristian doe not protestants teache the same what deepe Mysteries of puritanisme are these Christe is a prophete alone a kinge alone a preest alone Againe I aske what doe the traditions of Christe and his Apostles for of those onelie
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
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
they signifie the fauour of the hearers All these circumstances the Iesuits laye downe when they compare the scripture abused to a nose of waxe wrested And who is so foolishe but will coÌ„fesse that a lewd and wicked man in an ignorant audience where all men fauour his doctrine for that he flattereth them in theyr sinnes maye wrest abuse the holye scripture as men are wonte to bend a nose of wax to what plausible sense it lyketh hym best No mary sayeth M. Chark it can not be For albeit an hereretike may vvrest and peruert the scripture yet S. Peter teacheth that it shalbe to hys ovvne destruction and the scripture notvvithstanding shall remayne perfect and vndefiled As though we did holde the contrarie to this or as though we did impute the wrestinge of the scripture vnto imperfection of gods woorde not to the malice of the wrester or as though we sayd that this wresting were not destruction vnto the wrester VVho euer heard suche kinde of answering he sayeth the scripture may be wrested and peruerted and yet he will euen with these woords answer and refute vs which holde also that it may be wrested He sayethe the very same that we doe and yet will he haue men beleeue that he sayethe the contrary VVhere were your wittes sir william when yow wrote this answer But you storme greatlie agaynst the comparison sayeing shall Iesuits mayntayne this directlie or in directlie in a kâ—ngdome vvhere the gospell is preached VVhat els good syr euen in the kyngdome of you ministers to the confusion of your false named Gospell whiche is nothing els but the letter of scripture peruerted and woorse abused and wrested by yow to all errors and licentiousnes than euer waxen nose was yet bended to diuers fashions It is no fault of holye scripture that wicked men may abuse it For the more excelleÌ„t a thing is the more easie and pernicious is the abuse therof Christ was the excelleÌ„test benefit that euer God gaue vnto this worlde and yet is he called notwithstanding lapis offensionis petra Scandali the stone of offence and rock of scandal not for any fault or imperfection in hym but through the wickednes of suche as abuse that benefit So when S. Ierome dothe call the scripture alleaged corruptlie by Marcian and Basilides euangelium Diaboli the deuills Gospell yeelding this reason that the Gospell consisted not in the vvoordes of scripture but in the sense Also wheÌ„ S. Austen calleth the scripture arcum haereticorum The bowe of heretiques And Ireneus compareth it abused by heretiques to a Iewell stamped with the forme of a dogge or fox In Lykewise when Gregorie Nazianzen compareth it to a syluer skaberd with a leaden swoorde within yt Tertullian to the deceitfull ornaments of harlots Vincentius Lyrinensis to poysoned herbes couered in the apothecaries shoppe vvith fayer titles and superscriptioÌ„s on the boxes where they lye No doubt these fathers meaÌ„t not by suche comparisons to detracte any thinge from the dignitie and excellencie of holie scripture no more than the Iesuits dyd in comparing it to a nose of vvax abused and vvrested by malitious heretiques And I vvolde knovv of M. Charke for that he exaggerateth so muche the indignitie of this comparison hovv he vvill interpret hys holy man Martin Luthers ovvne vvoordes vvhiâ—he after a long discourse to proue that all heresies seeke theyr foundation in scripture are these Quare verum est sicut dicitur Scripturam sanctam esse librum haereticum hoc est eiusmodi librâ—Ì„ quo potissimùm haeretici nituntur VVherfore it is true vvhiche is sayde that the holye scripture is an hereticall booke that is suche a booke as heretiques most of all leane vnto And a litle after Haereseon liber biblia sunt The bible is a booke of heresies Oh that the Iesuites had vsed suche vvoordes hovv vvold VV. Chark and his felovves haue triumphed against them for the same And yet thoughe Martin Luthers fashion vvas to runne ouer the shooes in what soeuer he tooke in haÌ„d I thinke he meant nothing in these vvoordes against the dignitie of scripture For he addeth in the verie place alleaged Scriptura sancta haereseon liber est non sui causa sed istorum nebulonum qui eam deprauant The holie scripture is a booke of heresies not of it selfe but by the meanes of those knaues vvhiche doe peruert yt This is father Luthers swete benediction vppon sacramentaries vvherof I trowe M. Charke will not deny hym selfe to be one And thus you see that the Iesuites haue not onelie trueth and reason on their syde to vse that comparison but also haue examples in this kynde both of auncient fathers and of our aduersaries them selues VVhat intemperat malice then is this of william Charke so to raue against them for this one coÌ„parison vsed without all derogation of Scripture yf they had