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
so But as well heere as commonlie in all other places you lay downe some inuention or addition of your owne maliceâ— against theÌ„ As for example In this place it is moste false that you affirme of theÌ„ that they take a peculiar vowe to whippe and torment them selues There was neuer any such vowe eyther taken or talked of muche lesse is it true that they take that vovve to doe it as you saye after the example of a sect called by the name of vvhippers condemned long agoe You are a greate enemye to whippers M. Charke and you think yt good sleepinge in a whole skynne I doe not blame you for it Nether are you a greater mislyker of all whippers in generall then I am in particular of those whome you heere name for they were heretiks as you may reade in prateolus and Gerson teaching that the baptisme of water had nowe ceased the baptisme of voluntarie bloode by whipping was ordeined in place therof without which none coulde be saued and therfore they whipped themselues opeÌ„lie teaching also many other heresies beside for whiche they were coÌ„demned And what doeth this make against the sober moderate chastisemeÌ„t which good men vse in secret vpon their owne bodies at such time as they esteeme them selues for mortification to neede the same was there euer honest man but your selfe wolde haue obiected so impertiment a thing in print but you make me laugh when you say a sect condeÌ„ned long agoe How long agoe I praye you M. Charke or by whome were they condeÌ„ned the storye is euideÌ„t they beganne in Italie about the yere of our Lorde 1273. vnder pope Gregorie the tenthe and were condemned bothe by hym and his successors And is this condemnation authentical with you yf it be you know Luther Caluin were condemned by lyke authoritie And thus for lack of matter you lay holde on any thing though it make neuer so muche against your selfe The last point is about the name of Iesuits against whiche for that you quarelled muche the Censure did shew that the name was not taken to them selues of arrogancie as you obiected but geuen them by common speeche for breuities sake where as theyr true name in deede by foundatioÌ„ of theyr order was societas nominis Iesu a societie dedicated to the name of Iesus Now against this you replie that I doe call them Iesuits in my booke But what is this to the purpose is it not lawfull for me to folow the common phrase of speeche or because I call them soo doeth that proue that they chalenge that name to them selues Secondlie you say that Turrian a Iesuit calleth them soo and what yf he dyd foloweing the common maner of speeche doeth that conuince that they appoint that name vnto them selues but yet you are too too impudent to attribut this to Turrian especiallie with suche vehement asseueration as you doe For I haue reade the two chapiters by you alleaged tvvise and that vvith as greate diligeÌ„ce as I coulde and albeit he doeth call them by the name of the societie of Iesus fyftie times in the same yet doeth he not once name them Iesuits VVherfore this shevveth vvith vvhat conscience you vvrite And this beinge so let the reader iudge what cause you had to crie out in these vvoordes VVhat blasphemie is this to abuse the most blessed name of Iesus for a coulour to their blasphemous practises Euerie thing is blasphemie vvith this angrie gentleman though it be but the mouinge of a stravve but heare his reason They dravv to thâ—m selues alone sayeth he the confortable name of Iesus vvhich is coÌ„mon to all No Syr vvilliam you may haue your parte yf you exclude not your selfe For vvhen any men leaueth all other cares and businesse to serue the Quene onelie for examples sake and professeth the same by some speciall name of her Maiesties deuoute seruant doeth he iniurye other subiects hereby or doth he take from them theyr interest in her Maiestie But the truthe is that malice wold haue you say somevvhat against Iesuits mary theyr good lyfe and vertue excludeth you from matter you might haue done vvell to haue consulted with Eldertons ryme vvhoe proueth that they can not be called Iesuits for that they can not rayse the deade cure the lame restore the blynde nor vvalke vppon the vvater as Iesus dyd VVhiche proueth also that they can not be called Christianes for that Christ dyd the same things and they can not Nor yet old Elderton I thinke hym selfe OF religious men and their vocation THE CENSVRE Secondlie you seeke to deface the Societie by coÌ„temptuouse deprauing of all 1. religiouse men calling them Base beggerlie monkes fryars popish orders and the like vvherein you folovv the 2. olde heretiques of the primatiue Churche vvhose propertie hath bene from time to time to hate and depraue those kynde of men aboue all others as S. Austen testifieth of the Manachies and Rufinus of the Arians And petilian the donatist folovving the same spirit scoffed at S. Austen for being a fryar as S. Austen hym selfe vvriteth in these vvordes After this Petilian proceded on with his slauÌ„derouse mouth to speake euill of monasteries and of monkes blaming me also for that I had set foorth this kynde of lyfe the which lyfe ether he knoweth not what it meaneth or else feigneth him selfe not to know it though it be notorious to all the world S. Austen saythe this kynde of lyfe of monkes and fryers and other religiouse men vvas notoriouse and knovvne to the vvorlde in his time both in respect of the famous men that had liued in the same as Anthonie Paule hilarion Basill Nazianzen Martin Austen hym selfe and others as also of the infinit bookes and treatises vvhich holie fathers of the primatiue Churche had vvritten in defence and commeÌ„dation of that kinde of lyfe as Athanasius in the lyfe of S. Anthonie the Abbote beside a peculiar treatise intituled An exhortatioÌ„ to moÌ„kes or to Monasticall life S. Basill also vvrote a great volume intituled CoÌ„stitutions or lawes for monkes beside diuers other treatises of that argument vvritten both by hym selfe and by Gregorie Nazianzen S Chrisostom hathe fouer homilies extant in commendation of the lyfe of monkes and tvvo vvhole bookes of the comparison betwene the Mounke the king vvherin he preferreth the lyfe of the monke before that of the king Also he vvrote a booke against you M. Charke intituled Against the blamers of Monkes and Monasticall lyfe Iohannes Cassianus a litle after vvrote 12. bookes intituled Of the lawes and ordinances of Monkes Seuerus Sulpitius vvrote a dialogue contaynyng the notable conuersation of the Esterlie monkes vvith S. Martin Abbot of eyghtie monkes And finallie S. Austen for I vvill come no lovver hath vvritten manie treatises of Monkes commending highly that excellent kinde of lyfe and defending it against the detractions of heretiques of his tyme. Let any
time as S. Paul vvrote this vvanted diuers important partes as the Ghospel of S. Iohn the Apocalips and some other vvhich vvere vvriteÌ„ after coÌ„sequeÌ„â—lie should haue bene superfluous yf the other before had bene â—ufficient Secondly because vve lacke at this daye many parts of scripture vvhich of likelyhoode vvere in S. Paules time As the booke of Nathan the Prophetâ— vvith the volume of the Prophet Gad. 1. Paralip vlt. The booke of Ahias salonites and the vision of Addo the Prophet 2. Paral 9. Many of the Parables and verses of Salomon for he vvrote three thousande of the one and fiue thousand of the other 3. Reg. 4. Also the epistle of S. Paul to the Laodicenses Colos. 4. vvhereof it folovveth in M. Charkes ovvne seÌ„se that if all the scripture put together is onely sufficient to perfection then our scripture novv lacking dyuers partes of the same is not sufficient And so me thinkethe M. Charke vvrestethe this place againste hym selfe THE DEFENCE After a long apologie in defence of loose translatyng of scripture wherin M. Charke will perforce retaine opinion of honest dealing he coÌ„meth to refute the first reason about profitable and sufficient sayethe that sometimes profitable may stand for sufficient As where the Apostle sayeth to Timothie Exercise thy selfe to godâ—ynes For bodilye exercise is profitable but to a litle but godlynes is profitable â—o all thyngs hauyng promisse bothe of this lyfe of the lifâ— to come Heer sayeth M. Chark it can not be denyed but by profiâ—able is mente suffâ—cieÌ„t VVhich suppose were true yet were it but a slender argumeÌ„t of one particular to inferre an other But in myne opinioÌ„ M. Charke is vtterlie deceyued in this matter For as S. Ambrose S. Ierome S. Austen doe expound this place S. Paules meanyng is to putt an antithesis or differeÌ„ce betwene corporall exercise pietie sayeing that the one is but litle profitable but the other that is godlynes hath her promysse of rewarde in all actions taken ether for this lyfe or for the lyfe to come Out of all I say she reapeth coÌ„moditie and is profitable For in all actions whiche are taken in hand for charitie and loue of God whiche is true pietie therin is merit and rewarde whether the actions be about matters of this lyfe or of the lyfe to come And whoe wolde say heere that profitable signifieth sufficient His second reason he frameth in these woordes vpon the place of S. Paul before alleaged that vvhiche is profitable to all the partes that may be required to perfectioÌ„ can not be but sufficient for the perfection of the vvhole but that the scripture is profitable in suche maner the Apostle doeth fullie declare in rehearsing all the particular partes vvhiche are necessarie as to confute to correct and instruct in iustice ergo the scripture is sufficient God help you M. Charke I assure you you are a simple one to take controuersies in hand VVhat boye in Cambrige wold euer haue reasoned thus If you had sayed that whiche is sufficient to all the partes in particular is sufficient to the whole you had sayed somewhat But how foloweth it that what soeuer is profitable to all particular partes should be sufficient to all haue you not Learned that there is causa sine qua non whiche is not one he profitable but also necessarie to all partes wherof it is such a cause and yet is not sufficient alone ether to the partes or to the whole As for example the heade is profitable