in their recordes called the Rouge with the true causes of the same the yere of our Lorde a thousand fyue hundred thertie seuen the two and twentith of April being Easter monday Of whiche sentence Caluin vnderstanding by frendes of his where he lay secret in the towne chaunged his apparell and fledde pryuilye the same daye from Geneua to Strawsburge And this is extant vnder the publique recordes of the citie as I haue sayed though Beza hath not bene a shamed to publish the contrarie But in processe of tyme by infinite practyzes that the vsed and by the earnest sute of some noble men bothe duche and frenshe whome he had made Caluinists he was recalled to Geneua againe And theÌ„ layeing a surer plott than before by bringing in many straungers into Geneua he made his partie so strong as he became as absolute lorde of the towne while he lyued cutting of all his enemies by deuises sleights as Castellio Caroly Bernardin Ochin and Peter Morand Ministers whome he caused to be banished as also diuerse of the nobilitie and among them Perrinus chefe gouernour of the citie with Petrus VVandalus the Balthasars and others whome he made to flye for safegarde of their lyues for that he by forged letters infinite other inuentions had brought them in suspitioÌ„ of betrayeing the citie first to the king of fraunce then to the duke of Alvay gouuernour of Millan But the noble men goeing to Berna cleared them selues before the Councell there and by good happe got the Italian which suborned by Caluin had accused them of treasoÌ„ in Geneua affirming that he was seÌ„t as a spie froÌ„ the Duke of Alvay to vewe the citie to treate with those noble men for the takyng therof and hauing affirmed thus muche he was sent awaye pryuilie into Italie againe disguised in apparell and his rewarde payde hym in his purse VVhereof these noble men hauing intelligence by their secret frendes of Geneua caused the way to be layd for hym and by gods prouidence â—ooke hym at Vienna in Dolphine and caused hym to be brought back to Berna where he plainlie trulie coÌ„fessed all the matter to be forged and by whome he was induced and by what rewarde to doe yt VVherevpon the Lordes of Berna gaue furthe a publique testimonie vnder their common notaries hand of the whole matter and of the innocencie of these men But yet Caluins faction of straungers was so strong in Geneua as they could neuer be restored during his life Diuerse suche examples are shewed of the tyrannie and crueltie of Iohn Caluin against those that any waye offended hym As against Montouset a Lutheran Almner to the Queene of Nauarra Caluines cheefe benefactrix whome he made to flye Geneua for speaking a woord or two against his partiall distribution of the Queens almes sent in great quantitie to the poore protestaÌ„ts of that Citie for the moste parte imbezeled and deuoured by Caluine hym selfe as this man avowched Also against one Peter Ameau whome he made to walke throroughe the citie naked in his shirt with a torche in his hand and to aske hym openlie forgiuenesse for that he had spoken at a supper certaine woordes in his dishonour sayeing that he dyd not see why Caluin should be so muche estemed in Geneua as he was and preferred before all other that euer wrote Also against Seruetus otherwise called Michaell villanouanus doctor of phisik in Vienna of dolphinie an heretique but yet enuious of Caluins glorie vvherevpon he wrote from vienna to Geneua thirtie epistles directed to Caluin together with a litle booke in written hand the yere of our Lorde 1546 wherein he had gathered together certaine faultes escaped Caluin in his institutions VVhiche thing Caluin tooke so greuouslie as preseÌ„tlie he beganne to purpose his deathe as hym selfe openeth in a secret letter to his deare freâ—de Petrus viretus minister of Lausanna And therevpon beganne to accuse hym of heresie bnt yet disseÌ„bling his intention allured hym to come to Geneua as he there confesseth But Seruetus not trusting his woordes kept hym selfe thence vntill the yere of our Lord 1553 at what tyme meanyng to goe into Italie he thought to passe secretlie throrough Geneua to staye there but one night which was Saturday But yet being wearie and knoweing the lawes of Geneua to be that no passingers may be molested for three dayes resolued to stay there Sonday VVhereof Caluin by chaunce hauing secret intelligence presentlie sent his man Nicholas to arrest hym the next daye he sent his brother Anthonie Cauuin to enter an action of deathe against hym which action Iohn Caluin folowed bothe by hym selfe and by his frendes so vehementlye as within few dayes after he caused Seruetus to be burnt alyue in the marquet place with a soft fyar for his greater torment VVhereat many protestants were offended and greuouslie skandallized for that Caluin had set furthe a booke a litle before to proue that no heretique ought to be put to deathe for his religion Now for other behauiour of Caluin as for his intolerable ambition and pryde there are many examples geuen as that to make hym selfe famouse he deuised diuerse letters and other woorkes in prayse of hym selfe and published them vnder the name of one Galasius others and sending them to PETRVS VIRETVS minister of Lausanna to be spread abrode by hym he being well acquainted with Caluins style espied the deuise and was greatly offended therwith and wrote to Caluin that he wolde discredit hym selfe by suche doeings But Caluin answered that it was expedient it should be so done for-the credit of theyre cause and that he meant to vvrite shortlie as muche in the commendation of VIRETVS hym selfe and FARELVS also VVherwith VIRETVS was pacifyed These letters with one and fowertie more were found in the studdie of viretus after his runnyng away from Lausanna and shewed to the Lords of Berna who coulde neuer abyde Caluin after warde for this manifest declaration of his vainglorie and pryde The same Caluin after he had brokeÌ„ downe the images rased the pictures of Christ and all Saints in Geneua he caused his owne picture to be drawne and set vp in diuerse places of the citie and vsed also to gyue litle pictures and images of hym selfe to gentlewomen and gentlemen to carrie about their necks And when one tolde hym that some thought muche of this he answered he that can not abyde yt let hym brust for enuye An other example of his intolerable pryde vain-glorie is this that foloweth One called Brulle of the towne of Ostune being made a protestant came with his wyfe to dwell at Geneua and for that he was but poore he procured many letters in his commendation to Caluin for his releefe of the common purse which he obtained And being therby made a fast frende vnto hym and verie familiar Caluin on a time bracke with hym and his wyfe in a
so taken away by baptisme but that it remaynith styll to tempt vs M. Charke to deceyue the reader foysteth in this woorde synne to S. Austens text reciting his woordes thus Concupiscence is not so forgyuen in baptisme that it is not sinne By whiche addition of the woorde synne the matter seemeth to stand cleere on hys syde And this also can not be excused by ignorance but sheweth open and willfull malice in the man I passe ouer many of these and suche lyke tryckâ—s whiche can not proceede of negligence simplicitie or ignorance but muste needes be effectes of sett-malice As where he reportinge diuers vntruethes against the Iesuites owt of Gotuisus as he now sayeth concealed the author in his first booke And now though vppon necessitie he confesse the same yet fynding the things there reported in his conscieÌ„ce to be false where as his Author citeth allwayes two Iesuites bookes for proofe of the same that is CeÌ„sura Coloniensis which is not to be had in EnglaÌ„d and Canisius his greate Catechisme which euery man may haue and reade M. Chark quoteth the page alwayes in Censura Coloniensis whiche he is sure can not be seene and concealeth the page cited lykewise by his Author in Canisius for that hys reader turning to Canisius hys places should fynde the falshoode bothe of M. Charke and hys Author And Sometimes also when Gotuisus dyd not belye the Iesuites sufficientlye M. Charke without blushing will falsifie hys woordes to make them more odious as where Gotuisus hys woordes are that the Iesuites saye the scripture is as it vvere a nose of vvax M. Chark sayeth their woordes are the scripture is a nose of vvaxe Infinite such things you shall fynde in the treatyse foloweing whiche proueth manifestlye that point wherof I spake before to wytt that M. Charke is a man of no synceritie in matters of controuersie but purposelye bent bothe wittinglie and willinglie by all meanes possible to deceyue And thus much M. Chark concerning your writing As for your other behauyour towardes M. Campian in the Tower of London els where I mean not greatlie to stand vpon It was suche as myght be looked for at a mans handes of your makyng or degree The Censure somewhat noted your inciuilitie in woords which you had vttered agaynst hym before in your booke But that was nothing to the contemptuous vsage of so learned a man in open audieÌ„ce with barbarours threatenyng of that further crueltie whiche then you had in mynde and nowe haue putt in execution vppon hym But aboue all other things that was most ridiculous and fytt for a-stage whiche you thought was excellent and became you vvell and that vvas your often turning to the people requesting them to reioyse thank the Lord that he had gyuen you suche an argument agaynst the papistes as novve you had to proposeâ— And then wheÌ„ greate expectation was moued the argumeÌ„t came forth it proued not woorth three egges in Maye for that M. Câ—mpian dispatched it oftentymes in lesse than halfe three woordes These are the comedies that you exercise to get applause of the people vvithall For vvhiche cause also you had M. Norton the Rack-maister at your elbovve to repeat and vrge your argument for you to the purpose Surelie it is pitie that you durst not make these fevve disputations publik vvhere more men might haâ—e laughed and bene witnesses of your folye especiallie of that in the end when beynge now brought to a non plus in argueing and thervpoÌ„ the people beginning to depart you M. Charke caused the dores to be shutt and no man to be lett owt vntill with one consent they had ioyned with you in prayer to thanke the lorde for your victorie that daye gotten vppon M. Campian O M. Chark how greedie are you of a litle vainglorie and how vayne are the wayes by which you seeke yt thynke you that men haue no Iudgement in the woorld abrode Trow ye not that many smylde in their sleeues to beholde this hypocrisie no no yf you had parted with M. Campian but at an euen hand as you ioyned with hym with all inequalitie we should haue had books of Triumphe sett â—oorth before novv And this secret of yours all the people of England doeth knowe Doctor Fulke dyd but looke into vvisbyche castell the last yeare past and framed to hym selfe but a certaine imaginatioÌ„ of a victorie for that those learned prisoners contemned his conference and beholde he printed presentlie a pamphlett in hys ovvne prayse as after is shevved And vvhat then vvolde you and your bretheren haue done abovvt these disputations vvith M. Campian yf you had thought yt any vvaye able to abyde the vevve And yet as I sayd you knovv the inequalitie vvherby you dealt vvith that maÌ„ being but one vnbookt vnprouided vvearyed vvith imprisoâ—ment and almost dismembred vvith the rack threatned and terrified vvith deathe to come appointed onely to ansvver and neuer to oppose All this you knovve and the vvorlde bothe knovveth and meruaileth at yt abrode Mary vve meruayle not vvhoe know your purses