spoken euill of any scripture in it selfe yf they had reiected any one booke therof as protestants doe many yf they had discredited or defaced any one sentence therof as Luther dothe most odiouslie the whole epistle of S. Iames yf they should saye any booke of the scripture to be written with a profane and ambitious spirit as your D. Fulk doeth of the Machabies yf they should ieste at the Angell Raphaell in the booke of Tobie as M. VVhittaker doeth or fall to that extreme impudencie as to reuyle in open audience any holie person coÌ„mended in sacred wryte as you dyd M. Chark without shame when you called that blessed womaÌ„ of God Iudith vnchaste Iudith in your disputations with M. Campian yf the Iesuites I saye should saye or doe any of these thynges as you are driuen to doe then myght you iustlie accuse theÌ„ drawe theÌ„ into hatred for deprauing of gods woorde But seing they doe not soe but alltogether the coÌ„trarie seyng they defend gods whole woord agaynst you that offerre violence to the same seyng they maintayne the number of bookes which antiquitie hath left theÌ„ the vnwritteÌ„ traditioÌ„s that the Apostles haue delyuered them the Catholiques expositioÌ„s which auncient fathers haue assigned them seyng they nether choppe nor chaunge nor corrupt nor put owt nor coÌ„teÌ„ptuouslie reiecte anie one thing as you doe infinite for maintainyng of your ruynous and most impious cause you endeuour in vayne to discredit them by exaggerating one poore comparison or similitude whiche they vpon occasion vsed to expresse the wickednes of you heretiques that abuse scripture and not to attribute any imperfection to scripture it selfe No man in the world euer spake more reuerentlie of holye scripture than Iesuites doe And whether they seeke to execute it in lyfe as muche as our ministers of England or no let them be iudges that know bothe theyr conuersatioÌ„s I myght heere alleage infinite testimonies owt of theyr workes how with what reuerence they speak of scripture But one place onelie of Canisius
shall serue for this tyme. He hath wryten two large and learned volumes of the corruptions of gods woorde by the heretiques of our tyme where he hath these wooâ—des Est ergo verbum dei c. VVherfore the vvoorde of God is as holie scripture conteyneth the knovvleige of saluatioÌ„ the cleare lanterne and shynyng lampe it is the hydden mysterie the heauentlie Manna the pure and proued golde the learnyng of Saints the doctrine of all spirit and trueth the loking glasse the liuelye fontayne the sealed booke vvhich booke vvho soeuer doe vse vvell they are Gods scholars they are spirituall they are vvyse they are iust they onelye are made the freendes and heyres of almightie God These are Canisius a Iesuites woordes And doe these men speak baselye of scriptures as M. Chark heere accuseth them But now we come to examine the text alleaged by M. Chark agaynst the Iesuites to wytt Lex domini immaculata the law of our Lord is vnspotted or vndâ—filed which M. Charke wolde haue to signifie that the scripture is so perfect playne in sense as no wicked man may wrest or abuse the same For whiche absurd reasoninge and wrestinge of scripture he being now reproued by the Censure heare what he answereth and how he defendeth hym selfe The Censure sayeth he supposeth me to haue but one Byble and that of the olde translation onelie vvhich hathe the lavve of the Lord is vndefiled c. but the original hath the lavve of the Lord is perfect And the best translations haue so translated it your olde translation goeth alone The 70. folovv the rest Heere you see that M. Charke bryngeth diuers reasons for his defense First that he hath diuers Bybles in his house and that of diuers translations Secondlie that the original or hebrew text of this verse in the Psalme hath not immaculata that is vndefiled or vnspoted but rather perfect in that sense as he defendeth it Thirdlie that all the best translations haue it so and that our olde translation differeth from them all Fouerthlie that the septuagint or seuentie greke interpretours are also against vs here in This is all M. Charkes defense But here by the waye wolde I haue the reader to Marke how muche M. Charke getteth to hys cause Yf I should graunt hym all that he hathe here sayd surelie he should gayne onelie that the law of God is perfect And is this against any thinge that we saye or holde or is it against the signification of the woord immaculata in the olde latin translation whiche he impugneth Is not a thinge immaculate or vndefiled also called perfect euen as on the contrarie a filthie or defiled thinge is called imperfect If then we should graunt that the hebrew and greeke textes had the woord perfect in them in steed of the latin woord immaculata yet this dothe not condemne the olde translation for vsing the woord immaculata immaculate For that immaculate as hath bene shewed signifieth also perfect from spot mary not perfect in that sense wherin M. Charke talketh and for proofe wherof he alleaged this sentence to witt that because the law of the lorde is perfect therfore the scripture can