yea necessarie to all the actions of this lyfe as to sing weepe dispute and the lyke for without a heade none can be done and yet is not the head sufficient alone to performe these actions as we see by experience For that euery one whiche hath a heade is not able to doe these thinges Hys thyrd reason and argument is taken from the woordes of S. Paul immediatlie goeinge before in the place now alleaged to Timothie whiche are these for that thou hast learned the holye scripâ—ures from thy infancie vvhiche can instruct thee to saluation throughe the faythe vvhich is in Iesus Christ. Loe sayeth M. Charke heer the scriptures are sayed to be sufficient to saluation But I denye this For the Apostle sayeth they can instruct Timothie and shew him the waye to saluation and can bryng hym also to it yf he will folow them But doeth it folowe heerby that they are sufficient for the whole churche and in such sort as all doctrine by tradition is superfluous Euerie epistle of S. Paul instructeth a maÌ„ to saluation wolde also bryng any man to heauen that shoulde folow the same exactlie But is therfore euerie epistle of S. Paul sufficieÌ„t for the whole Church wherof onelie our question is and are all other supeâ—fluous Againe it is to be noted that S. Paul speaketh heere principallie of the olde testament For he speaketh of the scriptures which Timothie beyng nowe a byshope had learned from his infancie whiche was before the newe testament was wryten And will M. Charke saye that the olde testament is sufficient to Christian men such as Timothie now was for their saluation without any other write You see this man lyke the hare in the nett the more he struggleth the more he encombreth and intangleth hym selfe To my two reasons in the Censure to proue that S. Paul in the place alleaged spoke not onelye of all the whole scripture together but also of euery particular booke therof whiche notwitstandinge can not be sayed to be sufficient of it selfe without other he answereth in effect nothinge but for excuse of his fraudulent translating Omnis scriptura all scripture where as he translated omne opus bonum euerie good vvoorke euen in the same sentâ—nce he alleageth a place or two owt of the scripture where this woord omnis signifieth all aswell as euerie one VVhiche I denye not but some times it may be especiallie in greek but yet that there is ordinarilie a difference betwene these two propositions omnis homoâ—est corpus and totus homo est corpus I â—row your logicians of Cambrige wherof you talke will affirme with me And yf there be ordinarilie such a differeÌ„ce and your selfe obseruing the same in the former parte of the same sentence why you showld alter your translation in the second part therof I can not imagine except you mente fraude But now to my two reasons In the first I saye that S. Paul coulde not meane to Timothie of all the scriptures together which we now vse For that all was not then written as the Gospell of S. Iohn and some other partes To this he answereth that there was enough written then for the sufficient saluation of men of that tyme and that the other partes added afterwarde were not superfluous But this is from the purpose For I graunt that in all tymes when there was least writen vvord yet was there sufficient for the
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
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
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
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
let vs pardon hym this for that he confesseth hatred to haue bene the cause Yet notwithstanding I doe not see how anie learned or common honest man and muche lesse a pretended preacher of gods woord can iustifie such vnciuile and outragious tearmes against his brother by any pretence of Christianlike or tolerable hatred such as M. Charke I suppose wold here insinuate And that which he wolde seeme to alleage for his excuse in the replie that for tenne lines of railing gathered against hym he might haue gathered tenne leaues against me is neither to the purpose nor trew Not to the purpose for that yf I had answered him with bitter speache again being prouoked by his example and iniurie what excuse had this bene for him which begāne without exāple Secōdlye it is apparentlie false that he sayeth of me excusable by no other figure than by the license of a lie For yf we talk of leaues as printers accompt them there are but halfe tenne in the whole Censure But yf he take leaues as they are folded in that booke yet tenne leaues doe take vp a good parte therof VVhiche yf I filled vpp with railing tearmes onelie suche as now I haue repeated out of M. Charke I doe confesse my selfe to haue bene ouerseene and fault woorthie in writing But yf it be not so◠as the reader may see thē M. Charks tōgue hathe ouerslipped in foloweing rather the Rhetoricall phrase of line and leaues than the fathefull report of a true accusation I may not passe ouer this matter so soone For that I thinke it of importance to discrye the spirites of vs that are aduersaries in this cause You know the sayeing of Christ ex abundātia cordis os loquitur Our mouth speaketh accordinge to the abundance of our hart I meane a man may be knowen by hys speeche as S. Peter sayd to Simon Magus vpon his onelie speeche In felle amaritudinis obligatione iniquitatis video te esse I see thee to be in the verie gaule of bitternesse and in the bondage of iniquitie And the scripture is plaine in this point Qui spiritum Christi non habet hic non est Christi He that hathe not the spirit of Christ appertayneth not to Christ. Now then yf we consider the quiet calme and sober spirit of Christ and of all godlie Christiās from the beginning and the furiouse reprochefull vncleane spirit of Satan and all heretiques from time to time and doe compare them bothe with the writings of Catholiques gospellers at thys daye we may easilie take a skantlinne of the diuersitie of theyr spirits I will not talke heere of euery hoote woorde vttered in Catholique bookes by occasion of the matter neither is this in question for bothe Christ and his Apostles and many holie fathers after them vsed the same some tymes vpon iust zeale especiallie against heretiques with whome olde S. Anthonie as Athanasius writeth beinge otherwise a milde◠Saint could neuer beare to speake a peaceable woorde But for rayling and fowle scurrilitie suche as protestantes vse ordinarilie against vs among them selues when they dissent I dare auowe to be proper to them and theyr auncestours onelie VVhat more venemous woordes can be ymagined thā those of Scorpions poysoned spyders and the like vsed by M. Charke against reuerend men M. Hanmers tearmes of lovvsie crippled are but Ieastes For I passed ouer hys scurrilitie where he sayd in his first booke The first of your gentrie vvas Ignatius the creeple standinge vnder Pompeiopelis tovver and geeuinge the pellet ovvt of his taile VVhat a shamelesse slouuen ys this to write Shevv me Allen if thovv cannest for thy guttes sayeth D. Fulk is not this a Ruffianlike spirit in a preacher of the gospell But yf you will see more of this mans spirit read but hys answers to D. Bristow D. Allen and the rest Against M. Bristow he hathe these woordes with many more Levvde losell vnlearned dogbolt traiterous papist shameles beast of blockish vvitt impudent Asse vauntparler barkinge dogge and moste impudent yolpinge curre leaden blockish and doltish papist proude hypocrite of stinking greasie antichristian and execrable orders blunderinge blynde boosting bayard blasphemouse heretique blockheaded Asse And in his two bookes against M. D. Allen besides the former speeches and other infynitelye repeated he hathe these Brasen face and yron forehead O impudent blasphemer brainlesse brablyng Sycophant rechelesse Ruffian vnlearned Asse skornefull caytise desperat dicke O horrible blasphemer O blasphemouse barkinge horrible hellhounde In his booke that beareth a shewe of answere to M. D. Stapleton he vseth these tearmes amongest other Canckered stomake papist senseles blocke vvorthy to be shoren in the pole vvith a number of crovvnes popishe svvyne popishe boares gods curse light vpon you brasen face Stapleton blockedded papist shameles dogged of stomake slaunderer of grosse and beastely ignorāce dronken flemminge of dovvaye more lyke a block than a man Thus muche he hathe against thes learned and reuerend men wherof eche one for many respectes maye be counted his equall to say the least therfore in common ciuilitie setting a side all consideration of godes spirite wherof these good felowes make vaunte aboue other men thes tearmes or the lyke were not to be vsed as in deed amongest the gentiles they were not nor of any honest or Christian wryter since I might repeate a greate deale more of this ministers scurrilitie against many men whome forsoothe he answerethe for as one sayd well of hym he is the protestantes cōmō post horse to passe you any answer without a baite to any Catholique booke which cōmethe in his waye but it were to longe and lothesome to repeate all onely heare more what he sayethe in his booke against M. Martiall and by that iudge of his style against the rest He callethe him by one vile name or other in euery page of his booke as dogbolt lavvyer vvranglinge petifoggar egregious ignorant vsher goose asse prating proctor meete for a bōme courte arrogāte hipocrite impudant asse blockhedded and shameles asse blasphemous beast fylthie hogge beastely grunter shameles dogge blasphemous idolatour raylinge Ruffian slanderous deuill And is ther any iote of Christian modestie or godes spirite in this man is he to speake indifferentely more fytt for a pulpitt or for an ale benche surely if the pott were not at hand when he wrote this he discouerethe a fowle spirite within his breaste but yet not vnmeete for a man of his occupation And this now of the scollars but thinke you that the maisters were not of the same spirite reade Iohn Caluine and you shall see that his ordinarie tearme against his aduersaries in euery chapter almost especially whē he speaketh against his superiours as bishopes and the lyke is to call them Nebulones knaues which woorde beside the foule gaule whereof it procedeth is an vnseemelie tearme euen as that of M. Fulke when he calleth