For that vve are sure and dare auowe to your faces that you vvill neuer deale vvith vs at euen hand or vpoÌ„ equall conditions vvhile you lyue And heere M. Charke because we are now fallen into this matter I am in the name of all my felow Catholiques to renew our publike chalenge of equall disputation to you and to all your brother ministers agayne You see M. Campian is gone whome you named in this matter our onelye Champion You see also that M. Sherwyn is made awaye with hym whome you are wont to saye for more abasement of the other to haue bene farre better learned than M. Campian hym selfe But how soeuer that was bothe of them haue you dispatched and therby in your opinion greatly weakned our cause Yet notwithstanding we are the same men that we were before yea muche more desirous of this tryall than before VVherfore we request you now at length yea we coniure you either for trueth sake yf you seeke yt or for your ovvne credites sake yf ye will retayne it that you yeald vs after so muche sute and supplication some equall triall eyther by writing preaching or disputing There is no reasoÌ„ in the worlde but onelie feare that may moue you to denye vs this our request For the reason of state which you alleage M. Charke in your replye is most vayne For what can a peaceable disputation graunted vs for religion indaunger your state but onelie that you wold saye that this disputation may chaunce to discouer your errors and so make the hearers deteste your state of heresie For other daunger there can be none to your state And yf you had the trueth with you as you pretend whose propertie is the more to shew her selfe the more she is examined you should muche increase your state by this publike tryall For that you shoulde bothe gayne more to your parteâ— by opennyng 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
sayd trueth and also confirme many of your owne syde that now iustlye doe wauer vpon this open discouerie of your feare in tryall VVherfore once againe I saye vnto you ministers obtaine vs this disputation thoughe it be onelie but for a shevv therby to hold maintaine your credites VVe protest before God that vve seek it onelie for the triall of Christ his trueth for searche vvherof vve offer our selues to this labour charges perill of lyfe VVe aske for our safties but onelie such a vvarrant from her Maiestie as the late Councell of Trent dyd offer vnto all the protestaÌ„ts of the wolrd wherof you haue the copie vvith you VVee will come in what kynde number at what tyme to what place you shall appoint Yf you will haue your owne countrie meÌ„ they are redie to come Yf you will haue straungers to dispute in your vniuersities before the learned onely there shall not want For your selues vve gyue you leaue to call all the learned protestants of Europ for your defence VVe will take onelie our owne countrie men yf you permitt vs. VVe gyue you leaue to oppose or defende to appoint questioÌ„s to chuse owt controuersies to begynne or end at your pleasure and to vse any other prerogatyues that you please so that they impugne not the indifferencie of tryall VVhat can yow alleage whye yow should not accept this If you had leuer make this triall in other countries than at home before your owne people as perhaps you had chuse you what protestant state you lyst and procure vs therin the forsayd saftie from the prince and we will nether spare labour nor cost to meet you therin also Or yf this seeme hard or lyke you not then take you but the paynes some number of you to come into any Catholique kyngdome or countrie where you best please And wee will procure what securitie soeuer reasonable you shall demaund for your persons And more then that we will beare your expenses also rather than so good a woorke shall remayne vnatteÌ„pted And yf you can deuyse any other conditioÌ„ to be performed on our partes whiche I haue left owt doe you adde the same and we will agree by the grace of God to fullfill it If we offer you reason than deale somewhat reasonablie with vs againe For all the world will crye shame and begynne to discredit you yf you will nether gyue nor take vpon so great oddes as heere are offered you If you dare not venture with disputatioÌ„s yet graunt vs certaine sermons to encounter with you vpon this matter Or yf that also be to daungerous procure vs but a litle passage for our bookes at leastwyse you M. Charke shall doe an honorable acte to obtayne licence of free passage for this booke vntill it be answered by you to the end that men hauinge reade this ouer may be the better able to conceyue your answer when it comethe THE ANSVVERE TO THE PREFACE TOVCHINGE DISCERNINGE of Spirites MAister Charke besides the matter in question maketh a praeface to the reader touching the vtilitie necessitie and waye of tryeing spirites alleginge the woordes of S. Iohn whereby we are willed not to beleeue euerie spirite but to trie the spirites whether they be of God VVhich he saythe he and his felowes offer to doe and we refuse But that this is clearlie false and a formall speche onelie withoute trueth or substance our dedes doe testifie which are alwayes with indifferent men as good as woordes Our bookes are extant whereby we haue called to tryall all sectaries of our tyme as they rose vpp and shewed new spirites as Luther Corolostad Swinglius Munster Stankarus and Caluin whome our aduersaries folow as one of the last And nowe in England yf we had not bene willing or rather desirouse of this triall of spirites we wolde neuer haue laboured so muche to obtayne the same of our aduersaries in free printing preaching or disputatioÌ„ much lesse wolde we haue aduentured our liues in comming and offering the same to theÌ„ at home with so vnequall conditioÌ„s on our syde as we haue done and doe dayly for the triall of truthe And yf all these our offers and endeuours ioyned with so many petitions and supplications for triall haue obtained vs nothing hitherto but offence accusations extreme rackings and cruell deathe me thinke M. Charke had litle cause to make this preface of our refusing triall and their offering the same except it were onelye for lacke of other matter and to kepe the custome of sayeing somewhat in the beginning But perhappes M. Charke will saye that althoughe we offer triall yet not suche nor by suche meanes as in his opinion is lawfull sure and conuenient VVhen we come to the coÌ„bate then remayneth it to be examined whiche parte doeth alleage best meanes whiche shalbe the argument of this my answer to this preface And I will endeuour to shew that all the meanes of tryall which M. Chark his felowes will seme to allow in woord for they offer none in deede are neyther sure possible nor euident but onelie meere shyftes to auoyde all triall and that we on the coÌ„trary parte doe not onelie allow but allso offer all the best and surest wayes of tryall that euer were vsed in Gods churche for discerning an hereticall spirit from a Catholique The onelie meanes of tryall whiche M. Chark will seme to allow is the scripture wherto onelie he wolde haue all triall referred and that which can not be tryed therehence by hym must stand vntryed And then as yf we refused all tryall of scripture he vseth his pleasure in speche against vs. But this is a shyft common to all suche as M. Chark is And the cause thereof I will declare immediatlye S. Augustin dothe testifye it of the heretiques of his tyme. And all the sectaries of our dayes doe make it plaine by experience referring theÌ„ selues in woordes eche one to the holie scripture onelie for maintenance â—f there errours and denyeing all other meanes of tryall whereby the true meaning of scripture may be knowen The causes of this shyft in all new teachers are principally three The first to gett credit with the people by naming of scripture and to seme to honour it more than their aduersaries doe by referring the whole triall of matters vnto it The second is by excluding councels fathers and auncitours of the churche who from tyme to time haue declared the true sense of scripture vnto vs to reserue vnto them selues libertie and authoritie to make what meaning of Scripture they please and thereby to gyue colour to euerye fansie they list to teache The third cause is that by chalenging of onelie scripture they may delyuer them selues from all ordinances or doctrines left vnto vs by the first pillers of Christe his Church thoughe not expresselie sett downe in scripture thereby assume authoritie of allowinge or not allowing of comptrolling or permittinge what soeuer liketh or
serua mandata yf thow wilt be saued kepe the cōmaundements and so deliuer all his gospellers from the burden thereof what differēce is there in these two speches of Christe seing they are bothe spoken to that yong man and bothe in the singular number as infinite other things of the Gospell are to other particular persones as to the Cananaea to the Adulteresse to Nichodemus to the Cēturio to Zachaeus to the blynde deafe and others which notwithstanding are common to all in that they touche eyther lyfe or doctrine The like absurd shiftes I might repeate in a hundred other points VVhat can be more plaine than the woordes of scripture videtis quoniam ex operibus iustificatur homo non ex fide tantum Doe you see how that a man is iustified by woorks and not by fayth onelie But yet it auayleth nothing VVhy so they auoyde it by interpretation S. Iames say they vnderstandeth of Iustification before men and not before God O poore deuise S. Iames hathe in the same place talking of fayth without woorkes Nunquid poterit fides saluare eum Can faythe without woorks saue him doeth S. Iames meane here of saluation before men or before God Again whē S Paul sayeth factores legis iustificabuntur the doers of the lawe shall be iustyfied whiche is the verie same thing that S. Iames in other woordes sayeth that mē shalbe iustified allso by woorks Doeth S. Paul mean before men or before God Yf you say before mē the text is against you which hath expressely apud deum before God The like euasiō they haue whē we alleage the woords of S. Paul qui matrimonio iungit virginem suam benè facit qui non iungit melius facit he that ioyneth his virgin in mariage doeth well and he that ioyneth her not doethe better VVhereof vve inferre that virginitie is more acceptable meritoriouse before God than mariage allthough mariage be holie No say our aduersaries S. Paul meaneth onelye that he doeth better before men and in respect of vvorldlie commodities but not before God But this is absurd for they graunt the former parte of the sentence he that ioyneth his virgin doeth vvel to be vnderstoode before God for that it is sayde also in other vvoordes non peccat he doeth not sinne whiche must nedes be vnderstoode in respect of God How thē can they denie the second clause and he that ioyneth her not doeth better not to be vnderstoode in respect of God also and in respect of merit and rewarde in the lyfe to come especiallie whereas Christ promiseth the same rewarde to virginitie in an other place where he sayeth there be Eunuches vvhich haue gelded them selues for the kingdome of heauen he that can take it lett hym take it You maye see now by this litle and I might shew by many mo examples howe bootelesse it is to bring scripture when we agree not vpon the interpretation VVhat then shall we bring the auncient fathers and doctors of the primatiue church for the vnderstanding of scripture shall we interpret it as they doe vnderstad it as they vnderstoode it No that our aduersaries will not agree vnto but onelie in matters indifferent owte of controuersie VVhere soeuer in matters of controuersie betwene vs and them the olde fathers doe