not be wrested whiche is a most false and absurd illation vppon the worde perfect For S. Paules epistles are persect together withe other scriptures and yet S. Peter sayeth that many men dyd wrest and depraue them But now lett vs consider the seuerall fower pointes of M. Charkes former answer whiche as yow see if wee should graunt vnto him without contradiction yet had he gayned nothing therby But lett vs examine them Touching the first whiche he answereth that is abowt the varietie of Bybles and translations which he hath at home I will not stand or coÌ„tend with M. Chark Let hym haue as many as he please the matter is howe well he vnderstandeth or reporteth those Bybles and not how many he hath The second poynt is false that the hebrew text disagreeth from the olde latin translation as shalbe shewed after The thyrd is fond that all the best translations doe differe from the olde translation heerin For what best or better or other good latin translation hath he than the olde whiche was in vse in gods Churche aboue thirtene hundred yeeres past as may be seene by the citations of the fathers whiche lyued then whiche was afterwarde also ouervewed corrected by S. Ierom which was also so hyghlye coÌ„mended by S. Augustin what other better translation I saye hath william Charke than this auncient which he so contemneth except he will name some latter of our tyme as of Erasmus Luther or the like whiche Beza hym selfe notwithstandinge affirmeth to be nothing lyke the olde traÌ„slatioÌ„ for exactnes The fowerth poynt which he addeth is a shameles lye that the septuagint in greeke doe dissent from the woorde immaculata in the latin For their woorde is AMOMOS which their owne lexicon will expound vnto them to be immaculate innocent irreprehensible To returne therfore in a woorde or two to the originall text the hebrew woorde is TAMAM or TAM which the septuagint doe interpret as you haue heard AMOMOS that is irreprehensible and the auncient latin translation immaculata immaculate And what refuge then can M. Charke fynde heere I doe not denye but that it signifieth also perfect for that what soeuer is irreprehensible and without spott may also be called perfect as hath bene shewed But how doeth this proue that it signifieth to be perfect in sense in suche sorte as it may not be wrested or peruerted In the 118. Psalme where our auncient translation hath beati immaculati in via your owne englysh bible hath translated it M. Charke blessed are those that be vndefyled in the vvaye and the Hebrew and greeke woordes are TAM AMOMOS as in the other text How then doe you rayle at our olde auncient translation for that wherein your new englishe byble doth the verye same the lyke you may see in infinite other places as leuit 3. v. 1. 6. Also Num. 6. v. 14. VVhere sacrifices are appointed to be immaculate according to the auncient tranflation And your englishe byble translateth it so too sayeinge they must be without blemishe where the hebrew and greeke woordes are TAM and AMOMOS as before By whiche is seene that M. Charke careth not whether he runneth what he forgeth or whome he reprehendeth so he maye seeme allwayes to saye somewhat And of all other shyftes this is the last and the easiest and of most credit and least able to be spyed of his reader as he thinketh to inueighe against the olde latin translation when he is pressed vnauoydablye with any place of scripture alleaged For this shyft besides the present couering of the difficultie yeeldeth also some opinion of Learning to his Maister gyuinge men to vnderstand that he is skillfull in the learned tongues whereas God knoweth the refuge is vsed for bare
A DEFENCE OF THE CENSVRE GYVEN VPON TVVO BOOKES of william Charke and Meredith Hanmer mynysters whiche they wrote against M. Edmond Campian preest of the Societie of Iesus and against his offer of disputation Taken in hand since the deathe of the sayd M. Campian and broken of agayne before it could be ended vpon the causes sett downe in an epistle to M. Charke in the begyninge Sap. 3. The sovvles of the iust are in the hande of God and the torment of deathe shall not touche them they seemed to the eyes of foolishe men to dye but neuerthelesse they rest in peace An. 1582. Cum Priuilegio The corrector of the prynt vnto the gentle reader TO the ende this page shoulde not goe emptye I haue presusemed vvithout the Authours knovvlege to put downe for yonge scholers the true declynynge of a Novvne HERETIKE vvhereof vve haue more experience in these dayes than olde Grammaâ—ians hadde I maye chaunce heerafter to sett furthe some examples for declaration of euery parte hereof but in the meane space he that vvill reade but this treatyse follovvynge shall see the moste poyntes verified in M. Charke and his companyons NOMINIS HAERETICI REALIS DECLINATIO Singulariter Nominatiuo Superbus Genitiuo Temerarii Datiuo Mendaci Accusatiuo Pertinacem Vocatiuo Seditiose Ablatiuo Atheo vel Libertino Pluraliter Hij hae Impudentes per omnes casus In English thus The singuler number AN HERETIKE In the Nominatiue or first case to begiÌ„ne withall he