this place wriggleth at the begiÌ„ning to fro to auoyde the force of this comparison betwene Ignatius and Luther sayeing That it is impertinent But the reason thereof is layed downe in the Censure And as for the fond argumentes whiche he wolde enforce out of my meaninge to proue that Ignatius might beginne a societie and Luther distayne their gospell VVhich notwitstanding he graunteth not to be sett downe expresselie in the Censure I leaue to M. Chark as poore deuises to solace his owne miseries with all in this his distresse when taking vppon hym to make a booke and his promise being past to his frendes of the same he now fyndeth nothing to fyll vpp pages except he wander out to suche Idle imaginations as neuer came in the Censurers heade to thinke vpon But at leÌ„gthe yet let vs hale hym to the matter and see what he sayeth For Ignatius he saythe I vvill passe ouer For Martin Luther before he cometh to the matters obiected he exclameth greatlie against me for alleaging Coclaeus Hosius Lyndanus and Sainctes as witnesses in my reportes beinge as he sayeth of our religion and enemies to Luther But consider I beseeche you the equitie of this complaint Yf I did alleage these mens Iudgements against Luther in matters of controuersie his exception might seme to haue some reason but seinge I alleage them onelie in matter of fact knowne to other men aswell as to them selues why should M. Chark take the matter so greuouslye by this reason no storie should be credited yf the reporter were of a contrarie religion I saye not this to Iustifie all histories For it is well knowne of the eleuen thousand lyes writen by Sleidan in fauour of the protestants and refuted by Bartholomeus Latomus euen by the testimonie of them whiche were present at the doinges as shall be shewed after But when there is no reason nor proofe to denie a fact reported by suche men as now I haue named whereof the moste were Germans and knew Luther well and the first of them lyued with hym and tooke vppon hym selfe to write the particular storie of his lyfe while Luther lyued to sett it furth when all Germanie coulde reprehend hym yf it had not bene true And the other being reuerend and learned byshops and had great meanes and occasions to know the truthe of the factes they write why should M. Charke take it so impatientlie and think it suche vniust dealing to alleage theyr authorities not in matters of iudgement and doctrine as I haue sayed but onelie in report of facts which they coulde not deuise of them selues without daÌ„nable wickednesse nor report to the worlde without open shame and reproofe yf the thinges had bene false But let vs examine the reportes them selues perhappes they will yealde some occasion of Iustyfieinge their reporters And first to discredit myne Authors with all M. Charke beginneth with a report of his owne and not of myne sayeinge that I left out for shame the report of Prateolus that Luther vvas begoten of a deuill But yet this is nothinge to the discredit of the other fower Authors named before yf Prateolus had reported amisse of Luther and I concealed or passed ouer the same For nether could I in that litle booke nor was it necessarie for me to recite what soeuer I found writen of Luther Secondlie M. Charke greatlie bewrayeth his falseholde in this point and iustifieth our true dealing For Prateolus foloweth not the fashion of protestantes in affirminge absolutelye what so euer they heare or can imagin against vs but rather the good conscience of a Catholique man whiche ys to lay downe things as in deede they are without adding or amplifieing the same He sayeth then that diuerse men had writen this thinge of Luther and a matrone of Lipsia in Germanye dyd affirme yt But he hym selfe neyther affirmeth nor denyeth it His woordes are these SuÌ„t qui Lutherum scribuÌ„t ex incubo natum qui eius maâ—rem balnei publici seruulam oppressitâ—sed nescio cuius sit fidei fides sit penes lipsicam illam Matronam cui mater eius fuit notissima There are that write Luther to haue bene borne of an Incubus that is of a filthie spirit abusing women in place of man whiche oppressed his mother when she was a seruant in a common bathe in Germanie but I know not of what credit it is the credit dependeth of that matrone of lypsia which reported yt and knew well his mother Here now yow see the modestie of Prateolus his report and the bolde impudencie of w Chark in sayeing that he auoucheth that whiche as yow see he auoucheth not But yet whether M. Charkes impudeÌ„cie or folye were greater I can not tell in making mention of this thing being so fowle a matter against their first prophet For what will he saye that it is false yet at least there remayneth a shamefull suspition vpon the reporte of diuerse writers and the asseueration of a Matrone which belike had it of the coÌ„fessioÌ„ of Luthers mother her selfe And the probabilitie of the thing seemeth not haue bene so great in those dayes as Erasmus beleeued yt whiche yet by M. Charkes Iudgement was no papist For in his purgation ad epistolam Lutheri non sobriani That is to Luthers dronken epistle he alludeth to the same sayeinge Mirum est impio blasphemo sermoni non addidisse de ineubonibus c. It is maruayle that Luther had not added somevvhat of Incubons or filthie spirites that abuse vvomeÌ„ to the rest of his vvicked and blasphemouse speeche But now yf M. Charke will stand vppon the deniall not so muche of the fact as of the nature of the thing it selfe as impossible that spirits can so abuse lewde women that will consent to theyr lusts I will oppose S. Augustine against hym who sayeth it vvere impudencie to denie yt and proueth it by many wayes as also Ludouicus viues doeth vppon the same place of S. Augustine VVhat then hathe M. Charke gayned by mentioning of this whiche I left out Touching the matter of the Thunder bolt though M. Charke denieth it stowtely and as Lyndans reporte onelye wolde seeke to discredit the same by obiecting certaine things against LindaÌ„ which are not true yet is it not B. Lyndan onelie that doth report it as he well knoweth but the consent of other writers besides Prateolus his woordes are these Martin Luther after the studie of lavve vvhen he had bene strycken dovvne in the feeld vvith a blovve of lightnyng and terrified by the deathe of his companion professed hym selfe an Austen fryer Heere are touched two things his stryking downe and the deathe of his companion whiche could be no ieste And albeit there appeared in his bodie no wounde of the thunder bolt as M. Chark cauyleth yet might he be stryckeÌ„ downe with the feare thereof And MelaÌ„cthon him selfe who otherwyse dissembleth moste diligentlye all matters turninge to the
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
he saythe against my slaunders But whether I haue iustified my reportes or no so often named false and intolerable slaunders by M. Chark I leaue to the iudgement of my verie aduersaries them selues But whether M. Charke haue defended faiâ—hefully or no the former discoâ—rses haue declared And finallie whether the doctrine be diuine and cleare as M. Chark affirmeth I referre it to the consideration of the discrete and godlie reader For clearenesse I will not stryue for you see yt is vttered with full mouth according to his fashion from Martin Luther but surelie for diuinesse I see lytle therein except M. Chark meane black diuinitie suche as Martins familiar could teache hym whereof we shall haue presentlie more occasion to entreate Marie to call it licentiouse and carnall doctrine as the CeÌ„sure dyd me thinketh there was great reasoÌ„ For yf a Christian man can not damne him selfe with any sinne except he will refuse to beleue And yf the ten commaundementes appertaine nothing to hym Again yf to kepe virginitie resist the pleasures of the flesh be neyther commendable for that mariage is far better nor possible seing a wyfe is as necessarie as meat drinke or sleepe beside this yf when he hathe tasted one wyfe he may vpon causes lye with her sister or the next of her kynne and yf these wold be obstinate he may take the mayde in steade of the mistresse and with all this may be notwithstandinge as holie and as iust as euer was Peter or Paul or the mother of God her selfe yf all this I say be true as Martin Luther warranteth vs william Chark defendeth who can complayne of the hard waye to heaueÌ„ who can saye iustelie the gate is straite seing this good frier and his frende haue eased yt so fauorablie but now lett vs heare the rest of the Censure Other doctrines of Luther and of Caluine and Beza THE CENSVRE I Leaue other infinite beastlie 1. doctrines vvhiche he taught for the inuention vvhereof he had much conference vvith the 2. deuill hym selfe vvhom byshoppe Lindan and diuers others vvriteâ— to haue bene seene talke bodyly vvith hym by men of verie great credit And Luther hym selfe coÌ„fesseth in his vvorkes that he had often and familiar speeche vvith hym and that he vvas first moued by hym to vvrite against the Masse in the yere 1534. He also describeth his voyce sayeing that it vvas so terrible huge and dreedefull that he vvas lyke to dye diuers times after the nightes conference vvith hym And that diuers men vvere slayne by such confereÌ„ce Notvvithstanding it vvas his chaunce to escape albeit as he sayeth he dyd eate more than a bushell of salte together vvith this deuill But yet neuerthelesse he vvas deceyued in the end as all men are that deale vvith suche Marchantes 3. For Luther goeing one night drouÌ„ke to bed as Hosius vvriteth vvas founde there the next day dead slayne as it thought by this familiar deuil For he vvas a pitifull creature to looke on as Sainctes describeth all blacke vvith his tongue lyeing out as a man strangled And this vvas the end of Luther after almost thirtie yeres lyuing in all kinde of sensualitie pryde and dissention not onelie vvith the Catholique churche 4 but also vvith his ovvne broode and ofspring Carolostadius Oecolampadius Bucer and Zuinglius parents of the protestaÌ„ts religion vvhom he persecuted cursed and coÌ„demned to the very pytt of hell for damned heretiques as yet appeareth in his