make against them as in all points they doe there will they denie their exposition For example The consent of auncient fathers is alleaged against M. Fulke attributing superioritie to Peter vpon the woordes of Christ Thovv art Peter vpon this rocke vvill I buyld my Church but he auoydeth it verie lightlie thus It can not be denied but diuerse of the auncient fathers othervvyse godlye and learned vvere deceyued in opiniō of Peters prerogatiue S. Ambrose Ierome Chrisostom Cyrill and Theodoret are alleaged for expounding a pece of scripture against M. Fulk Ioh. 5. abowt Antichrist How doeth he shift it thus I ansvver they haue no ground of this exposition S. Ierome with all the ecclesiasticall writers are alleaged for interpreting of the woords of Daniel cap. 7. against the protestants M. Fulke I ansvver that neyther Ierome nor anie ecclesiasticall vvriter vvhome he folovveth hathe any direction out of the scripture for this interpretation S. Austen is alleaged for interpreting Dauids woordes he hathe placed his tabernacle in the Sunne of the visibilitie of the churche Fulke Austen doeth vvrongfullie interpret this place S. Ambrose Ephraim and Bede are alleaged for interpretatiō of certaine scriptures Fulke Gods vvoorde is so pitifullie vvrested by them as euery man may see the holie ghoste neuer meant any suche thing S. Chrisostome is alleaged for certaine interpretations of scripture Fulke he alleageth in dede scripture but he applieth it madlie and yet he often applieth it to the same purpose◠alas good man The consent of fathers is alleaged for interpretatiō of certaine places of scripture of the prefiguration of the crosse of Christ. Fulke The fathers do rather dallie in trifeling allegories than sovvndlie proue that the crosse vvas presigured in those places I might here make vp a greate volume yf I wolde prosecute this argumēt to shew how these new doctors doe contemne reiecte all authoritie antiquitie witt learning sanctitie of oure forefathers of all men in effect that euer liued beside them selues yea of their owne new doctors and maisters also when they come to be cōtrarie to anie new deuise or later fansie of theirs This is euidēt in Luther reiected by his ofspring about the reall presence number of sacraments images bookes of the Bible order of seruice and the like Also in Caluine reiected about the head of the churche in England and about all the gouernmēt thereof in Geneua And I coulde alleage here diuerse examples where he and Beza bothe are reiected by name in diuerse points bothe of puritanes and protestants in England when they differ from them but that this preface wold growe to be too long VVherefore I maye perhaps yf this booke come not otherwyse to be too greate adde a short table or appendix in the end to shew by examples the vnconstant dealings of our aduersaries herein and that in verie dede when all is done and sayd that may be and all excuses made that can be deuised the verye conclusion is that onelye that must be taken for truthe whiche pleaseth them last of all to agree vppon and theyr bare woordes must be the proofe thereof For those bookes onelie be scripture in the bible whiche they appoint in those bookes that onelie is the true sense whiche they gyue out the fathers erred in all things where they differ from them the new doctors as Luther Caluin and the rest sawe so much onelie of the truthe as they agree with them and no further This is the sayeing of our aduersaries this is the saying of all the other sectaries of our time this hathe bene the
sayeinge of all heretiques from the beginninge and this muste needes be the sayeinge of all heretiques for the time to come For except they take this waye it is vnpossible to stand or encrease against the Church And by this way a man may beginne what heresie he will to morow next and defend it against all the learning witt and trueth of Christendome Adioyne now to this that our aduersaries notwithstanding all request sute offer or humble petition that we caâ— make will come to no publique disputation or other indifferent and lawfull iudgement but doe persecute imprison torment and slaughter them which offer the same and then lett the reader iudge whether they desire offer iust triall or no â— M. Charke affirmeth Now for our partes as I haue sayd we offer vnto them all the best surest and easiest means that possiblie can be deuised or that euer were vsed in Gods Church for triall of trueth or discouering of heresie For as for the bookes of scripture seing we must receyue them vpoÌ„ the credit and authoritie of the auncient Church we are coÌ„tent to accept for canonicall and allow those none other which antiquitie in Christendome hathe agreed vpon Next for the contents of scripture yf our aduersaries will stand vpon expresse and plaine woords hereof we are content to agree therevnto and we must needes be farre superiours therein For what one expresse plaine text haue they in any one point or article against vs which we doe not acknowleige literallie as they doe as the woordes doe lie but we haue against them infinit whiche they can not admit without gloses and fond interpretations of their owne For example sake we haue it expreslie sayd to Peteâ— that signifieth a rocke vpon this rocke vvill I buyld my churche Math. 16. they haue no where the contrarie in plaine scripture VVe haue expresselie touching the Apostles he that is great among you let hym be made as the yonger Luc. 22. they haue no where there is none greater than other among you VVe haue expresselie this is my bodie Math. 26. you haue no where this is the signe of my bodie VVe haue expresselie the bread that I vvill gyue you is my fleshe Io. 6. they haue no where it is but the sygne of my fleshe VVe haue expresselie a man is iustified by vvoorkes and not hy faith onelie Iacob 2. they haue no where a man is iustified by fayth alone No nor that he is iustified by faith without workes talking of works that folow faith vvhereof onelie our coÌ„trouersie is VVe haue expresseselye vvhose sinnes ye forgyue are forgyuen vvhose sinnes ye retayne they are retayned Ioh. 20. They haue no where that preestes can not forgyue or retayne sinnes in earthe VVe haue expresselie The doers of the lavv shalbe iustified Rom. 2. They haue no where that the law required at ChristiaÌ„s hands is impossible or that the doing therof iustifieth not Christians VVe haue expresselie Vovv yee and render your vovves Psal. 75. they haue no where vow ye not or yf yow haue vowed breake your vowes VVe haue expresselie kepe the traditions vvhiche ye haue learned eyther by vvoorde or epistle 1. thess 2. They haue no where the Apostles left no traditions to the church vnwritteÌ„ VVe haue expresselie yf thovv vvilt enter into lyfe kepe the commaundements and when he sayd he dyd that allredie yf thovv vvilt be perfect goe and sell all thovv haste and gyue to the poore and folovv me They haue no where that eyther the commaundementes can not be kept or that we are not bound vnto them or that there is no degree of lyfe one perfecter than an other VVe haue expresselye vvoorke your ovvne saluation vvith feare and trembling Philip. 2. They haue no where eyther that a man can woorke nothinge towards his owne saluation beinge holpen with the grace of God or that a man should make it of his beleefe that he shalbe saued without all doubt or feare VVe haue expresselie doe ye the vvoorthie fruits of penaunce Luc. 3. They haue no where that faithe onelie is sufficient with out all satisfactioÌ„ and all other woorkes of penaunce on our parts VVe haue expresselie that euerye man shalbe saued according to his vvoorks Apoc. 20. They haue no where that men shalbe Iudged onelie according to their faith VVe haue expresselie that there remaineth a retribution stipend and paye to euerie good vvoorke in heauen Marc. 9. 1. Cor. 3. Apo. 22. Psal. 118. They haue no where that good woorkes done in Christ doe merit nothinge VVe haue expresselie it is a holie cogitatioÌ„ to praye for the deade 2. Machab 12. They haue no where it is superstition or vnlawfull to doe the same VVe haue an expresse example of a holy man that offered sacrifice for the dead 2. Machab. 12. They haue no example of any good man that euer reprehended it VVe haue expresselie that the affliction whiche Daniel vsed vppon his bodie was acceptable in the sight of God Dan. 10. They haue no where that suche voluntarie corporall afflictions are in vaine VVe haue expresselie that an Angel dyd preseÌ„t Tobias good woorkes and almes deedes before God Tob. 12. They haue no were that Angels can not or doe not the same VVe reade expresselie that Ieremias the pâ—het after he was deade praied for the people of Iâ—rael 2. Mach. 15. they haue no where the contrarye to this I leaue manie thinges more that I might repeate But this is enoughe for example sake to proue that albeit our aduersaries doe vaunt of scripture yet when it cometh to expresse woordes they haue no text against vs in lieu of so manie as I haue here repeated against them nor can they shew that we are driuen to denie anie one booke of the Bible nor to glose vppon the plaine woordes of anye one plaine place of scripture as they are enforced to doe But now yf they will not stand onelie to plaine and expresse woordes of scripture but also as in dede they must to necessarie collections made and inferred of scripture then muste we referre onr selues to the auncient primatiue church for this meaning of Gods woord For it is like they knew it best for that they lyued nearer to the writers thereof than we doe whoe could well declare vnto them what was the meaning of the same And then our aduersaries well know how the auncieÌ„t fathers do ground purgatorie prayer to saints sacrifice of the Aultar vse of the crosse and other like points of our religion besides tradition vpon the authoritie of scriptures also expounded accordinge to their meaning albeit oure aduersaries denie the same to be well expounded If our aduersaries will yet goe further for the triall of our Spirits we are well content and we refuse none that euer antiquitie vsed for the triall of a Catholique and hereticall spirit The olde heretiques
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
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
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