is Provvde In the Genetiue case he growethe Malepert In the Datyue case he becometh a â—yar In the Accusatiue case he waxethe Obstinate In the Vocatiue or preaching case he is Seditious In the Ablatiue or endinge case hee proueeth an Atheist or els a Lybertine The plurall number In bothe genders Impudent throughowte all cases THE SETTER FORTH OF THIS booke vnto VVilliam Charke Minister IT maye be M. Charke that you haue expected now somewhat longe or at leastwyse remayned in some suspence of this defence of the Censure or reioynder to your replye VVhich CeÌ„sure being written as I haue heard in eight or nyen dayes space at the most this defence therof hathe now hadde the staye more than of so many monethes before it come to light But the cause therof is easie to Iudge especiallie to you whiche for the most part are priuye to the same In generall euery one can imagine by hym selfe how difficult a thing yt is in England at this daye for a Catholique man to write any book where nether libertie nor rest nor librarie nor conference nor beinge is permitted hym And in particular thus muche I must adde whiche you alredie in part doe knowe that soone after the publishinge of your reply to the Censure the Author therof addressed hym selfe to a defence and had in greate part dispatched the same redie for the printe in suche sort as the rigorous tyme of your persecution permitted hym But God sufferinge at that verie instaÌ„t that the sayd print so long sought and muche feared by you should be taken there was taken lost and dispersed ther-withall not onelie all furniture there redy for this booke but also for sundry other thinges partlie printed and partlie in printing concerning our defence of trueth and equitie against your falsehood and violent oppressions This disturbance and losse beinge fallen owt by gods most holy and fatherlie permission and the Author of the Censure hauing nether tyme nor place nor bookes nor leysure to begynne agayne nor any hope of print when he should haue done the same being also necessarilie called awaye at that verye tyme to a place somewhat farof vppon vrgent businesse he resolued vtterlie to gyue ouer the sayd attempt of defence partlie vppon the difficulties now alleaged and partly for that in very dede your replie M. Charke seemed sufficientlye to answer yt selfe being so obscure in many places as most men without the Censure might not vnderstaÌ„d yt and so weake otherwise as yt needed litle confutation of others These were some causes but in deed as I vnderstand the principall and cheefe cause was for that M. Campian the greatest occasion and subiect of the Censure was now also euen at that tyme faâ—len into your handes according as you had long wished and therfore it was to be looked that accordinge to reason and all your owne promises he should be disputed withall openlie publiklie and freelie and so the cheefe matter of the Censure and your replye without any more writing dispatched and taken awaye But after when it came to hearinge of the worlde abrodeâ— how curteouslie you had vsed this learned man with tormentes bothe before and after hys disputatioÌ„s and how without all indifferencie or law of reasoning you handled hym in your conference in the Tower how finallie you made hym awaye by cruell deathe without any shew or shadow of particular crime committed by hym against prince or countrie and that your selfe M. Charke as a conquerour of your aduersarie folowed hym in person to the place of hys Martyrdome with bygge lookes sterne countenaÌ„ce prowde woordes and merciles behauyour for all these thinges were commonlie reported true it is that diuers godlie men were moued therwithall and the Author of the Censure among other to take in hand agayne the Answer of your booke aswell for the honour of Christ hys martyre now in rest as also for declaration to thâ— worlde of what value you are in reason learninge and weight of argument by writinge whiche are so fearse and violent vpon gods Sainctes at home in deathe and tormentes and so Pompeous in gate and speeche vnto the people for gatheringe or retayninge some credit vnto your cause This I saye shall appeare partelye by thys booke And for these considerations was it taken in hand after the late deathe of Good M. Campian Mary yet as it was like enough to fall owt your spyes searchers and other persecutours disturbed the writer therof before he could end the same as may appeare to the reader by the sight heerof For this parte being come to my handes perceyuing that the authour could not â—or this present goe forward with the rest I thought it best to bestowe this vpon you M Chark therby to fynde you occupyed yf it please you to answer it vntill the other parte also come to be sett forth Thus brokenlie we are enforced to deale through the extremitie of tyme as you see VVherin you hauing gotten the start before vs in the fauour of our Prince you folow the same with such vehemencie and straytnes as you allowe vs no one iote ether of curteousie or humanitie or of reasonable indifferencie You exclude vs from speeche conference writing printing disputing or any other dew tryall of our cause You watche spye searche examine and persecute euerywhere You attache dryue awaye putt in pryson rent on racke put to death those whiche speake or wryte or stand in defence of trueth against you You leaue no Innes