bookes vvriten against them VVherefore vvhether the protestants or the Iesuits may be more a shamed of their first father let the indifferent reader iudge 5. There is the lyke lyfe or vvorse vvritten of Caluin by a fenshe man that lyued vvith hym of the same religion at that time and vvas traÌ„slated into English by a countrye man of ours had bene put in prynt ere this had not my Lord of LoÌ„don by an euill chaunce gotten the copie in to his handes THE DEFENCE Mâ— Charke wolde haue men think that I vse but a Rhetoricall figure in sayeing that I passe ouer many other absurd doctrines of Martin Luther whereas in dede by his sayeing I haue cited all I can But I am sure he is not of that mynde hym selfe hauynge read some part of Luthers woorkes as appeareth by his replie wherin are to be seene so many grosse absurdities as neuer the like in any man that euer wrote VVhiche hathe happened by the speciall prouidence of God to discouer the spirit wherby this new prophet was directed For matter of licentiouse libertie the examples before recited may suffice for a taste In matter of ribauldrie I coulde alleage more of scurrilitie infinite of shamelesse falsehoodes without number But I will note onelye one or two thinges of impietie as they lye together in one treatise that you haue in England and defended by hym obstinatelie after they were condemned by the churche being in deede certaine positions whiche cut the very synowes of all vertue doe opeÌ„ the highe waye to all dissolutioÌ„ As for example when he holdeth that the verye iust man in euerye good vvorke doeth synne mortallie How doeth he discourage all men from doeinge good when he sayeth A man hathe not in his povver to do euell how doeth he encourage all lewd people â—oÌ„ wickednesse deliuering them from the fault thereof VVhen he teacheth that to fight against the Turke is to resist god hym selfe what a pathe maketh he to the Empire of infidelitie VVhen he reprehendeth the pope for defining beside scripture animam esse immortalem that the soule is immortall and calleth it porteÌ„tum sterquilinii Romani A monstre of the dunghill of Rome what ground of impietie dothe he not laye when he affirmeth and maytaineth that neyther man nor angel on earthe can lay anie one lavv vpon anie one Christian further than he vvill hym selfe VVhat foundation doeth not he ouerthrow of all Christian common wealthes For the bodilie and sensible conference whiche Martin Luther had with the deuill it is a wonder to see with what face M. Chark can denye it as he doeth and rayle at the reuerend byshopp Lyndan for reporting the same seyng the Tigurine Caluinistes as I haue shewed before do giue testimonie of it and Luther also confessethe it hym selfe in the places alleaged in the CeÌ„sure And albeit M. Charke hathe a shyft to saye that he can not fynde the booke of Luther cited de Missa angulari alleaged as he confesseth by all the learned of our age against Luther yet can not his impudeÌ„cie be couered for that he quoteth hym selfe an other booke of Luthers intituled de Missa priuata vnctione sacerdotum yf it be not the verie same somewhat altered wherein though translated by Iustus Ionas Martin Luthers owne cooke and consequâ—ntlie sawced to his maisters toothe yet might he see the principall points of this conference set downe at leastwise
at one tyme where Luthers woordes are these Conâ—igiâ— me semel sub mediam noctem subitò expergesieri Ibi Sathan mâ—cuÌ„ coepit eiusmodi disputationem Audi inquit Luthere doctor perdocte ce It happened that once I awaked about mydnight sayth Luther and then Sathan began this disputation with me Harken sayeth he right learned doctor Luther And then the deuyll layeth downe fyue long argumentes against the masse adding in the ende Age prome vbi scriptum est vbi iussit aut praecepit hoc deus Goe to now shew me where is the Masse writen in scripture where hathe God commaunded yt After this Luther putteth hys owne answers to the deuyll and the deuilles replies to whiche in processe his being not able to answer finallie yeelded to banishe the masse vpon the deuils appointement And this was the honorable beginning of Luthers conuersion and of all protestancie by the expresse woordes and confession of the first beginner hym selfe But heere william Charke hathe a shyft for this fowle matter sayeing that this conference of Luther vvith the deuyll vvas no other than suche a temptation or conflict as Christ and Saint Paul had vvith Sathan that is it vvas no bodilie conference but a spirituall fight in mynde sayeth this minister O fond and blasphemous euasion Suppose it had bene onelie a spirituall temptation in mynde suche as the conflictes of Christ and S. Paul were yet the coÌ„parison is impious for nether Christ nor S. Paul dyd euer yeelde to the persuasions of the deuill as Martin Luther dyd in banishing the masse And this is the difference betwene euill and good men in this lyfe that bothe beinge assaulted with persuasions from the deuill the one yeeldeth to them and the other resistethe SecoÌ„dlie it is euideÌ„t that this coÌ„fereÌ„ce of Martin Luther was more than spirituall as appeareth by the deuilles preface wherein he calleth the fryar right learned doctor according to the veine of pryde wherwith he saw hym puffed vpp and therby redye to receyue his impressions The same appeareth also by the sound of Sathans voyce described in the place alleaged in the CeÌ„sure but especiallie for that in this place Luther confesseth some of his felowes to haue bene slayne by this confereÌ„ce For these are his woordes Et ego plane persisasus sum Emserum Oecolampadium similes â—iis actions horribilibus quassationibus subitò extinctos esse And I am plainlie persuaded that Emserus and Oecolampadius and the like were killed sodainlie with these terrible blowes and shakinges of the deuill Finallie the bushell of salt whiche Luther confessethe hym selfe to haue eaten together with this deuill proueth that he had bodilie conference with hym And that this Sathan was become now verie gentle and familiar to Luther albeit he was churlish and kylled other hys companions Towching M. Luthers dronken deathe from his deceitfull deuell as is coniectured M. Charke thinketh it lacke of discretion in me to publishe the same from so insufficient witnesses as he callethe them the coÌ„ntrarie being writen by men more indifferent as he sayeth And in the margent in counterpease of all my wittnesses he quotethe onelie Iohn Sleidan a lutheran and the protestants historiographer But what reason is there whie one Sleydan should be preferred before so many learned men and reuerend byshops that haue auowed the matter whoe lyued in Luthers time and many of them were Germanes and dyd know bothe his lyfe and his deathe especiallie seynge of all the historiographers that euer toke penne in haÌ„d Iohn Sleydan is the moste infamous for lyeing as may appeare in particular by Fontanus and Pontanus that haue discouered the same as also by Gaspar Genepaeus whoe hath done the same most substantiallie and of purpose And more than all the rest Bartholomeus latomus a singular learned man hathe set furth a book of the Eleuen thovvsand lyes of Iohn Sleidan And Gropperus one of the rarest men that euer oure age had commonlye calleth Iohn Sleidans storie das lugen buck that is the book of lyes The fame thereof coÌ„ming at a time to the eares of Charles the Emperour whiche had best cause to know how matters passed being cheefe agent therin hym selfe caused diuerse partes thereof to be redde iÌ„ his hearing and in the presence of his captains whoe hearing so infinite vntruethes reported could not contayne but often wolde interrupt the reader sayeing there the knave lieth And a litle after againe there the knave lyeth And so finalie reiecting the booke he commaunded one Gulielmus Muleâ—aeus a moste eloquent man to refute the same So that Sleidan alone is not sufficient to ouer-beare so many witnesses in this case wherein he was moste partiall that is touching Luther he beinge luthers scholar and writing purposelie bothe at his appointement and in his commendation But yet because you shall not want a sounde testimonie also in this matter I will alleage you IVSTVS IONAS Luthers deare freend and cooke as partiall towards hym as Sleydan hym selfe but onelie that being at his deathe and writinge a booke of the same by the prouidence of God he vttered this point among other For thus Pontacus writeth Martinus Lutherus quem tertium Eliam quidam ausi sunt vocare cum bene potus Hâ—laris in lecto cubuisset manè repertus est mortuus Iustus Ionas eius coquus libro de eius vita obitu refert cum Paulo ante mortem sibi Caelio aliis qui tunc aderant dixisse Orate deuÌ„ pro domino deo nostro eius euaÌ„gelio That is Martine Luther whome some dare call the thyrd Elias goeing to bed well typpled merye was found dead the next morning being the first day of Marche the yere of our Lorde 1544 and the 63. yere of his age Iustus Ionas his cooke affirmeth in a booke written of his lyfe death that he sayd to hym a litle before his deathe and to Celius and others that were present do you pray to God for our lord and God and for his gospell Heere now by Iustus Ionas his reporte Luther praied for Christ at his deathe which ether you must a-scribe to dronkennes or to sâ—me worse affection he being in his perfect wittes as the author affirmeth And this shalbe sufficient touching the deathe of doctor Martine Luther And now we come to Luthers disseâ—tion with his owne broode as the Censure sayeth that is to his deadlie warre with his owne folowers and to the discorde betwene Lutheranes Zuinglians which our English protestaÌ„ts doe beare men in hand to be all one in faith and of one churche and M. Charke heere in this place with the same foreheade as in other matters affirmeth moste confidentlie that they had alvvayes a singular care of vnitie in the gospell And citeth for proofe thereof an acte of coÌ„corde agreed vpon at Marpurge Anno 1529. But this is intolerable impudencie For Brentius hym selfe