dishonour of his Maister yet maketh he mention bothe of this feare and also of the deathe of his companion and graunteth it to haue bene one principal motiue of his entraunce into religion His wordes are these Hos terrores seu primum seu accerrime sensit eo anno cum sodalem nescio quo casu interfectum amisisset Luther felt thes terrors feares eyther first or moste sharplie that yeare wherein he lost his companion slayne I know not by what chaunce Nay Martin Luther coÌ„fesseth the matter him selfe in an epistle to his father Iohn Luther to whome he yeeldeth a reason of hys runninge owt of religion by his vnlawfull entrance thervnto Memini nimis sayeth he praesente cum iam placatus mecum loquereris ego de coelo terroribus me vocatum asserereÌ„ Neque enim libens cupiens fiebam monachus sed terrore agone mortis subitae circumuallatus voui coactum necessarium votum I doe remember too well when yow beinge pacified talked with me present I affirmed that I was called by terrours from heauen to enter into religion For I was not made a friar willinglie and of my owne desire but beinge enuironed with terrour and with the agonie of suddain deathe I made a vow vpon necessitie and enforcement Heere the matter is euident by Luther hym selfe whiche M. Charke so confidentlie denieth and cryeth out against bishope Lindan for reporting the same sayeing That he vvill not beleeue Lyndan in this no more than he vvill beleeue his reporte that the Caluinistes doe vvorship the Image of the deuyll In deede he sayeth that Caluinists doe adore theyr owne imaginations suggested by the deuyll aboue all authoritie or proofe besides as all other heretiques doe and in that sense doe honour the deuyll Againe he sayeth that in the yeere of our lorde 1572. when Caluinistes went to ouerthrow a monasterie at a towne called Leyden in flauÌ„ders they erected the signe of the deuyll in theyr publique banner whiche neuer Christians dyd before Yf M. Chark could haue refuted any of these particulars he should haue done well But by his generall reporte though he seeke to bring Lyndan in hatred yet it turnethe to his owne discredit releeueth nothing his cause in haÌ„de For the deuyll crieing out of Luthers mouthe thoughe M. Chark woolde seme to denye yt yet bringeth he not one syllable in disprofe thereof so many particulars are put downe by Coclaeus whoe liued with hym as euerye man may see that the matter was euideÌ„t And no protestant in Germanie where the matter was done as where also being Lutherans they doe esteeme Luthers honour more than Caluinistes doe neuer yet hathe bene able to reproue the same But now come we to the doctrines of libertie and carnalitie whiche the Censure affirmeth Luther to haue taught after he had once coped with a Nonne VVhiche M. Charke after his ministeriall phrase expresseth in these woordes VVhen the lorde had opened hys eyes thinkinge hym selfe no longer tyed to hys vnaduised and superstitiouse vovv he maryed in the lorde and all this vvas laufull But how soeuer you name the lorde M. Chark to couer this lasciuiouse lecherie of a renegate frier with his vowed ladie yet I haue shewed before out of the auncient fathers that this pretended mariage on bothe partes was esteemed worse than adulterie in the primatiue churche whereof he that will see more lett hym read S. Basil de monast const cap. 22.34 35. Also quest 14. fuse explicat Also S. Augustin in Psal. 78. 99. also Concill Chalced cap. 26. Also fulgentius de fide ad Pet. ca. 3. And finallie S. Leo. ep 92. ad Rusticum But now to the doctrines them selues in whiche I will be as short as I may in defence of my reportes being moste true as shall appeare by luthers owne wordes and that in those books of his and editions whiche are to be had in England publiquelie So that the aduersarie shall haue no more refuge to saye he can not finde the booke And as M. Charks vntrue dealing hathe bene indifferentlie discryed by that which went before so shall it be muche more by these doctrines of Luther And because bothe M. Hanmer and M. Charke haue taken vppon them seuerallye to answer the same I will couple them together where soeuer they haue any thing woorthe the notinge aduertising the reader by the waie that whereas Luther hathe diuerse editioÌ„s of his woorks and diuerse of them diuerslie traÌ„slated out of duche into latin he must not maruayle yf the same booke some tymes haue diuerse titles though I meane now to cyte them vnder such names as nighe as I can as they are to be sene in the editioÌ„ of wittenberge sett furthe and as I haue seene them my selfe in England by melancthon Anno 1562. The first doctrine Fyrst then I affirmed Luther to teache that there is no synne but incredulytie neyther can a man damne hym selfe do vvhat mischefe he can except he vvill refuse to beleue M. Hanmer denieth not this doctrine but defendeth it onelye addinge that I haue racked Luthers vvoordes vpon the tentors of preiudice and then sheweth at large how all synnes doe lye sooking in the roote of increduâ—itie VVhiche is some what too fine for me to vnderstand M. Chark goeth further sayeing I may plainlie pronounce that in this place you doe in vvoords and matter reporte an open vntruthe For M. Luther hathe no suche doctrine Heere is no agreemeÌ„t in the deffeÌ„ders the one grauÌ„tinge it the other so flatly denyeynge the same But who wolde think M. Charke could answer thus without blushing heare Luthers owne woordes Ita vides quà m diues sit homo Christianus siue Baptizatus qui etiam volens non potest perdere salutem suam quantiscunque peccatis nisi nolit credere Nulla enim peccata eum possunt damnare nisi sola incredulitas So thou seest how riche a Christian man is who can not leese his saluation though he wolde with neuer so great sinnes except he will not beleeue For no synnes can damne hym but onelie incredulitie Again in the same tome he sayeth Infidelitas sola turbatio est conscientiae onelie infidelitie is a trouble of conscience Is not heere now as muche as I haue sayed If nothing must trouble a mans conscience but onelie vnbeleefe then nothing is sinne but onelye vnbeleefe Again yf a man can not leese his saluation yf he wolde neuer so fayne by committing neuer so greate sinnes except he will not beleeue then may a man doe what he will so he fall not into incredulitie But yet to shame these shamelesse men a litle further and to shew the wicked licentiouse doctrine of this loose apostata heare more what he sayeth in an other place Nihil prauum facit praeter infidelitatem Nothing maketh a man euell besides infidelitie And a litle after he concludeth thus Ex
hiis omnibus sequitur ê™ nullum vsque in terris sit peccatum preter incredulitatem Of all this that I haue sayed enseweth that there is no sinne any where vpon the earthe besides incredulitie Now lett the world iudge wheâ—her I haue reported Luther amisse or whether M. Chark be a true maÌ„ in denyeinge the matter so absolutely with suche vehemencie as he dothe affirming that Luther nether in woordes or matter hath anye such thing VVill you beleeue hym in other things which faceth a lye so openly in this But a lacke the poore man must saye somwhat for credites sake in their broken cause The second doctrine Secondlie I reported Luther to say the tenne commaundemeÌ„ts appertaine nothing to vs VVhich verie woordes bothe M. Hanmer and M. Charke doe graunt to be in Luther Marie they make long discourses vpon his meanyng whereby it is easie to putt on a colourable defence or excuse vpon any thing But lett the reader considerâ— how these woordes doe sownd in the eares of the people especiallie being ioyned with the doctrine goeing before of onelie vnbeleefe to be sinne And albeyt it be true which M. Chark sheweth out of S. Paul that we are not vnder the ceremoniall lawe of the Iewes any longer Yet this can not verifye luthers woords that the tenne commaundements appertayne nothing to vs. No nor that which M. Hanmer alleageth out of Luther as interpreting hym selfe sayeing that the teÌ„ne coÌ„mandementes appertaine to all but not for that they vvere commaunded by Moyses but for that they are vvriten in the nature of euery man For that by this means they should no more appertaine to vs than vnto gâ—ntiles into whose nature also they were writé But S. Augustin doeth proue that the ten commaundementes doe appertayne to Christians not onely more than vnto Gentiles but also more than vnto the Iewes them selues to whoÌ„ they were prescribed by Moyses And Christ saieth talkinge of this part of the law called Morall I came not to breake the lavv but to fullfill yt And S. Paul sayeth VVe doe not desâ—roye the lavv by faithe but doe establishe the lavv therby The third doctrine Thirdlie I reported of Luther that he sayd It is a false opinion to be abolished that there are fovver gospells For the gospell of Iohn is the onelie fayre true and principall gospell This report M. Hanmer graunteth wholie M. Chark graunteth the effect of the first and cheefe vvoordes but the latter concerning S. Iohns gospell he findeth not And therevpon thinketh that Luther neuer wrote any suche preface to the new testament as I cyte and therewithall inueigheth against me as citing at large and often times bookes vvhiche are not found as that de missa angulari Also as layeing downe one title for an other and the like For answere whereof other suche cauylls of our aduersaries against vs in citing of Luthers woorkes yt is to be noted that Luther wrote not all in latin but many things in duche whiche are notwithstanding alleaged by many men in latin skillfull in the duche tougueâ— After this diuerse men translated diuerse partes of Luthers woorks gaue them titles accordinge as yt seemed good to them as may appeare by the diuerse titles alleaged here by M. Chark and me of the selfe same woorke Beside this there be diuerse prints and editioÌ„s of Luthers woorks whiche doe greatlie varie VVhereupon hathe ensewed greate quarell in Germanie betwene the roughe and the softe Lutheranes about the false and corrupt edition of Luthers vvorkes And this treatise whiche M. Charke dowteth of de Missa angulari so printed and alleaged by all learned men hitherto is now come furthe except I be deceaued in the edition of wittenberge thoghe muche altered vnder this title de Missa priuata vnctione sacerdotum Mary yet Gesnerus a Caluinist maketh mention of fyue treatises de Missa priuata whiche are not to be gotten in England as I imagin and yet it were no reason to say therfore that no suche treatises were euer writen by Luther as M. Charke dothe Further more Luther hym selfe often chaunged his owne woorkes as the same Gesner testifieth that the book whiche he wrote against kyng henrye in latin was nothinge lyke that he wrote before against the same in duche Besyde this dyuerse other did alter Luthers woorkes bothe Suinglians and lutherans euen in Luthers owne tyme therby to draw hym to theyr deuises and partes And of Suinglians Luther hym selfe complaineth greuouslie against Martin Bucer And of Lutherans it appeareth not onelie by the contention aboue named abovvt the corrupt edition of Luthers vvoorkes But also by the often altering of the confession of Augusta writen by Luther and Melancthon and accounted as a Gospell amonge the Germane protestantes yea preferred before the Epistles of S. Paul as Alasco a Caluiniste dothe write but yet many tymes altered as ye may see in Andrevv fabritius which hath putt furthe all the editions from the beginning muche differing repugning one from an other by all which appeareth that heretiques doe prepare them selues starting holes for all needes But now to the matter Albeit M. Charke and M. Hanmer doe glose vpon the woordes of Luther wolde haue hym say onelie that the fower gospels were but one gospell and the lyke yet the matter is playne to hym that is not partiall that Luther speaketh in detraction of the three former gospells for whiche cause he sayeth in the place by M. Charke alleaged you may more rightlie call the epistles of Paul a gospell than those things vvhich Mathevv Marke Luke haue vvritten VVhiche signifieth some toothe against these three gospells Now for the last point touching S. Iohns Gospell it is to be seene iÌ„ the preface by me alleaged which yf you can not finde it is not my fault For that such a preface is extant that in latin yf you will not beleeue me reade but the Index of Luthers latin woorkes in Coclaeus where you shall finde it named As also in Gesnerus one of your owne religion in the Cataloge of Luthers woorks fo 504. suae bibliothecae And in that preface you shall reade not onelie so muche as I haue affirmed but also these woordes The epistles of Paul and Peter doe farre passe the three gospells of Mathevv Mark and Luke VVhich yet more proueth Luthers euell opinion of those three gospells And immediatlie it foloweth Iacobi autem epistola prae illis straminea est The epistle of Iames is of straw in respect of those of Paul and Peter which I haue added to shew the intollerable impudeÌ„cie of you your felowes in the Tower against M. Campian for that he could not presentlie shew out of your bookes where these woordes were written by Luther especiallye of M. VVhitaker who to the admiration laughter of all other natioÌ„s hathe set foorthe in latyn that Luther neuer called the Epistle of S. Iames Stramineam