a counceller to an emperour Raskall Staphylus It is vnsitting and argueth excesse of fond and foolishe malice For yf an enemie of mean conditioÌ„ should call an Englishe counceller raskall should he not discouer therby his owne raskalitie and lacke of witt But of all other Martin Luther as the first father of all these new imppes had primitias spiritus the first fruites of this spirit in full measure euen as the Apostles had of the holie spirit to the end he might imparte due portions to his children and successors I could alleage infinite examples in this kynde but that I desire to be shorte and shall haue occasion to touche some part of the same in other places after Onelie as it were for a taste I will cite some fewe owt of his booâ—e writen against oure most noble and famouse king Henrie the eight the moste learned and wittiest prince that euer England had But yet heare what the fuâ—ious spirit of this our new prophet vttered against hym then consider whether he could be of God or no. The booke is extant to be solde in England and I will note the leafe to the ende I may not be imagined to feygne or aggrauate any thing First then in his preface of that to Sebastian Scâ—ike Earle of passune he defaceth his Maiestye intolerablie sayeing that he is an enuious madde foole babling vvith much spettle in his mouthe Then at length comming to the booke it selfe he sayeth that the king is more furious than madnesse it selfe more doltish than folie it selfe endewed with a blasphemouse and rayling mouthe with an impudent and whorishe face full of dastardie without anie one vaine of princelie blood in his bodie a lyeing Sophist compounded onelie of ygnorance and poysoned malice a damnable rotten worme whoe when he could not auoyde the venemouse poyson and Sneuell of his enuie by his lower partes sought occasion to vomyt it vp by his fylthie mouthe it were a shame for anie beastlie whoore to lye as he doeth a basilisk and progenie of an adder to whome I doe denounce sayeth he the sentence of daÌ„nation this madde buggish Thomist miserable book-maker a God latelie borne in England I saye plainlie this HARRYE lyeth manifestelye sheweth hym selfe a moste light scurrill Of this crime doe I luther accuse this poysoned Thomist I talke with a lyeing scurrill couered with the tytles of a king a Thomisticall brayne a clownish witt a doltishe head a bugge and hipocrite of the Thomists moste wicked folish and impudent HARRYE this gloriouse king lyeth stoutelie lyke a king heere now must I deale not with ignorance blockishenesse onelie but with obstinate and impudent wickednesse of this HARRYE for he doeth not onelie lye like a moste vaine scurre but passeth a most wicked KNAVE in detorting of scripture see whether there be any sparke in hym of an honest man surely he is a chosen vessell of the deuyll I would to God pigges could speak to iudge betwene this HARRYE and me But I will take asses that can speake Iudge you yee Sophists of the vniuersities of Paris Louan and Coolen what this HARRIESâ— logike is woorthe I am ashamed HARRYE of thy impudeÌ„t forhead which art no more a king now but a Sacrilegiouse thyefe against Christs owne woordes I will faygne heere certaine kindes of fooles and madde men to the ende I may sett out my king in his coulours and shew that my bedleme king doeth passe all bedlemnesse it selfe VVhat nede had I of suche pigges to dispute withall thow lyest in thy throte foolish and sacrilegiouse kinge this block my Lord Maister HARRYE hathe taughte together with his asses and pygges now he is madde and crieth foemeth at the mouthe neyther could I with all my strengthe make this miserable kinge so filthie and abominable a spectacle to the worlde as he by furie maketh hym selfe what harlot euer durst bragge of her shame as this moste impudent mouthe of his doeth this foole must haue a dictionarye to learne what a sacrifice is Oh vnhappie that I am to be enforced to leese tyme with suche monsters of folie and can not gett a learned man to contend with me I leaue infinite despitefull slaunderouse and scurrile woordes whiche this impudent apostata vseth against his Maiestie and some are so dishonest as I am ashamed to englishe them as vvhere he sayeth Ius mihi erit Maiestatem Angelicam stercore conspergere And againe Sit ergo mea haec generalis responsio ad omnes sentinas insulsissimae huius laruae Againe Haec sunt robora nostra aduersus quae obmutescere coguntur Henrici Thomistae Papistae quicquid est fecis sentinae latrinae impiorum sacrilegorum eiusmodi Sordes istae labes hominum Thomistae Henrici sacrilegus Henricorum asinorum cultus furor insulsissimorum asinorum Thomisticorum porcorum os vestrae dominationis impurum sacrilegum And a hundred moe sentences like VVhereof yf euer good or honest man and muche lesse a prophet vsed the like I