whoe was present at yt writeth that the Zuinglians were there vanquished demaunded with teares to be called brethren of the lutheranes onelie thereby to colour a concorde But yet Luther wolde not graunt it The verie same touchinge luthers hardnesse confesseth Caluin to westfalus superintendent of hamborough and Boquinus a Zuinglian confesseth the same as Brentius proueth in the place before alleaged by the testimonie of lauatherus also a Zuinglian so that I should maruayle M. Chark that you were not ashamed to alleage this acte of concorde of Marpurge but that I consider you must nedes say somewhat No M. Charke not onelie in this meeting of Marpurge dyd your men disagree and become more enemies than before but also in all other conuenticles after euen vnto this day haue they dissented in opinions more more as is euident to them vvhiche doe reade the stories and acts of theyr meetings set out in print So that in verie deede this one marke of disagreement is sufficient to shew what spirit they are of After this synode of Marpurge they mett together at Swabache and after that againe at Smalcald the 12. of December but without any effect of vnion or agreement as bothe Sleidan and lauatherus doe testifie After that they had diuers meetings talkes conferences disputations synodes conuenticles at diuers places and times but alwayes departed more enemies than before as you may see in particular sett doune by vadian in his aphorismes After this in the yere 1557. vpon the fowerth day of September there mett at wormes in Germanie 12 Catholiques 12. ministers appointed by the former Councell or dieta of Ratisbone to treate of certaine conditions to be obserued on both parties in practise of theyr religion And when the first question was proposed what articles of faithe eche parte wolde haue allowed by publique authoritie the Catholiques agreed presentlie marie the ministers fell out and therupon a daye or two was allowed them to agree but they grew further and further in dissention for sixtene dayes together and the seuententh daye they were further of than at the beginninge For then had seueÌ„ of the twelue excommunicated the other fyue for heretiques and as vtterlie disagreing from the Confession of Angusta Mary yet those seuen could in no wyse agree among them selues what articles onelie were to be receyued and what to be excluded and so that meeting was brocken of without effect This storie doe write bothe Amsfordius and Gallus Lutherans Lauatherus a Zuinglian And Surius a Catholique After this agayne in the yere 1564. in the moneth of April there was a solemne meetinge or sinode betweene the Lutheranes and Caluinists at Mulbrune in Germanie And on the Lutheranes parte the duke of wittenberge was president for the temporaltie Smidelyne prolocutor for the cleargie For the Caluinistes was president the Countie palatine of Rheine Boquinus was speaker But after diuers dayes spent in disputing chafing chiding they departed lesse agreed than before one parte calling the other sectaries and heretiques as you may reade in the actes of that meeting set furth in print aswell by the one partie as by the other but eche side notwithstandinge reportinge the thinge for theyr owne vantage and blaminge the other And thus muche for solemne meetings and publique actes of concorde declaring the singular vnitie of protestants in the gospell Now for the intercourse of louing letters and godlye vvritings betvvene lutheranes and Caluinists whiche M. Charke nameth but citeth none for proofe of their singular vnitie Yt shall appeare how trewe it is by that whiche I will heere alleage out of their owne writings one against an other And first I haue alleaged before the louing woordes of Luther towardes Caluinists by the verie testimonie of the Tigurines theÌ„ selues whome he calleth an execâ—able sect replenished vvith the deuyl insathanized supersathanized and persathanized And they call hym againe an archeheretique and a â—urious deuyll vvhiche hathe no communion vvith the saincts of God Luther againe calleth Bucer a blasphemouse monster of the sacramentarie spirit and all sacramentaries miserable and blasphemouse heretiques adding further I doe protest before God and the vvorlde that I doe not agree vvith them nor euer vvill vvhile the vvorld standeth but vvill haue my haÌ„ds cleare from the bloode of those sheepe vvhich these heretiques doe dryue from Christe deceyue and kill And againe in the same place cursed be the charitie and concorde of sacramentaries for euer and euer to all eternities Againe in an other place he pronounceth of them Hâ—ereticos serio ceÌ„semus we censure them in earnest for heretiques And after that he pronounceth them as moste certainlie to be damned hovv soeuer they beleeue some articles a-right and doe pronounce them truelie vvith their lyeing and blasphemouse mouthe as his woordes are And finallie two yeres before his deathe he denounced an open excommunication against them all sayeing vvho soeuer vvill not beleeue the breade to be the true and naturall bodie of our lorde lett hym abstayne from me bothe by letter vvriting and speeche neyther let hym expect anie communion vvith me for he shall but leese his labour And this was the agrement of this holie and learned man Martin Luther as M. Charke calleth hym And this was his entercourse of louynge and godlie speeche and vvritings towardes the Zuinglians that is towardes M. Charke and his felowes in England But now yf a man wolde speake of the entercourse of louinge letters betwene the Lutheranes and Zuinglianes after Luthers deathe it were infinite But yet he that desireth to know somewhat thereof let hym reade but Brentius against Bullinger westfalus against Caluine Caluin against Stankarus Heshutius against Beza Also the seuerall bookes of Sneppius Alberus Timannus Stolzius Kemnitius Marbachius Vigandus against the Zuinglians And the vehemeÌ„t treatises of Ochinus Alasco Boquinus Clebitius Bullinger and Peter Martyr against the Lutheranes Bullinger calleth Brentius puffed spirit slaunderer scurril iester Mome impure impudent and furiouse Eutychian light and brainelesse sophist Caluine writing to the ministers of Germanye and hoping to gaine them to his parte against westfalus called them honorable brothers most faithfull seruants of Christ. But when he sawe they tooke part against hym he calleth them Knaues Gyants Monsters Beastes Asses Deuylls Heshutius writing against Caluine calleth hym cruel tyrant crastie perfidiouse and contemptuouse Epicure rechelesse lyar vvanton and impudent sycophant one that handled the scriptures as other men doe Ouids metamorphosis The same heshutius called Beza a Beast a Cyclops a Harlot set to sale and generallie all Caluinists impudent knaues Stankerus of a thyrde sect wryteth thus I doe set more by one Peter Lombard whiche notwithstanding he contemneth than by a hundred Luthers tvvo hundred Melanctons three hundred Bullingers fovver hundred Peter Martyrs and fyue hundred Caluines All vvhiche yf they vvere pound together in a
morter and aftervvard prest neuer so hard you coulde not vvringe ovvt one ovvnce of true diuinitie from them all It were infinite as I sayd to prosecute this matter of the protestants singular vnitie in the gospell and of their louing and godly speeches one to an other But the practise doeth better declare it than woordes can Looke therfore into the states where they beare rule and see how one doeth imbrace the other or rather how one doeth persecute the other In Germanie where one is superior the other maye not liue â—ferior VVithin these eight yeres all were Caluinists in the Countie Palantins Dominions while he was so hym selfe and a Lutheran could not be suffered to lyue quietlie there As appeareth by the example of doctor Heshutius a Lutherane who after his disputation in the vniuersitie of Hidelberge was thrust owt by head and shoulders and the Catechismes of Luther Brentius floung out of the Church as Lauatherus a ZuingliaÌ„ dothe reporte But now this prince beinge come backe to Lutherisme again out are thrust the Caluinists aswell there as also in other places of Germanie where the Lutheranes are gouernours The yonger princes of Saxonie and Earles of Mansfeild being Lutheranes made a publique decree against all Zuinglians the yere 1559 condemning them by the name of execrable heretiques as lauatherus also writeth And it is well knowen that the duke of Saxonie that now is named Augustus about eight yeres gone dyd cutt of the head of his cheefe counsailer called Cracouie for that he was conuicted secretlie to fauour the Caluinists and to practize their brynging into Saxonie Also the banished Caluinists of fraunce being retyred to frankeforde in Germanie a free Citie and of Lutheran religion hoped to haue license to liue according to their coÌ„science in that place But they could not with all the entreatie and frendshipp they might vse obtaine the same but were by bublike edict bearing date the two twentith of Aprill in the yere 1561 coÌ„maunded to depart the Citie or els to abstaine wholie from all exercise of their religion seing it was heresie and differing from the confession of Augusta This whole storie is set furth by one Franciscus Philippus where you may reade it at large And to gyue you yet an exaÌ„ple more neare home our Englishe Marchant venturers had great traffik at HaÌ„borough profited no doubt the citie much whereof VVestfalus was superintendent But yet by all the meanes and fauour that euer they could procure they could neuer obtaine of the Lutheranes free exercise of Caluines religion in that citie No nor so muche as to keepe a minister of their owne sect at home in their house priuatlie And that which is more the prelates of Saxonie dyd so muche detest our mens religion as wheÌ„ any English men were sick they wolde not come at them beynge requested nor beinge deade wolde allowe them anie Christian buriall in their churches or churche yeardes but caused them to be cast owt in other places and hydde vnder grounde without the presence of any one Lutherane that wolde come at yt And finallie our English men haue lost their pryuileiges there and haue abandoned the citie and are changed now to Emden This is euident and true and all Marchants in England of that companye can tell thereof And therfore what soeuer M. Charke writeth of their singular vnitie in the gospell the reader may