a stravven epistle this is that I say that maketh men to think that you are gyuen ouer to a desperate resolutioÌ„ to mayntaine an euell cause euen against your owne consciences when you blush not to auow suche open vntruthes For I am sure that whitaker being a reader in diuinitie could not chuse but haue redde those woordes alleaged by learned men aboue an hundred times against Luther and yet he denieth them as confidentlie as yf he had neuer heard of the matter VVhat may be sayd to suche men For my anotation anexed to Luthers woordes expounding them as vttered against the former three gospells for that they speake to muche of good vvoorks though you affirme it to proceede of want of exercise and iudgement in scripture wherein you think your selfe onelie to excell yet is it moste true and discried by Luther hym selfe in the place alleaged and argueth in you some ignorance ioyned with more pride in not knowing or dissembling that these three gospells haue many things touching good woorkes contrarie to Luthers bare faythe and credulitie whiche are not set downe in S. Iohn expresselie as of the necessitie of the commaundements and lyfe euerlasting gyuen for keping the same Math. 19. Of the paye due vnto good woorks Math 20. Of the retribution whiche they shall haue in the resurrection of the iust Luc. 14. Of the rewarde of euery cuppe of water gyuen for Christ Math. 10. Marc 9. And many other the like whiche are not sett downe expresselie in S. Iohn though I know he writing with the same spirit could not but haue many thinges to the same effect The fovvrthe doctrine The fowrthe doctrine of Luther was Yf any vvoman can not or vvill not proue by order of lavve the insufficiencie of her husâ—and Let her request at his hands a diuorse or else by his consenâ— let her priuilie lye vvith his brother or vvith some other men This M. Hanmer vtterlie denieth and calleth it my shamelâ—sse reporte with other most bytter woordes as yf their had neuer bene any suche things writen by Luther Mary M. Charke taketh an other way in answering For he confesseth the whole matter but seketh to returne the shame thereof to vs. True it is sayeth he Luther gaue this euell counsaile but as he ansvvereth hym selfe he dyd it vvheÌ„ he vvas yet among you But novv sayeth he speaking of the tyme after his conuersion my mynde is to geeue other counsaile And then M. Charke as hauing taken a great aduaÌ„tage against me exclaymeth with all his force VVhat holie vvritings can be free from your foule reproches yf you vvill thus reade a peece of a sentence against the manifest purpose of the vvriter You haue reason M. Chark and yf the matter goe so cleare against me as you make yt I ask no perdone but let me be discredited for euer But yf you haue shewed here suche a peece of willfull and shamelesse dishonestie as can not be excused how will yow looke your owne freends in the face hereafter Let vs then examyne the matter First I graunt that Luther sayeth that he vvrote this counsaile for confessors or such as heard confessions vvhen he vvas yet in feare of the pope For so are his wordes But yet that this was after his Apostacie froÌ„ the Catholique Religion or as you terme it after his conuersion to your Gospell for many yeres after he stoode in feare of the pope and sayd nothing against confession yt appeareth euidentlie by his whole discourse in the place alleaged where he sayeth plainlie beside other things that the papists dyd seeke aduauntage against hym for this opinion of his and to that ende dyd misreporte his woordes as he sayeth besides you knowe that papists teache no suche doctrine but the plain coÌ„trarie therfore he coulde not maÌ„dare literis as his woordes are that he did that is he coulde not put in vvriting publishe suche a doctrine among vs but he wolde haue bene resisted presentlie yf he had bene of our churche at that tyme. So that this shyft of youres is euidentlie false that he wrote it when he was a papist For albeit he being not yet sufficientely fortified with fryndes to defend hym stood in feare of Antichrist as he tearmeth him and consequentely durst not breake any further to the open execution of this beastely doctrine as afterward he dyd yet had he left papistrie as you call it a good whyle before as appeareth by his owne wordes and by computation of the tyme wherin he wrote this booke But now to the second point whiche is the cheefest Yow affirm and I confesse that Luther sayeth But novv I vvould gyue other counsaile But what wold he reuoke that he had sayde speake M. Chark or else you are shamed VVolde he reuoke his senteÌ„ce I say being now out of the feare of the popeâ—no but he will doe muche worse For whereas before he dyd but counsaile the husbaÌ„d to permitt his wyfe to lye with an other Now being pope hym selfe of Germany owt of feare of the pope of Rome he will compell hym to yt And how trow yow as the pope of Rome doeth compell meÌ„ by excommunication No but by taking hym by the locks for those are his ruffianlie woordes he wolde towze hym except he dyd yt I will recite luthers owne stile that you may see where true and false dealinge ys Thus then he gyueth the wyfe counsayle and authoritie to speake to her husband Ecce marite debitam mihi beneuolentiam praestare noÌ„ potes meque iuuenile corpus decepisti c. Faue quaeso vt cum fratre tuo aut proxime tibi sanguine iuncto occultum matrimonium paciscar sic vt tu nomen habeas ne res tuae in alienos haeredes perueniant ac sine vt spoÌ„te tua a me decipiare quemadmodum tu praeter voluntatem meam imposuisti mihi Perrexi porro maritum debere in ea re assentiri vxori quod si renuat ipsa clandestina fuga saluti suae consulat in aliam profecta terraÌ„ alii etiaÌ„ nubat Consilium tale iam tum impertii cum adhuc me detineret pauor antechristi nunc verò secus longè consulere animus esset talique marito qui adeo mulierem deludat dolis vehementius lanificium immissa manu conuellerem vt vulgo dici solet Idem de muliere iudico quà mquà m id rarius sit quâm in viris In english thus Beholde husband you caÌ„ not performe the frendshipp you owe me and you haue deceiued bothe me and my youthfull bodie be coÌ„tent I pray you that I bargaine a secret mariage with your brother or with some next of your kynne in suche sorte as you may still beare the name to the ende your goods may not passe to straunge heyres And permit your selfe to be deceyued willinglye of me as you haue deceyued me against my will And I went yet further sayeth Luther
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
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
horrible disease of lyfe and wormes whiche dyd eate his whole body ouer the moste lothesome vlcer in his fundameÌ„t and priuie members which dyd stynck so outragiouslie as no man might abyde to be neare hym And this they doe testifye whiche were about hym euen vnto the last breathe in his bodye And they add sayeth our author and doe confirme yt by diuerse witnesses that he dyed swearing and cursing and namyng the deuylls through desperatioÌ„ of his extreme paynesâ— and moste pityfully bewayling the tyme that â—uer he had studyed or writteÌ„ booke And all this hathe this author published with muche more touching the lyfe and deathe of Iohn Caluin The same author hathe set furth this present yere 1582. an other historie of the lyfe and maÌ„ners of Theodore Beza successour of Caluin in his chayre of Geneua and hathe dedicated the same booke to the honorable Magistrates counsailers and other gouuernours of the sayd citie of Geneua for that they can best tell whether most of the reportes be true or no or at leastwyse may learne the same as moste of all it behooueth them And he sayeth that he hathe done it in the time of Beza yet lyuing to the ende he may refute it yf any thing be sayd amysse First therfore to lett passe other insinite things he sheweth how Beza was borne at vezels in fraunce whose father was lyeuetenant for the king in that citie and when he came to dye seyng the moste wicked disposition of his sonne gaue to hym his curse and vnder the hand of a publique notarie and in presence of many witnesses dyd disinherit hym and disclame hym for his sonne Yet had he brought hym vp in studye of learning bothe at Paris and Orleans had procured hym to be made prior of LoÌ„giumey But he sawe that he turned all to wickednesse without hope of amendement And albeit he abounded in all kynde of vice Yet the excesse of carnall synnes dyd passe all other in hym wherwith he dyd not onely offend God hym selfe but infected also all other whose company he vsed This appeareth beside other testimonyes by an infamouse Epigrame reade in comparison of the two sinnes of adulterie and Sodomie and betwene a boye which he abused and a mans wyfe of Paris that he kept in dishonestie the boye he calleth AVDEBERTVS the harlot CANDIDA though her true name were Claudia The Epigram begynneth thus Abest Candida Beza quid moraris Audebertus abest quid hic moraris And then he goeth on examinyng which sinne he may loue best in the ende preferreth the horrible sinne of Sodomie with his boye before the pleasure of his harlot CaÌ„dida And he dyd not onelie make these fylthie verses but also dyd put theÌ„ in print the yere 1548 vnder his owne name and Robert Stephanus of Paris dyd prynte them VVhereat the Councell of Paris was so much offended that an arrest was graunted furthe to apprehend Beza VVhich he vnderstanding of fyrst of all solde his Priorie for redye money in hand and then presentlie before the matter was knowen dyd lett out the same to other fermers for fyue yeres taking also money before hand VVhen he had done this he stole awaye and came secretlie from vezels to Paris there agreed with CaÌ„dida which was a Taylers wyfe dwelling in CaleÌ„der streete she stealing what she coulde from her husbaÌ„d ranne with hym to Geneua where they were receyued by Caluin and much made of and Beza soone after placed by hym as cheefe minister and publique reader of diuinitie in Lausanna VVhen this was knowen the parties to whome Beza had solde and leased his priory fell together by the eares who shoulde haue it and muche money was spent about the sute in the court of Paris The poore Tailer whoe had lost his wyfe and some goodes besides coulde not tell which waye to looke nor where to complaine Afterward in the yere 1561 when the kyng of Fraunce had graunted a free disputation to the protestants at Poysie and safe conduct to all them that wolde come whereat Beza was also as one bothe the foresayd Tayler the buyars of his benefice came thither to meete with their Marchant But by reason of the kinges safe conduct the poore Tayler hauinge no freendes was prohibited to psâ—cute the matter against Beza so that he was fayne to lett goe his wyfe Beza keepeth her for his wife at this daye But the fermers making more freendes theÌ„ the tayler could got a hundred crounes delyuered them by the handes of one MATHEVV LAVNOY a minister one of their cheefest disputers at that tyme but sence returned to the Catholique faithe hath opened their dealinges in many bookes Monsieur Beza beyng now in credit in Geneua and reader of diuinitie in Lausanna folowed his olde manners still in seekinge newe and freshe baytes notwithstanding the presence of Candida for hauyng begotten his seruant with childe whiche was yong and fayre called Claudia fearing leste the matter should come to the magistrates â—ares feigned