am content to be of the protestantes religion but yf neuer ether ruffian or rakehell vsed suche speeche to a prince before then may we be sure that this man was no elect vessell of God whiche hathe no part of his spirit in hym I might heere repeate the like spirit of his in writing against the Caluinists and the Caluinists against hym but that I haue occasion to speake somewhat of it afterward But yet one place I will cite in stead of all the rest and that is of the churche of Tigurine against Luther whose woordes are these Nos condemnatam execrabilem vocat sectam c. Luther calleth vs a damnable and exeâ—rable sect But let hym looke that he doe not declare hym selfe an archeheretique seeing he vvill not nor can not haue anie societie vvith those that confesse Christ. But hovv maruailouslie doeth Luther heere bevvraye hym selfe vvith his deuils vvhat filthie vvoordes doeth he vse and suche as are replenished vvith all the deuills in hell for he sayeth that the deuill dvvelleth bothe novv euer in the ZuynglyaÌ„s and that they haue a blasphemouse breast insathanized supersathanised and persathanized and that they haue besides a moste vayne mouthe ouer vvhich Sathan beareth rule being infused persused and transfused to the same dyd euer man heare suche speeche passe from a furiouse deuill hym selfe Hitherto are the woordes of the Tigurine Caluinistes whiche may easilie refute M. Charks shamelesse lyes in defence of Luther as after shall be shewed And heere would I haue the reader to consider withe what conscience Charke dothe call Luther a holy and deuyne man a litle after and whittaker in his booke against M. Campian callethe hym a man of holy memorye seinge the Tigurine Caluinistes whoe saye their maisters doe call hym an archeheretique and a furious deuyll is not this open disimulation and
blinding of the people but heerof you shall see more after when we come to speake of theyr dissention And this shall be enough of this matter for this time Now we come to examine whether the Iesuites be a blasphemous sect or no as M. Charke calleth them and the Censure denieth for thus it foloweth vpon that whiche went before OF sectes and sectaries THE CENSVRE Mary I cannot let passe to tell M. Charke that to call the Iesuites A blasphemous sect seemeth not onelie levved but also vnlearned And as for their blaphemies they come to be examined after but hovv they may be termed A secte I cannot see For yf liuing more straitlie then the common sort in apparell diet or order of lyfe doe make a sect then not onelie Iesuites but Elias Elizeus Daniâ—l and Iohn Baptist are also to be called sectaries for that they are reported in the scripture to haue led a different and more straite lyfe in those points than the common sorte and yet are commended in scripture for the same But yf sectaries are onelie made as in dede they are by cutting them selues of in opinion of religion from the generall bodie of the Catholiques churche as braunches from the tree and by holding a seuerall faith in religion to them selues then can not Iesuites by your ovvne confession be anie secte vvhoe differ not one Iote in opinion of religion from the vniuersall Catholique churche but as yovv say defend euerye litle point of the same be it neuer so vntrue or absurd in your sight VVherfore vnlearnedlie yovv call them a sect as also vnseemelie yovv skoffe at theyr name of Iesuites vvhiche they chalenge not to them selues nor euer vse it in theyr vvritings or speeche but onelie naming them selues a Societie dedicated peculiarlie to the honouringe of the name of Iesus by preachinge the same in all places of the vvorld vvithout any revvarde and vvith vvhat daunger bodelie soeuer THE DEFENCE The answer to this is somewhat confuse and vnorderlie But I will reduce it to the order heere set downe To the examples alleaged he sayeth As for the exaÌ„ples of Elias Elizeus Daniel and Iohn Baptist they are no lesse vvickedlie than vnlearnedlye alleaged to auovve the Iesuites order This is a hoote entrance as you see ioyned with a manifest cauille For these examples are not alleaged to auow the Iesuites order absolutelie but in one point onelie of different lyfe from the common sorte whiche point notwithstanding is fownd also in other besides Iesuites But marke his reason VVhat are you able sayeth he to bringe out of the vvorde of God vvhie Elias should after more thaÌ„ tvvo thovvsand yeres be brought in for a patrone of friers I answer first as before that these examples are onelye brought to proue that differeÌ„t apparell dyet or straite order of lyfe doe not make sectaries as you haue affirmed and now can not defend and therfore hauing nothing else to say you make these vaine and idle interrogatioÌ„s in steade of proofes For you aske agayne vvhat vvas there in Elias Elizeus or Daniel that may liken them to Iesuits I answere there was to our purpose now in hand different maner of lyfe from the common sort of men whiche notwithstanding made them no sectaries as you wold haue the Iesuits to bee for that cause To this I add which is more than I nede that S. Ierom. proueth