see how he is to be credited Touching the lyfe of Caluine whome M. Charke calleth a holie Sainct and aduaunceth with a long large and copiouse commendation he sayeth it vvas the lordes good vvill that the translation of his lyfe shoulde fall into my Lorde of Londons hands and so be supressed But M. Charke it maye come yet in time not as a libell as you terme it but as a true testimonie from hym which knew the man and lyued with hym bothe in Geneua Berna and Lausanna thirtie yeres gone and more whose name is M. Ierome hermes Bolseke doctor of phisik whiche science he practized in Caluines time at Geneua and other places there aboute and of late yeres in lyons fowre and twentie myles of Geneua where he yet liueth in great credit of wisdome learning and honestie and is most readie to iustifye any thing that he hathe written to the woorlde His booke of Caluines lyfe was written in the yere of our Lorde 1577 and dedicated to Monsieur of Epinac archebyshop and Earle of lyons And in the begynnyng he hathe this protestatioÌ„ I am heere for loue of the trueth to refute Theodore Beza his false and shamefull lyes in the prayse of Caluine his Maister protesting before God and all the holie court of heauen before all the vvolde and the holie ghoste it selfe that neyther angre nor enuie nor euell vvill hathe made me speake or vvrite any one thing against the truthe and my conscience First therefore this reuerend man sheweth how Iohn Caluine was borne at Nouiodunum or Noion in Picardie the yeere of our Lorde 1509. In his youth he was an execrable blasphemour of God and coÌ„myng at length by shyftes to be a preest and to haue the cure of a certaine chappell in Noyon he was taken and conuicted of the horrible sinne of Sodomie and vvas in great daunger to haue bene burnt a lyue for the same but that the Byshope of Noyon taking compassion of the man procured the punishement to be moderated and so in steade of deathe he was burnt with a hoote Iron in the showlder whiche yron had in it the prynt of a lylly which is the marcke of the crowne of france VVhereupon for verie shame hauing solde awaye his benefice he departed from Noyon into Germanie and Italie chaunging his name from Cauuin to Caluin as Luther dyd from Luder to Luther Thus muche the whole citie of Noyon dyd testifye vnto M. Bertilier Secretarie of the Councel of Geneua vnder the hand of a publique and sworne Notarie And the testimonie is yet extant to be sene as the author sayeth whoe hathe read it with many others After he had wandered a while in Italie being assisted with some almes of the duches of ferrara he returned back to Basil Strausburge and Lausanna and beganne to play the minister and preacher And from thence he came to Geneua and there ioyning with two moste seditious ministers named FAREL CAVRALD beganne by a thowsand deuises to woorke great tumults and innouations in the citie And albeit not onelie the magistrates of Geneua but also the Lordes of Berna who haue some superioritie ouer Geneua were greatlie against hym at the begynning though Zuinglians them selues yet Caluin ceased not to vse suche excitation of the people against theÌ„ as they were fayne to banish hym oute of their terretorie And so they dyd and pronunced the same sentence of banishement bothe in theyr priue coouncell of two hundred also in their generall councell and caused it to be registred
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
vvhat vvee vvill for it muste be vvith examination and pryuilege You are not beyonde sea as you vvolde haue vs beleeue for it is novv knovven this booke vvas vvritten in England These are fovver manifest lyes this is the Iudgement of God against you Doe not you take pittie of this poore minister that stowpeth to so miserable helpes for his releefe But this doore not seruing his turne to gett ouâ— he runneth to an other You charge the magistrates learned byshopes sayeth he as yf they vvere carelesse vvhat doctrine is deliuered vnto the people Yea marie this is to the matter for yf you caÌ„ make the state to answere for your doeings you may lye by authoritie no maÌ„ with safetie shall dare to controll youâ— I haue seene a gentleman named M. Pasye whoe had a custome that when he went after his Lorde and had played some pranke with his companions in suche sorte as he feared a blow coÌ„ming towardes hym againe he wolde steppe before his maister and say beware Sir there is one that will strike you Euen so deale you ministers in your generation with vs that are of the Catholique part VVhen you haue excited vs by demaunds offers chalenges prouocations when you haue styrred vs with lyes slaunders reproches and other iniuries yf you see any litle rebuffe draweinge towards you againe you steppe with facilitie behynde the clothe of estate putting her Maiestie her Magistrates and the whole realme betwene you and vs sayeing that we offer at them and not at you we impugne them not you whereas in dede in many things there is nether woorde nor thought that toucheth them And in the matter of religion it selfe wherein they are amisse we seeke to doe them good by discryeing of your falshoode But yet you as not able to defeÌ„d any one thing youre selues drawe them alwayes as principall to euery matter though neuer so farre of from their affaires Shall I geue an exaÌ„ple besides your selfe for you doe it almost in euery leafe M. Howlet complaynethe of theese our wicked and loose times whiche is common as you know to all that lyue in theÌ„ Doctor Fulke to scrape a litle fauour from the courte and to make the other odiouse cryeth out against hym for that he had not consideration of her Maiesties singular vertues and others of high estate vnder her VVas there euer parasite that flattered so palpablie vvhen men accuse the times must they except princes by name or else be accounted traytours what Apostle what auncieÌ„t father dyd euer so but we pardone your necessitie extreme pouertie dryueth you to these shyfts whiche I thought good once to note to the reader that I may not trouble my selfe with them in euery place where they are vsed The third hole where at this afflicted byrde seeketh to wring out is by layeing all his lyes vpon one Goâ—visus from whome as he sayeth he tooke these reportes against the Iesuits adding notwithstanding for preuenting of after clappes that he promised not to myngle no sillables of his owne nor to delyuer the scripture in precise wordes as it lyethe but rather as he sayeth in full weight of true sense and matter And thervpon he maketh a solemne protestation of his true dealing But I will shew and proue notwithstanding this hypocrisie that admitting this libertie whiche M. Charke requireth of chopping and chaunging in his reportes yet that he is a false man and malitiouslie meant to deceyue in the same And yf I proue not this let me be taken for false my selfe And I doe moste willinglie stand to my offer made before which M. Charke taketh holde of that yf these reportes as they are here layde downe and denyed by vs can be verified eyther in woordes or true sense against the Iesuits lett all be beleued which they speake dayly against vs. And that you may take some foresight of M. Charks vntrue meanyng euen now at the begynning his falshoode appeareth first in that he citing his reports owt of an other maÌ„ against the Iesuits without seing their book as he sayeth dyd not in all the whole discourse so muche as once name or quote his author Gotvisus eyther in text or Margent the cause whereof shall appeare after And albeit he now sayeth that Gotvisus was quoted in most of his bookes yet I dare scarse beleeue hym for that I coulde neuer yet happen vpoÌ„ any that had hym quoted And yf some had it whye not all Secondlie he had seene the most of these reportes set downe by keÌ„nitius against the Iesuits from whome it seemeth that Gotuisus borowed them and refuted by Payuas a learned Portugall and conuinced of so manyfest forgerie falshoode as kemnitius to my knoulege durst neuer to defend them agayne nor anie other for hym How then coulde M. Charke without shameles false meanyng laye downe the verye same reportes againe without namyng his authour or seing the booke wheÌ„ce they were cited especially hauing besides many other Canisius a Iesuit before his eyes in England whiche teacheth the verie contrarie as after shall be shewed Thyrdlie his author Gotuisus in the moste of these reportes citeth not onelye the Censure of Colen but also the large Catechisme of Canisius for his proofe whiche was common in England to be seene and wherby M. Charke muste nedes know that Gotuisus slaundered the Iesuits most impudentlie For couering whereof M. Chark not onelie suppressed the quotation of Canisius and cited onelye the Censure of Colen whiche he knewe was not to be had in England but also supressed his cheefe Author Gotuisus hym selfe which no writer vseth in suche matters of importaÌ„ce to the end the reader might not by hym learne out the quotations of Canisius and thereby discouer the falshoode And this was the true cause of the omission of Gotuisus his name And is not this moste willfull treacherie Lastely M. Charke as not contented with this doeth help out often tymes the reportes of Gotuisus being but short and breef sentences with new falsifications of his owne or with fraudulent recitall when they seeme not of them selues to sounde absurdlie enough against the Iesuits And can this be excused froÌ„ malitiouse and false meanyng Now theÌ„ let vs see whether these things be so in deede or no. Of the nature and definition of sinne THE CENSVRE First therfore you report the Iesuits to saye It is not sinne what soeuer is against the woordâ— of God Censura Colon. leafe 44. 1. These voordes are guylefullie reported peeced and culled out for your purpose of a large discourse and yet most true in their sense The occasion vvhereof vvas this One Monhemius a Lutheran against vvhose Catechisme this Censure of Colen vvas made vvolde nedes proue Concupiscence remayning after baptisme to be a mortall sinne albeit no consent of hart vvere gyuen vnto the same for proofe therof he brought in this definition of sinne Sinne is what soeuer
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.