bothe hym selfe and the mayde to be sicke of the plague whereby none should dare to come vnto them and so obtayned of PETRVS VIREâ—VS minister also of lausanna that they might bothe be placed in two chambers of his in an vtter gardyne which was graunted And then he caused a poore yong man that was a barboure to come vnto hym and persuaded hym to take a grosse quantitie of bloode from Claudia the mayde and moreouer to gyue her a strong purgation whiche he dyd and therevpon she was soone after delyuered of her childe deade whiche they buryed in that gardyne as the same barbour afterward confessed and the authour hearde it from his owne mouthe But in this meane space whilest those things were in doeinge Beza to couer matters and to deceyue the people the more made certayne spiritual songs of the great paynes whiche he suffered by vehemencie of the plague and sent them to be printed at Geneua where as in deede he was not syck at all After this trouble of Child byrth vvas past Beza with his maister Caluin as long as he lyued and after his death he alone imployed hym selfe to all kynde of wickednesse not onelie at home but also abrode And first the conspiracie for taking the yong king of FraÌ„ce at Amboise was contriued from Geneua and one Villemongis a noble man fledde from digieon in France a litle before for counterfaiting the kings brode seale was sent from Geneua as cheefe in this matter And after that infinite treasoÌ„s appeared from Geneua as for the taking of Lions OrleaÌ„s Poytiers and other Cities whiche all or the moste part came from Beza his heade as diuerse parties executed haue confessed Also sone after he deuised the death of the noble Duke of Guise and committed the execution thereof to one Pultrot whoe dyd it in deede at the onelie motion and persuasion of Beza as he openlie protested at his
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
whiche as well in that place as in the first booke of his retractations c. 13. he proueth moste leardnedlie that originall sinne is voluntarie in vs by the first voluntarie acte of our first father in whiche acte we all dyd sinne voluntarilie that beinge an vniuersall acte of all mankynde contained in Adam as also the Apostle confirmeth sayeing of Adam In quo omnes peccauerunt In whome all haue sinned His second obiection is of the citie of refuge appointed by God among the Israelites for them that had killed a man vnwillinglie whereof he wolde inferre that vnwilling manslaughter is a sinne But I am ashamed of M. Charke that professinge skill in scriptures doeth so ignorantlie alleage them against theyr playne meaninge and against hym selfe For that chapiter sheweth at large how these cities of refuge were appointed amonge the leuits for indifferent triall of manslaughter leaste the next of kynne to hym whiche was slayne called there the reuenger of bloode shoulde reuenge the acte vppon the kyller before the matter were tried But when the thing was now examined in the citie of refuge by sufficient witnesses as the scripture appointeth then yf it were fownd that the slaughter was committed willinglie and of hatred then the murderer was delyuered into the hands of the reuenger of bloode to be slayne for the same But of vnwillinglie and without malice liberabitur innocens de vltoris manu sayeth the text the innocent shalbe deliuered frō the hand of the reuenger But yet he shall not departe from that citie vntill the deathe of the high pryest For that as Rabby Isaac Arameus writeth the highe pryest whose cities these of refuge amonge the Leuits were had interest and dominion vppon this man by the lawe of Leuits during his lyfe for the benefit whiche he had receaued by the place of refuge To whiche also Rabbi Moyses and Rabbi Leui Ierson doe add an other reason for that yf he should haue returned presentlie amōg the kinred of the mā killed his verie sight might haue styrred thē vp to reuengement vppon hym agayne after the triall passed But in the deathe of the high pryest the publique sorowe was so great as all men forgate theyr priuate iniuries and dyd vse commonlie to forgeue one an other all offences saye these learned Iewes And now I aske againe whie M. Charke brought in this exāple Doeth not this make cleare against hym prouinge that manslaughter vnwillinglie done is no sinne but innocencie yf not manslaugter how muche lesse other smaller actions are cleare from sinne when no consent of will is yeelded Against the clause of the definition which sayeth that sinne must wittinglie be committed he obiecteth that M. Howlet in his reasons of refusall doeth acknowlege a sinne of ignorance which I graunt but he speaketh of culpable ignorance whereof a man hym selfe is the cause as his example of persecuting Saul doeth shew whose ignorance although it were not so willfull as of many persecuting protestants at this daye whoe of purpose refuse to know the truthe yet as S. Bernard well noteth it could not be but culpable in hym as also hym selfe doeth confesse For that he being learned in the olde testament yf he wolde haue conferred patientlie with the Apostles he might haue seene that they taught nothing but correspondent to the aunciēt scriptures of God But we speake heere of inculpable ignorance called inuincible by the tearme of schoolemen for that it was not in the doers power to auoyd it nor he fell into it by his owne default As yf an English man being in India in seruice of the Prince should be commaunded by proclamation made in westminster hall to appeare there at a certaine daye and he as not hearyng of the same should not appeare this man is excused by inuincible ignorance And so in all other cases S. Augustin and Chrisostome proue of purpose moste learnedlie that this kynde of ignorance which in deede is onelie proper and true ignorance doeth excuse from sinne Yea God hym selfe proueth it by the example of Abimelech king of Gerare whome he excuseth from sinne for that he had taken awaye Sara Abrahams wyfe vpon ignorance in simplicitie of hart thinking her to be Abrahams sister as the text sayeth The like simplicitie of hart and inculpable ignorance was in Iacob lieing with Lia in stead of Rachell as the Censure sheweth And albeit M. Charke most impiously Ioynynge heerein with Faustus the Manachie dareth condemne the holie Patriarche in a double sinne as Faustus dyd yet S. Austen defendeth notablie this holy mans innocencie bothe against that and this heretique in his two and twentith booke against Faustus through many chapiters together as also in his booke of the Citie of God And with S. Augustin doe take parte S. Iustin the martyr l. de verit Christi religionis and Theodoret q. 84. in generat and lyranus vpon the verie same place of genesis And what one woorde can M. Charke now peepe against all this To conclude therfore though M. Charke hathe picked out certaine obiectiōs of our owne bookes made and answered by our selues against the learned definition of the Iesuits as in deed thay haue no other argumētes but suche as we lende them our selues yet hathe he as you see not infringed but establyshed that definition thereby and hathe bewrayed in hym selfe greate wantes in holdinge that sinne is no acte that no euill men doe sinne but the euill in men that sinne is not voluntarie that it is no humane or reasonable action that it requireth nether vvill nor knovvlege in the doer that fooles madde men may as properlie committ sinne as others for all these are his positions by whiche he may as well defend that beasts and vnreasonable creatures may committ sinne and be sinners which S. Augustine thinketh to be so absurd as no man of common sense will affirme the same But what doe I alleage S. Augustin whome M. Charke reiecteth heere by name about the definition of sinne Let vs returne therfore to the Censure And see what is further brought about this matter THE CENSVRE But novv hovv doeth M. Charke ouerthrovv this doctrine forsoothe thus Contrarie to this sayeth he is the woordes of God 1. Ioh. 3. the transgression of the lawe is sinne You seme to haue made a vovve M. Charke not to deale plainlie in anie one thing Can you not alleage one litle sentence vvithout falsifyeing The vvoordes of S. Iohn are these Euerie one that sinneth committeth iniquitie and sinne is iniquitie Or as you vvill perhappes seeme to enforce it out of the greeke vvoorde ANOMIA Sinne is transgression of the lawe But vvhy haue you fraudulentlie turned it backevvard you knevv vvell the force of transposition out of Sophistrie that it changeth all the meaning of the sentence For yf I say Euerie man is a liuing creature it is true but yf I turne it backevvard
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.
can be no more sinnes in vs than they are in beastes for the lyke reason Nether is the tenthe coÌ„maundement alleaged by you for the contrary doctrine to vvitt thow shalt not couet any vvaye repugnant to this For this commaundemeÌ„t forbyddeth consent to these motions not the verie motions vvhiche are not in our povver as the Scripture it selfe signifieth vvhen it sayeth This coÌ„maundement which I doe gyue thee this daye is not aboue thee And as S. Austen learnedlie proueth out of an other place of scripture vvhere this commaundement is expounded to vvit Goe not after thy concupiscence That is consent not vnto them or folovve them not THE DEFENCE The vnderstanding of this article dependeth wholie of that whiche goeth before For yf no sinne be coÌ„mitted where no consent of will is as hath bene proued abundaÌ„tlie in the two former articles then can not the first motions of lust or concupiscence that come by naturall instinct onelye without any cause gyueÌ„ by vs be sinne yf we yeeld no coÌ„sent of hart to the same And this is so euident bothe in reason common sense philosophie diuinitie and authoritie of auncient fathers as no man wolde haue the face to stand against it but a man enforced therunto as M. Charke isâ— S. Austen dothe proue the matter purposelie in diuers places whoe was not behynde M. Charke in iudgement You remember how many places I haue alleaged of his before as that amoÌ„g the rest VVe myght be allvvayes vvithout synneâ— yf vve neuer dyd yealde consent to our concupâ—sceÌ„ce to sinne And in an other place talking purposelie of these first motions he sayeth Quibus si non consentitur nullius peccati reatus comrahitur vnto whiche motions yf we gyue no consent of hart no guylt of sinne is contracted by them VVhat can be sayde more effectuallie Agayne he sayeth in an other place that these first motions of lust are so fare of from beyng sinnes of their owne nature as Christians vse not to aske God forgiuenes for them except they be eyther negligent in repellinge them or doe yealde some consent vnto them The verie same he hathe in diuers other places as concione 3. in psa 118 And Libâ— de perfect iustitiae cap. vlt. and yet more largelie Li. 1. cont duas ep Pelag cap. 13. and in dyuers other places affirming that wee neede not saye for thes sirst motions dimitte nobis debita nostra Forgeue vs our trespasses So that you see with what witt or reasoÌ„ this doctrine is called blasphemous in the Iesuites by VV. Charke But yet though this matter be moste euident in it selfe Lett vs examine what cauilles he seeketh to frame some shewe or semblance of a replie He reprehendeth first as superfluous my addition of woordes vsed for explication sake when I sayde that the first motioÌ„s were no sinne without consent Yf they come of naturall instinct onelye vvithout any cause gyuen by vs. This explicatioÌ„ I saye he greatlie reprehendeth sayeing I pray you are not all the fyrst motions of lust merelye naturall and euermore of some cause gyuen by vs c In which fond interrogation first he includeth two contraries For if they be meerlie naturall then are they not of any cause gyuen by vs. And yf they be of causes gyuen by vs then are they not meerlie naturall For that natura voluntas are distinct agents as he ought to haue learned in philosophie Secondlie it is false that all fyrst motions of lust are meerlie naturall For in lewed men they are often voluntarie as when a man applieth his imaginanation purposelie to thinke of dishonest things and so sturreth the motions of concupiscence also when a maÌ„ voluntarilie doeth beholde lasciuious sightes or readeth wanton bookes or the lyke In all whiche cases though the motions of lust that ryse be naturall in the roote as diuines tearme it yet is their nearest and immediat cause voluntarie and therfore are they not meerlie naturall A playne example heerof may be this that if a furious dogge should lye a sleep one should a-wake hym purposelye knoweing the daunger and so should be bytten of hym this hurt might be sayde to proceed from the dogges nature as from the roote or fyrst cause But the immediate cause therof was the mans voluntarie awaking of hym and not the dogges nature So in the first motions of lust though all be naturall in the roote or first cause of concupiscence and many times they doe rise of theÌ„ selues in the most godlie that are without any cause gyueÌ„ by theÌ„ therfore sayeth M. Charke most falselie that all come of causes gyuen by vs yet sometimes they are a-wakened and sturred vpp in vs by those meanes whiche I haue named And then are they bothe voluntarie and sinfull and not otherwyse And for this distinction dyd I make that addition of vvaste vvoordes as M. Charke calleth yt but you haue seene with what cause or wisdome After this he reprehendeth my comparison of first motions to the pulse as a comparison vvithout iudgement â— And his cheefest reason is for that they are not lyke to the pulse in all things this is his ordinaire answering of all comparisons alleaged in the Censure VVhiche is as substantiall a waye of answering as yf a man should saye a cowe and her calâ—e are not lyke in heire for that they are not lyke in hornes VVhat Gramarian almost knoweth not that similitudes are not of necessitie to holde in all poyntes but onelie in that wherein the coÌ„parison is made I compared therfore the first motions of lust vnto the pulse in one onelie point as appeareth in the Censure And that is that they bothe as well the one as the other are often tymes meere naturall and the lust many tymes no more voluntarie than the pulse And is not this true or dothe M. Charke saye one woord against this no surelie but goeth and proueth at large that in other thyngs they are not lyke whiche I neuer denyed His second reason against my example of the pulse standeth thus in his booke You can not conclude from that parte of our naturall sovvle vvherby vve haue lyfe and sensâ— onelie to the parte vvherein our reason affections are placed because the former is not in the same sorte corrupted as the second Nether dothe synne so vvoorke in naturall lyfe and sense as it dothe in the hart by the corruptions and guyltines of the sovvle The necessarie actions of lyfe as eating drinkyng sleepe breathe also the necessarie actions of sense as smellyng seeyng hearing feelyng the rest they are of theÌ„ selues all free from synne remaynyng as they vvere in man before his fall By this long discourse he wolde proue that the pulse and the first motions of concupiscence are not lyke in all pointes VVhiche I graunt without proofe But yet in this one reason he vttereth three fowle absurdities and most grosse errours The first is that
commaundement against grauen Idoles where as they leaue it not owt but doe include it in the first commaundement and that for the same reasons whiche moued S. Austen to doe the same as hath bene sayde These earnest odious slaunderous accusations whiche our aduersaries in theyr owne coÌ„sciences doe know to be meere false doe argue nothing for them but onelie great malice in theyr hartes singular lacke of modestie and great shame in theyr behauyour and extreeme pouertie and necessitie in theyr cause M. Charkes second charge that I make the seuerall breaches of tvvo diuers commaundementes but one synne is also false For I make them two distinct synnes though they haue one generall name gyuen them by Christ that is I make the breache of the nyenth commaundement after our account whiche is thou shalt not couer thy neyghbours vvyfe to be mentall adulterie yf it goe no further but onelie to coÌ„sent of mynde And the breache of the sixt coÌ„maundemeÌ„t thou shalt not commit adulterie I make to be the sinne of actuall adulterie when it breaketh owt to the woorke it selfe which two sinnes thoughe they agree in the name of aldulterie yet are they distinct sinnes often tymes and one seperated from the other and coÌ„sequentely may be prohibited by distinst commaundementesâ— And so in lyke wyse I make actuall theft to belong to the seuenth commaundement and mentall theft vnto the tenth This is my meanyng M. Charke whiche you myght haue vnderstoode yf you wolde and consequentlie haue forborne so malitiouse falshode in misreporting the same There remayneth onelie to be examined abowt this article the reason touched by the Censure and fownded on the scripture for the coÌ„firmation of S. Austens Catholique exposition of the commaundement thou shalt not couet VVhiche lawe sayeth the Censure forbyddeth onelye consent of hart to the motions of lust and not the verye first motions them selues which are not in our power consequentlie not comprehended vnder that prohibition of the lawe as the scripture signifieth when it sayeth this commaundement vvhiche I gyue thee this daye is not aboue thee To this M. Charke answereth first that our first motions are not altogether ovvt of our povver For that the guyft of contineÌ„cie dothe more and more subdue them VVhiche is true if wee vnderstand of yeelding consent vnto them But yf we vnderstand of vtter suppressing and extinguishinge of all first motions of lust and concupiscence as M. Charke must needes meane our question beinge onelie therof then must we know that albeit good meÌ„ doe cutt of by mortification infinite occasions and causes of motions and temptations whiche wicked men haue yet can they neuer during this lyfe so subdue all motions them selues of theyr concupiscence but that they will ryse often against theyr willes as S. Paul complayneth of hym selfe in many places and all other Saints after hym haue experienced in their fleshe whoe notwithstanding had the gyft diligence of mortifieing theyr fleshe asmuche I weene as our ministers of England haue whoe talke of continencie mortification eche one hauinge hys yoke mate redye for hys turne as those good felowes doe of fastynge whiche sitt at a full table according to the prouerbe To the place of Moyses he hathe no other shyft but to saye that the translation is false and corrupt for that Moyses meant onelye the lavve is not hydden from vs and not that it is not aboue our povver as yt is euidentlye declared saythe he by the playne text by explication therof in the Epistle to the Romans This sayeth M. Charke mary he proueth yt nether by the woordes of the text nor by S. Pauls application But yf I be not deceyued S. Ierome whose traÌ„slatioÌ„ this is esteemed to be or els before himâ— corrected by him knew as well what the Hebrew woords of Moyses imported in the text also how S. Paul applyed theÌ„ as williaÌ„ Chark dothe S. Pauls application of that parte of this senteÌ„ce which he towcheth maketh wholie for vs as after shalbe shewed The Hebrew woord of the text is NIPHLET coÌ„ming of the verb PHALA which as I denie not but it signifieth to be hidden so signifieth it also to be maruailous to be hard difficult As appeareth psa 139. 2. Sam. 1. where the same woord is vsed The same signifieth the Chaldie woorde Mâ—PHARESA coÌ„ming of the verbe PHARAS that besides the significations signifieth also to seperate The greke woord HYPERONGOS signifieth as all men knowe exceeding immesurable greate passing all meane c Howe then doe not these three woordes vsed in the three auncieÌ„t tongues hauinge a negation putt before them as they haue in the text expresse so muche as S. Ierom hathe expressed by sayeing the lavve is not aboue thee Doe not all these woordes putt together importe that the lawe is not more hard or difficult than thy abilitie may reache to perfourme or that it is not seperated from our power that it is not exceedinge our strengthe wolde any horse but bayard haue beene so bolde with S. IeroÌ„ and withe all the primatiue churche whiche vsed this our common latine translation to deface them all I saye vppon so lyght occasion VVolde any impudencie haue durst it besides the pryde of an heretique If S. Ierom will not satisfie you take S. Austen who haÌ„dleth bothe the woordes alleaged of Moyses and also the application vsed by S. Paul of parte of the sentence and proueth owt of bothe the verie same conclusion that we doe to wytt that the lawe is not aboue our abilitie to kepe it and for confirmation therof he addeth many other textes of scripture as my yoke is svvete and my burden is lyght also his commaundementes are not heauye and the lyke concluding in these woordes vve must beleeue moste firmelye that God being iust and good could not commaunde impossible things vnto man And in an other place VVe doe detest the blasphemie of those men vvhiche affirme God to haue commaunded any impossible thing vnto maÌ„ The verie same woords of detestation vseth S. Ierome in the explication of the creede vnto Damasus byshope of Rome And the same proueth S. Chrisostome at large in hys first booke of impunction of the hart and S. Basil his breefe rules the 176. interrogation Of defacing of scripture Artic. 4. THE CENSVRE You report the Iesuites to saye The holie scripture is a doctrine vnperfect maymed lame not coÌ„taynyng all things necessarie to saith and saluatioÌ„ Cen. fol. 220. you are too shameles M. Charke in setting forth these for the Iesuites vvoordes Lett anye man reade the place and he shall finde noe such thing but rather in contrarie maner the holie scripture vvith reuerent vvordes most highlye commended Notvvithstanding they reprehend in that place Monhemius for sayeing that nothing is to be receyued or beleued but that vvhiche is expreslie found in the Scripture For reproofe of vvhich heresie they gyue