plainlie that Elias and Elizeus were the beginners captaines and patrones of Monks and monasticall lyfe whome he calleth for that cause Monachos veteris testamenti monks of the olde testamen The same hathe Sozomenus of Elias L. 1. Hist. cap. 12. Now deale you with these men M. Charke about the matter And as for the number of two thowsand yeres whiche you cite so preciselie as though antiquitie should lett these prophetes to be examples of monasticall lyfe It is an argument woorthie suche a diuine as you are for by that reason nether Adam could be a patrone of maried men nor Abell of Shepheardes nor Cain of husbandmeÌ„ne nor Enoch of citizens nor Iabell of dwellers in Tents nor Iubal of Musicians nor Tubalcain of smithes for that they liued twise as long a goe as Elias dyd And yet the scripture sayth they were begynners and patrones of all these things Genes 2.3.4 To the example of S. Iohn he answereth Iohn Baptist that may seeme to make moste maketh nothing at all for you for that it is to be thought he vvas an extraordinarie a perpetuall Nazarete therfore his calling vvarranted hym for hys austere extraordinarye attyre dieâ— vvhiche restraint or the like is not novv layd vpon those vvhiche teache in the church You alwayes do willfully mistake the question M. Charke For we affirme not that extraordinarie austeritie of lyfe is layd vpon any man of necessitie but onelie that it is lawfull and maketh no sect when it is voluntarie taken and vsed Moreouer yf we graunt S. Iohn were a Nazaret yet that proueth not that all his austeritie of lyfe was layd vpon hym by necessitie of that vocation as may appeare in the booke of Nuâ—bers where the lyfe of a Nazaret is described and Plinie with Iosephus describing the lyfe of Esseans muche harder than the Nazarets doe mention no such great austeritie as the scriptures doe in the lyfe of S. Iohn Baptist. VVherfore though he were a Nazaret yet moste of his austeritie was voluntarie and so might be an example platforme to Monks especially seing Nazaretes also dyd make a religious vowe for theyr dedication to God as our religious people also doe vse as appeareth in the booke of Numbers And finallie that S. Iohn was a Monke of the new testament and a paterne of Monasticall lyfe though this be more than I am bound to proue all these fathers foloweinge doe testifie with one consent S. Gregorie Nazianzen orat de S. Basilio S. Chrisostome ho. 1. in Marc S. Ierome ep ad Eustochium Cassianus collat 18. cap. 6. Sozomenus li. 1. hist. c. 12. Isidorus li. 2. de diuin offic ca. 15. Theophilact in cap. 1. Luc. Nicephorus li. 8. Hist. c. 39. and others Next after these examples he reprehendeth my description of a sectarie sayeing that it bevvrayeth great vvant of learning for that it confoundeth heretiques vvith sectaries and maketh no distinction betvvene the generall and the speciall for all heretiques are sectaries sayeth he but all sectaries are not heretiques For learning heere I striue not lett the opinion therof fall where it best lyketh the reader to place it But in matter of truthe M. Chark is greatlie ouer seene in this place and doeth vnwoorthelie chalenge the credit of a learned man for this answere hauing incurred two grosse errors in the same For first among diuines Ecclesiasticall writers an heretique and a sectarie is all one there is no generall and speciall betwene theÌ„ as he imagineth
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
whiche as well in that place as in the first booke of his retractations c. 13. he proueth moste leardnedlie that originall sinne is voluntarie in vs by the first voluntarie acte of our first father in whiche acte we all dyd sinne voluntarilie that beinge an vniuersall acte of all mankynde contained in Adam as also the Apostle confirmeth sayeing of Adam In quo omnes peccauerunt In whome all haue sinned His second obiection is of the citie of refuge appointed by God among the Israelites for them that had killed a man vnwillinglie whereof he wolde inferre that vnwilling manslaughter is a sinne But I am ashamed of M. Charke that professinge skill in scriptures doeth so ignorantlie alleage them against theyr playne meaninge and against hym selfe For that chapiter sheweth at large how these cities of refuge were appointed amonge the leuits for indifferent triall of manslaughter leaste the next of kynne to hym whiche was slayne called there the reuenger of bloode shoulde reuenge the acte vppon the kyller before the matter were tried But when the thing was now examined in the citie of refuge by sufficient witnesses as the scripture appointeth then yf it were fownd that the slaughter was committed willinglie and of hatred then the murderer was delyuered into the hands of the reuenger of bloode to be slayne for the same But of vnwillinglie and without malice liberabitur innocens de vltoris manu sayeth the text the innocent shalbe deliuered frō the hand of the reuenger But yet he shall not departe from that citie vntill the deathe of the high pryest For that as Rabby Isaac Arameus writeth the highe pryest whose cities these of refuge