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
peoples saluatioÌ„ of that tyme. For God supplied it otherwyse that is by woorde of mouthe vnwritten And this maketh for vs for in suche tymes the written woord was not sufficieÌ„t without all other helpes as you affirme it is as for exaÌ„ple when onelie S. Mathewes Gospell was written and nothing els of the new testament yet graunt I that this scripture was sufficieÌ„t for that tyme. For that God supplied yt otherwyse by the woordes and speeches of his apostles So before Moyses wrote the lawe the patriarches had sufficient for theyr saluation thoughe they had ether nothinge or verie litle writen woorde And yet you can not saye that the written woorde of that tyme was sufficient of it selfe without all tradition by mouth VVerfore this answere is against your selfe as also that is whiche you frame to the secoÌ„d reason affirming that albeit dyuers partes of scripture be wanting now whiche was in S. Pauls tyme yet still it is sufficieÌ„t whiche I denye not being ioyned to the other supplies that God vseth For God supplieth by tradition and woorde of mouthe But whether in all tymes the onelie written woord that is extant be sufficient of it selfe to the whole Churche without all other helpes deliuered by tradition that is our question And of times past when the law was not written no man without impudencie can affirme that the written woorde was then sufficient And of our tyme that is after the writinge of the new testament Epiphanius sayeth Non omnia a diuina scriptura accipt possunt quapropter aliqua in scripturis aliqua in traditione sancti Apostoli tradiderunt All things necessarie can not be had from the scripture And therfore the holie Apostles left vnto vs some thinges writteÌ„ and some thinges by tradition VVhich signisieth sufficientlie what Iudgement the primatiue Church had of this matter as more at large shalbe shewed in the article foloweing whiche is also of this same argument Of teaching traditions besides the scripture Art 5. THE CENSVRE 5. You reporte the Iesuites to saye That the want of holy Scriptures must be supplyed by peeciâ—ge it out by traditions Cens fol. 220. This is coyne of the former forge all false and noe one such vvorde to be found in all their booke But yet as though they had sayed soe you fight manfullye agaynst this your ovvne sâ—ntence sayinge in manner follovvinge Contrarye to this is the lawe in Moyses Thow shalte not adde to the woordes which I speake to thee nether shalte thou take froÌ„ theÌ„ But vvhy do you breake the lavv M. Charke in reportinge the lavv you haue heere added the singuler nuÌ„ber in the Verbe and the plurall in the Noune and haue taken avvaye the numbers vvhich the lavv gyuer vsed chauÌ„ged the same at your ovvne pleasure and that for a purpose vvhich I could gesse at But let all thinges be lavvfull vnto you vvhat maketh this lavv for your pourpose By your meaning the Apostles and EuaÌ„gelistes did offend in adding any thing besides the lavve of Moyses vvhiche is absourd Nether did Moyses in this place forbiddinge to adde or take avvaye speake of his vvrytten lavve for he had not yet vvritten it but of those thinges vvhich he deliuered theÌ„ by vvorde of mouthe at that time the vvhich he vvilled them to keepe and obserue vvhollye and perfectly vvithout chaunginge it by addition or diminution or by their ovvne corrupte gloses as naughtie men are vvonte to doe And this is the true meaninge of that place and not as you vvould haue it that nothinge should be beleeued besides that vvhiche Moyses set dovvne for a litle after Moyses hym selfe commaundeth the lâ—vves to heare the Prophet vvhich God should rayse afâ—er hym as hym selfe meanynge therby Christ. THE DEFENCE Heere agayne M. Charke disburdeneth hym selfe vpon Gotuisus sayeing If the Censure of Colen hathe no suche vvordes Gotuisus fayled in vvriting their booke But gentle sir wiliam this matter is not so shyfted of You knew that Gotuisus tooke these woordes from kemnitius against whome they were proued false by Payuas before you wrote your booke as the most of his other reportes were How chaunceth it then you wolde vtter theÌ„ agayne without seeing the originall whether they were true or no Besyde this Gotuisus citeth Canisius for the same woordes where no one suche woorde is to be fownd whye looked you not in Canisius to see yt or whye had you not cited Canisius in your Margent as well as the Censure of Colen which you well knew was not to be had whye dyd you conceale Canisius I saye can you be excused from willfull dishonest dealyng in this matter No no your desperate resolution is to-too euident But saye you we holde the doctrine thoughe the Iesuites haue not the woordes VVhat doctrine M. Chark that the want of holie scripture must be peeced owt by traditioÌ„s It is false VVe speake not so vnreuereÌ„tlie of the scripture as shall better appeare by the article foloweyng VVe doe not teach that the scriptures are wanting or neede to be peeced It is your hereticall malice which deuiseth these woordes Though bothe partes of gods woord that is both written vnwritteÌ„ be necessarie vnto gods Church yet both of theÌ„ do staÌ„d in their full perfection assigned them by God nether is the one a mayme or impeachement to the other no more than is S. Lukes Gospell to that of S. Mathew or S. Pauls epistles to any of them bothe For as you may not saye that S. Mathewes Cospell is maymed for that S. Lukes is also admitted or that S. Pauls epistles are a peecing vp of the former Gospells no more can we saye that gods woorde left vs by mouthe in tradition is a â—ayme or detraction to that whiche he hath left vs in writing or that in writing to be a disanullyng of that whiche we had by tradition for that bothe are partes of gods woord of equall authoritie as shalbe shewed more largelie in the twelueth article together with certaine meanes how to knovv and discerne the same VVherfore these odious speeches against the dignitie of holie scripture doe procede onelie from the malice of you our aduersaries and of no cause or matter ministred by vs. After certaine tryflyng speeche to litle purpose M. Charke concludeth peremptorilie this article in these vvoordes To conclude it is a great iniquitie to adde traditions or your vnvvritten verities to the vvrytten vvoord of God vvherunto no man may adde because nothing is vvantynge and to hym that addeth shall the curses vvritten in the booke be added for euer cityng in the MargeÌ„t the place of the Apocalips vvhiche sayeth that vvho soeuer addeth or taketh avvaye from that booke of prophecie shall incurre the plagues vvritten in that booke But good Lorde when vvill these men leaue to abuse the scriptures learne to speake to the purpose yf vvee beleeue all that is vvritten in that booke of reuelations and other things besides reuealed vnto
vs els vvhere by God doe vve incurre this curse of S. Iohn therby S. Iohn sayeth nothing may be added or taken awaye from the perfectioÌ„ of that most excelleÌ„t mysticall booke of reuelations but dyd he meane heerby that nothing should be credited besides that vvhiche is there vvritten S. Iohn hym selfe vvrote diuerse things vvhich are not in the Apocalips yea by the iudgement of kemnitius a protestant he vvroote hys vvhole Gospell after the Apocalips And yet I thynke by this additioÌ„ of his Gospell he did not runne into the curses of that booke How theÌ„ is this place alleaged agaynst vs for beleeuyng those thynges whiche our auncetours haue delyuered vnto vs as receyued from the mouth of Christ and his Apostles how holdeth this argument no man may adde to the booke of Apocalips ergo no man may beleeue a traditioÌ„ of Christ or his Apostles May not a man aswell inferre ergo we may not beleeue the actes of the Apostles But this is their common alleaging of Scriptures It is Lamentable to see the sleight dealings of these men in matters of suche importance It is a great iniquitie sayeth Charke to add traditions or your vnvvritten verities to the vvritten vvorde of God VVhat meane you Sir by adding whoe doeth add or in what sense If God left any doctrine by tradition vnto the Churche and our auncetours haue deliuered the same vnto vs especiallie those of the primatiue Churche what shall we doe in this case shall we refuse yt It seemeth daungerous and I see no reason For the same men that delyuered vnto vs the scriptures and sayed this is gods written woorde and sayd of other forged scriptures this is not gods written woorde the same delyuered vnto vs these doctrines sayeinge this is Gods woorde vnwritten As for example S. Austen and Origen doe teache vs that baptizing of infants is to be practized in the Churche onelie by tradition of the Apostles S. Ierom and Epiphanius tell vs that the fast of the lent and other the lyke is a traditioÌ„ of the Apostles Dionisius and Tertullian saye that prayers and obâ—ation for the dead are traditions of the Apostles S. Basil teacheth that the consecration of the font before baptisme the exorcisme vppon those that are to be baptized theyr anointing with holie Chrisme and diuers lyke thinges are delyuered vnto vs by prescript of Christ and his Apostles Thus testifie these men and no man in the Churche controlled theyr testimonie at that tyme wherby it is euident that all that Churche beleeued it Nowe what shall we doe when these and many other lyke things are delyuered vs by our fore-fathers the doctors and cheefe pyllers of Christ his Churche shall we reiect and discredit them wherfore or vppon what ground these men were nearer to the Apostles tymes than we are by many hundred yeeres and therfore could better tell than we can what the Apostles left by tradition or left not Agayne they were no dishonest men and consequentlie wolde not write a lye or deceyue vs wittinglie And yf they wolde yet other men wolde haue controlled them VVhye then should it be suche iniquitie in vs to receyue and beleeue the traditions which they deliuer vs as M. Chark sayeth it is If they come from the mouthe of Christ his Apostles as thes fathers doe affirme then are they parte of Gods woorde also as well as the other whiche are written But you will saye I knowe they come not from Christ and his Apostles And how I praye you can you proue that to me whye should I beleeue you rather than these holye fathers whiche lyued so long agoe I doe not see fot example sake why I should beleeue a CHARKE or a FVLKE commyng but yesterdaye from the Grammer Schoole before a Cyprian a Tertulian a Basil a Ierome a Chrysostome an Ambrose or an Austen especiallie in a matter of fact as our case is seyng they lyued more than twelue or thyrtene hundred yeeres nearer to the deed doeing than these ministers doe and yet to this extremitie am I driuen For hearken a litle how D. Fulck handleth these men about traditions S. Cyprian is alleaged agaynst hym sayeing that the mynglyng of wyne and water in the Chalice is the tradition of Christ hym selfe Fulke but yf Cyprian had bene vell vrged he vvolde haue better considered of the matter Tertulian is alleaged sayeing that the blessing with the signe of the crosse is a tradition of the Apostles Fulke Tertulians iudgement of tradition vvithout scripture in that place is corrupt S. Basil is alleaged for the same matter affirmyng the custome of blessing with the signe of the crosse to be an Apostolicall tradition Fulke Basil is an insufficient vvarrant for so vvoorthie a matter S. Ierome is alleaged sayeing that Lent fast is the tradition of the Apostles Fulke Ierome vntruelye ascribeth that tradition to the Apostles S. Chrisostom is alleaged sayeing â—hat the Apostles decreed that iÌ„ the sacrifice of the Aultar there should be made prayer for the departed Fulke vvhere he sayeth it vvas decreed by the Apostles c he muste pardon vs for crediting hym because he can not shevv it ovvt of the Actes and vvritings of the Apostles But dyuers fathers are alleaged together beside Chrisostome for the same matter Fulke vvhoe is vvytnesse that this is the tradition of the Apostles you vvill saye Tertulian Cyprian Austen Ierome and a great many moe But I vvolde learne vvhye the Lord vvould not haue this setforth by Mathevv Marke Luke or Paul vvhy they vvere not chosen scribes heerof rather than Tertulian Cyprian Ierome Austen and other suche as you name But this is a counterfait institutioÌ„ fained traditioÌ„ And in other place beyng vrged by the lyke he discrediteth all antiquitie sayeing It is a coÌ„mon thing vvith the Aâ—ncient vvriters to defend euerie ceremonie vvhiche vvas vsed in their tyme by tradition of the Apostles Heere now are sett before me a payre of balances with fulke and Charke in one ende and Cyprian Origen Tertulian Basil Ierome Chrisostome Epiphanius and Austen in the other ende for all these fathers as you see affirme constanlie traditions of Christ and his Apostle besides the written woord Fulke and Charke denye the same They alleage particular examples Fulk opposeth hym selfe to them all But whiche in reason should I rather beleeue You shall heare some of them speake S. Basil the great was a maÌ„ I trow to be matched in credit with Charke the minister His woords are these Dogmata quae in ecclesia praedicantur quaedam habemus e doctrina scripto tradita quaedam rursus ex apostolorum traditione in mysterio id est in occulto tradita accepimus quoruÌ„ vtraque parem vim habent ad pietatem nec hiis quisquam contradicit quisquis sane vel tenuiter expertus est quae sint iura ecclesiastica Among the doctrines whiche are preached in
they signifie the fauour of the hearers All these circumstances the Iesuits laye downe when they compare the scripture abused to a nose of waxe wrested And who is so foolishe but will coÌ„fesse that a lewd and wicked man in an ignorant audience where all men fauour his doctrine for that he flattereth them in theyr sinnes maye wrest abuse the holye scripture as men are wonte to bend a nose of wax to what plausible sense it lyketh hym best No mary sayeth M. Chark it can not be For albeit an hereretike may vvrest and peruert the scripture yet S. Peter teacheth that it shalbe to hys ovvne destruction and the scripture notvvithstanding shall remayne perfect and vndefiled As though we did holde the contrarie to this or as though we did impute the wrestinge of the scripture vnto imperfection of gods woorde not to the malice of the wrester or as though we sayd that this wresting were not destruction vnto the wrester VVho euer heard suche kinde of answering he sayeth the scripture may be wrested and peruerted and yet he will euen with these woords answer and refute vs which holde also that it may be wrested He sayethe the very same that we doe and yet will he haue men beleeue that he sayethe the contrary VVhere were your wittes sir william when yow wrote this answer But you storme greatlie agaynst the comparison sayeing shall Iesuits mayntayne this directlie or in directlie in a kâ—ngdome vvhere the gospell is preached VVhat els good syr euen in the kyngdome of you ministers to the confusion of your false named Gospell whiche is nothing els but the letter of scripture peruerted and woorse abused and wrested by yow to all errors and licentiousnes than euer waxen nose was yet bended to diuers fashions It is no fault of holye scripture that wicked men may abuse it For the more excelleÌ„t a thing is the more easie and pernicious is the abuse therof Christ was the excelleÌ„test benefit that euer God gaue vnto this worlde and yet is he called notwithstanding lapis offensionis petra Scandali the stone of offence and rock of scandal not for any fault or imperfection in hym but through the wickednes of suche as abuse that benefit So when S. Ierome dothe call the scripture alleaged corruptlie by Marcian and Basilides euangelium Diaboli the deuills Gospell yeelding this reason that the Gospell consisted not in the vvoordes of scripture but in the sense Also wheÌ„ S. Austen calleth the scripture arcum haereticorum The bowe of heretiques And Ireneus compareth it abused by heretiques to a Iewell stamped with the forme of a dogge or fox In Lykewise when Gregorie Nazianzen compareth it to a syluer skaberd with a leaden swoorde within yt Tertullian to the deceitfull ornaments of harlots Vincentius Lyrinensis to poysoned herbes couered in the apothecaries shoppe vvith fayer titles and superscriptioÌ„s on the boxes where they lye No doubt these fathers meaÌ„t not by suche comparisons to detracte any thinge from the dignitie and excellencie of holie scripture no more than the Iesuits dyd in comparing it to a nose of vvax abused and vvrested by malitious heretiques And I vvolde knovv of M. Charke for that he exaggerateth so muche the indignitie of this comparison hovv he vvill interpret hys holy man Martin Luthers ovvne vvoordes vvhiâ—he after a long discourse to proue that all heresies seeke theyr foundation in scripture are these Quare verum est sicut dicitur Scripturam sanctam esse librum haereticum hoc est eiusmodi librâ—Ì„ quo potissimùm haeretici nituntur VVherfore it is true vvhiche is sayde that the holye scripture is an hereticall booke that is suche a booke as heretiques most of all leane vnto And a litle after Haereseon liber biblia sunt The bible is a booke of heresies Oh that the Iesuites had vsed suche vvoordes hovv vvold VV. Chark and his felovves haue triumphed against them for the same And yet thoughe Martin Luthers fashion vvas to runne ouer the shooes in what soeuer he tooke in haÌ„d I thinke he meant nothing in these vvoordes against the dignitie of scripture For he addeth in the verie place alleaged Scriptura sancta haereseon liber est non sui causa sed istorum nebulonum qui eam deprauant The holie scripture is a booke of heresies not of it selfe but by the meanes of those knaues vvhiche doe peruert yt This is father Luthers swete benediction vppon sacramentaries vvherof I trowe M. Charke will not deny hym selfe to be one And thus you see that the Iesuites haue not onelie trueth and reason on their syde to vse that comparison but also haue examples in this kynde both of auncient fathers and of our aduersaries them selues VVhat intemperat malice then is this of william Charke so to raue against them for this one coÌ„parison vsed without all derogation of Scripture yf they had spoken euill of any scripture in it selfe yf they had reiected any one booke therof as protestants doe many yf they had discredited or defaced any one sentence therof as Luther dothe most odiouslie the whole epistle of S. Iames yf they should saye any booke of the scripture to be written with a profane and ambitious spirit as your D. Fulk doeth of the Machabies yf they should ieste at the Angell Raphaell in the booke of Tobie as M. VVhittaker doeth or fall to that extreme impudencie as to reuyle in open audience any holie person coÌ„mended in sacred wryte as you dyd M. Chark without shame when you called that blessed womaÌ„ of God Iudith vnchaste Iudith in your disputations with M. Campian yf the Iesuites I saye should saye or doe any of these thynges as you are driuen to doe then myght you iustlie accuse theÌ„ drawe theÌ„ into hatred for deprauing of gods woorde But seing they doe not soe but alltogether the coÌ„trarie seyng they defend gods whole woord agaynst you that offerre violence to the same seyng they maintayne the number of bookes which antiquitie hath left theÌ„ the vnwritteÌ„ traditioÌ„s that the Apostles haue delyuered them the Catholiques expositioÌ„s which auncient fathers haue assigned them seyng they nether choppe nor chaunge nor corrupt nor put owt nor coÌ„teÌ„ptuouslie reiecte anie one thing as you doe infinite for maintainyng of your ruynous and most impious cause you endeuour in vayne to discredit them by exaggerating one poore comparison or similitude whiche they vpon occasion vsed to expresse the wickednes of you heretiques that abuse scripture and not to attribute any imperfection to scripture it selfe No man in the world euer spake more reuerentlie of holye scripture than Iesuites doe And whether they seeke to execute it in lyfe as muche as our ministers of England or no let them be iudges that know bothe theyr conuersatioÌ„s I myght heere alleage infinite testimonies owt of theyr workes how with what reuerence they speak of scripture But one place onelie of Canisius
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
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