amonge the Leuits were had interest and dominion vppon this man by the lawe of Leuits during his lyfe for the benefit whiche he had receaued by the place of refuge To whiche also Rabbi Moyses and Rabbi Leui Ierson doe add an other reason for that yf he should haue returned presentlie amōg the kinred of the mā killed his verie sight might haue styrred thē vp to reuengement vppon hym agayne after the triall passed But in the deathe of the high pryest the publique sorowe was so great as all men forgate theyr priuate iniuries and dyd vse commonlie to forgeue one an other all offences saye these learned Iewes And now I aske againe whie M. Charke brought in this exāple Doeth not this make cleare against hym prouinge that manslaughter vnwillinglie done is no sinne but innocencie yf not manslaugter how muche lesse other smaller actions are cleare from sinne when no consent of will is yeelded Against the clause of the definition which sayeth that sinne must wittinglie be committed he obiecteth that M. Howlet in his reasons of refusall doeth acknowlege a sinne of ignorance which I graunt but he speaketh of culpable ignorance whereof a man hym selfe is the cause as his example of persecuting Saul doeth shew whose ignorance although it were not so willfull as of many persecuting protestants at this daye whoe of purpose refuse to know the truthe yet as S. Bernard well noteth it could not be but culpable in hym as also hym selfe doeth confesse For that he being learned in the olde testament yf he wolde haue conferred patientlie with the Apostles he might haue seene that they taught nothing but correspondent to the aunciēt scriptures of God But we speake heere of inculpable ignorance called inuincible by the tearme of schoolemen for that it was not in the doers power to auoyd it nor he fell into it by his owne default As yf an English man being in India in seruice of the Prince should be commaunded by proclamation made in westminster hall to appeare there at a certaine daye and he as not hearyng of the same should not appeare this man is excused by inuincible ignorance And so in all other cases S. Augustin and Chrisostome proue of purpose moste learnedlie that this kynde of ignorance which in deede is onelie proper and true ignorance doeth excuse from sinne Yea God hym selfe proueth it by the example of Abimelech king of Gerare whome he excuseth from sinne for that he had taken awaye Sara Abrahams wyfe vpon ignorance in simplicitie of hart thinking her to be Abrahams sister as the text sayeth The like simplicitie of hart and inculpable ignorance was in Iacob lieing with Lia in stead of Rachell as the Censure sheweth And albeit M. Charke most impiously Ioynynge heerein with Faustus the Manachie dareth condemne the holie Patriarche in a double sinne as Faustus dyd yet S. Austen defendeth notablie this holy mans innocencie bothe against that and this heretique in his two and twentith booke against Faustus through many chapiters together as also in his booke of the Citie of God And with S. Augustin doe take parte S. Iustin the martyr l. de verit Christi religionis and Theodoret q. 84. in generat and lyranus vpon the verie same place of genesis And what one woorde can M. Charke now peepe against all this To conclude therfore though M. Charke hathe picked out certaine obiectiōs of our owne bookes made and answered by our selues against the learned definition of the Iesuits as in deed thay haue no other argumētes but suche as we lende them our selues yet hathe he as you see not infringed but establyshed that definition thereby and hathe bewrayed in hym selfe greate wantes in holdinge that sinne is no acte that no euill men doe sinne but the euill in men that sinne is not voluntarie that it is no humane or reasonable action that it requireth nether vvill nor knovvlege in the doer that fooles madde men may as properlie committ sinne as others for all these are his positions by whiche he may as well defend that beasts and vnreasonable creatures may committ sinne and be sinners which S. Augustine thinketh to be so absurd as no man of common sense will affirme the same But what doe I alleage S. Augustin whome M. Charke reiecteth heere by name about the definition of sinne Let vs returne therfore to the Censure And see what is further brought about this matter THE CENSVRE But novv hovv doeth M. Charke ouerthrovv this doctrine forsoothe thus Contrarie to this sayeth he is the woordes of God 1. Ioh. 3. the transgression of the lawe is sinne You seme to haue made a vovve M. Charke not to deale plainlie in anie one thing Can you not alleage one litle sentence vvithout falsifyeing The vvoordes of S. Iohn are these Euerie one that sinneth committeth iniquitie and sinne is iniquitie Or as you vvill perhappes seeme to enforce it out of the greeke vvoorde ANOMIA Sinne is transgression of the lawe But vvhy haue you fraudulentlie turned it backevvard you knevv vvell the force of transposition out of Sophistrie that it changeth all the meaning of the sentence For yf I say Euerie man is a liuing creature it is true but yf I turne it backevvard