peoples saluatioÌ„ of that tyme. For God supplied it otherwyse that is by woorde of mouthe vnwritten And this maketh for vs for in suche tymes the written woord was not sufficieÌ„t without all other helpes as you affirme it is as for exaÌ„ple when onelie S. Mathewes Gospell was written and nothing els of the new testament yet graunt I that this scripture was sufficieÌ„t for that tyme. For that God supplied yt otherwyse by the woordes and speeches of his apostles So before Moyses wrote the lawe the patriarches had sufficient for theyr saluation thoughe they had ether nothinge or verie litle writen woorde And yet you can not saye that the written woorde of that tyme was sufficient of it selfe without all tradition by mouth VVerfore this answere is against your selfe as also that is whiche you frame to the secoÌ„d reason affirming that albeit dyuers partes of scripture be wanting now whiche was in S. Pauls tyme yet still it is sufficieÌ„t whiche I denye not being ioyned to the other supplies that God vseth For God supplieth by tradition and woorde of mouthe But whether in all tymes the onelie written woord that is extant be sufficient of it selfe to the whole Churche without all other helpes deliuered by tradition that is our question And of times past when the law was not written no man without impudencie can affirme that the written woorde was then sufficient And of our tyme that is after the writinge of the new testament Epiphanius sayeth Non omnia a diuina scriptura accipt possunt quapropter aliqua in scripturis aliqua in traditione sancti Apostoli tradiderunt All things necessarie can not be had from the scripture And therfore the holie Apostles left vnto vs some thinges writteÌ„ and some thinges by tradition VVhich signisieth sufficientlie what Iudgement the primatiue Church had of this matter as more at large shalbe shewed in the article foloweing whiche is also of this same argument Of teaching traditions besides the scripture Art 5. THE CENSVRE 5. You reporte the Iesuites to saye That the want of holy Scriptures must be supplyed by peeciâ—ge it out by traditions Cens fol. 220. This is coyne of the former forge all false and noe one such vvorde to be found in all their booke But yet as though they had sayed soe you fight manfullye agaynst this your ovvne sâ—ntence sayinge in manner follovvinge Contrarye to this is the lawe in Moyses Thow shalte not adde to the woordes which I speake to thee nether shalte thou take froÌ„ theÌ„ But vvhy do you breake the lavv M. Charke in reportinge the lavv you haue heere added the singuler nuÌ„ber in the Verbe and the plurall in the Noune and haue taken avvaye the numbers vvhich the lavv gyuer vsed chauÌ„ged the same at your ovvne pleasure and that for a purpose vvhich I could gesse at But let all thinges be lavvfull vnto you vvhat maketh this lavv for your pourpose By your meaning the Apostles and EuaÌ„gelistes did offend in adding any thing besides the lavve of Moyses vvhiche is absourd Nether did Moyses in this place forbiddinge to adde or take avvaye speake of his vvrytten lavve for he had not yet vvritten it but of those thinges vvhich he deliuered theÌ„ by vvorde of mouthe at that time the vvhich he vvilled them to keepe and obserue vvhollye and perfectly vvithout chaunginge it by addition or diminution or by their ovvne corrupte gloses as naughtie men are vvonte to doe And this is the true meaninge of that place and not as you vvould haue it that nothinge should be beleeued besides that vvhiche Moyses set dovvne for a litle after Moyses hym selfe commaundeth the lâ—vves to heare the Prophet vvhich God should rayse afâ—er hym as hym selfe meanynge therby Christ. THE DEFENCE Heere agayne M. Charke disburdeneth hym selfe vpon Gotuisus sayeing If the Censure of Colen hathe no suche vvordes Gotuisus fayled in vvriting their booke But gentle sir wiliam this matter is not so shyfted of You knew that Gotuisus tooke these woordes from kemnitius against whome they were proued false by Payuas before you wrote your booke as the most of his other reportes were How chaunceth it then you wolde vtter theÌ„ agayne without seeing the originall whether they were true or no Besyde this Gotuisus citeth Canisius for the same woordes where no one suche woorde is to be fownd whye looked you not in Canisius to see yt or whye had you not cited Canisius in your Margent as well as the Censure of Colen which you well knew was not to be had whye dyd you conceale Canisius I saye can you be excused from willfull dishonest dealyng in this matter No no your desperate resolution is to-too euident But saye you we holde the doctrine thoughe the Iesuites haue not the woordes VVhat doctrine M. Chark that the want of holie scripture must be peeced owt by traditioÌ„s It is false VVe speake not so vnreuereÌ„tlie of the scripture as shall better appeare by the article foloweyng VVe doe not teach that the scriptures are wanting or neede to be peeced It is your hereticall malice which deuiseth these woordes Though bothe partes of gods woord that is both written vnwritteÌ„ be necessarie vnto gods Church yet both of theÌ„ do staÌ„d in their full perfection assigned them by God nether is the one a mayme or impeachement to the other no more than is S. Lukes Gospell to that of S. Mathew or S. Pauls epistles to any of them bothe For as you may not saye that S. Mathewes Cospell is maymed for that S. Lukes is also admitted or that S. Pauls epistles are a peecing vp of the former Gospells no more can we saye that gods woorde left vs by mouthe in tradition is a â—ayme or detraction to that whiche he hath left vs in writing or that in writing to be a disanullyng of that whiche we had by tradition for that bothe are partes of gods woord of equall authoritie as shalbe shewed more largelie in the twelueth article together with certaine meanes how to knovv and discerne the same VVherfore these odious speeches against the dignitie of holie scripture doe procede onelie from the malice of you our aduersaries and of no cause or matter ministred by vs. After certaine tryflyng speeche to litle purpose M. Charke concludeth peremptorilie this article in these vvoordes To conclude it is a great iniquitie to adde traditions or your vnvvritten verities to the vvrytten vvoord of God vvherunto no man may adde because nothing is vvantynge and to hym that addeth shall the curses vvritten in the booke be added for euer cityng in the MargeÌ„t the place of the Apocalips vvhiche sayeth that vvho soeuer addeth or taketh avvaye from that booke of prophecie shall incurre the plagues vvritten in that booke But good Lorde when vvill these men leaue to abuse the scriptures learne to speake to the purpose yf vvee beleeue all that is vvritten in that booke of reuelations and other things besides reuealed vnto
they signifie the fauour of the hearers All these circumstances the Iesuits laye downe when they compare the scripture abused to a nose of waxe wrested And who is so foolishe but will coÌ„fesse that a lewd and wicked man in an ignorant audience where all men fauour his doctrine for that he flattereth them in theyr sinnes maye wrest abuse the holye scripture as men are wonte to bend a nose of wax to what plausible sense it lyketh hym best No mary sayeth M. Chark it can not be For albeit an hereretike may vvrest and peruert the scripture yet S. Peter teacheth that it shalbe to hys ovvne destruction and the scripture notvvithstanding shall remayne perfect and vndefiled As though we did holde the contrarie to this or as though we did impute the wrestinge of the scripture vnto imperfection of gods woorde not to the malice of the wrester or as though we sayd that this wresting were not destruction vnto the wrester VVho euer heard suche kinde of answering he sayeth the scripture may be wrested and peruerted and yet he will euen with these woords answer and refute vs which holde also that it may be wrested He sayethe the very same that we doe and yet will he haue men beleeue that he sayethe the contrary VVhere were your wittes sir william when yow wrote this answer But you storme greatlie agaynst the comparison sayeing shall Iesuits mayntayne this directlie or in directlie in a kâ—ngdome vvhere the gospell is preached VVhat els good syr euen in the kyngdome of you ministers to the confusion of your false named Gospell whiche is nothing els but the letter of scripture peruerted and woorse abused and wrested by yow to all errors and licentiousnes than euer waxen nose was yet bended to diuers fashions It is no fault of holye scripture that wicked men may abuse it For the more excelleÌ„t a thing is the more easie and pernicious is the abuse therof Christ was the excelleÌ„test benefit that euer God gaue vnto this worlde and yet is he called notwithstanding lapis offensionis petra Scandali the stone of offence and rock of scandal not for any fault or imperfection in hym but through the wickednes of suche as abuse that benefit So when S. Ierome dothe call the scripture alleaged corruptlie by Marcian and Basilides euangelium Diaboli the deuills Gospell yeelding this reason that the Gospell consisted not in the vvoordes of scripture but in the sense Also wheÌ„ S. Austen calleth the scripture arcum haereticorum The bowe of heretiques And Ireneus compareth it abused by heretiques to a Iewell stamped with the forme of a dogge or fox In Lykewise when Gregorie Nazianzen compareth it to a syluer skaberd with a leaden swoorde within yt Tertullian to the deceitfull ornaments of harlots Vincentius Lyrinensis to poysoned herbes couered in the apothecaries shoppe vvith fayer titles and superscriptioÌ„s on the boxes where they lye No doubt these fathers meaÌ„t not by suche comparisons to detracte any thinge from the dignitie and excellencie of holie scripture no more than the Iesuits dyd in comparing it to a nose of vvax abused and vvrested by malitious heretiques And I vvolde knovv of M. Charke for that he exaggerateth so muche the indignitie of this comparison hovv he vvill interpret hys holy man Martin Luthers ovvne vvoordes vvhiâ—he after a long discourse to proue that all heresies seeke theyr foundation in scripture are these Quare verum est sicut dicitur Scripturam sanctam esse librum haereticum hoc est eiusmodi librâ—Ì„ quo potissimùm haeretici nituntur VVherfore it is true vvhiche is sayde that the holye scripture is an hereticall booke that is suche a booke as heretiques most of all leane vnto And a litle after Haereseon liber biblia sunt The bible is a booke of heresies Oh that the Iesuites had vsed suche vvoordes hovv vvold VV. Chark and his felovves haue triumphed against them for the same And yet thoughe Martin Luthers fashion vvas to runne ouer the shooes in what soeuer he tooke in haÌ„d I thinke he meant nothing in these vvoordes against the dignitie of scripture For he addeth in the verie place alleaged Scriptura sancta haereseon liber est non sui causa sed istorum nebulonum qui eam deprauant The holie scripture is a booke of heresies not of it selfe but by the meanes of those knaues vvhiche doe peruert yt This is father Luthers swete benediction vppon sacramentaries vvherof I trowe M. Charke will not deny hym selfe to be one And thus you see that the Iesuites haue not onelie trueth and reason on their syde to vse that comparison but also haue examples in this kynde both of auncient fathers and of our aduersaries them selues VVhat intemperat malice then is this of william Charke so to raue against them for this one coÌ„parison vsed without all derogation of Scripture yf they had spoken euill of any scripture in it selfe yf they had reiected any one booke therof as protestants doe many yf they had discredited or defaced any one sentence therof as Luther dothe most odiouslie the whole epistle of S. Iames yf they should saye any booke of the scripture to be written with a profane and ambitious spirit as your D. Fulk doeth of the Machabies yf they should ieste at the Angell Raphaell in the booke of Tobie as M. VVhittaker doeth or fall to that extreme impudencie as to reuyle in open audience any holie person coÌ„mended in sacred wryte as you dyd M. Chark without shame when you called that blessed womaÌ„ of God Iudith vnchaste Iudith in your disputations with M. Campian yf the Iesuites I saye should saye or doe any of these thynges as you are driuen to doe then myght you iustlie accuse theÌ„ drawe theÌ„ into hatred for deprauing of gods woorde But seing they doe not soe but alltogether the coÌ„trarie seyng they defend gods whole woord agaynst you that offerre violence to the same seyng they maintayne the number of bookes which antiquitie hath left theÌ„ the vnwritteÌ„ traditioÌ„s that the Apostles haue delyuered them the Catholiques expositioÌ„s which auncient fathers haue assigned them seyng they nether choppe nor chaunge nor corrupt nor put owt nor coÌ„teÌ„ptuouslie reiecte anie one thing as you doe infinite for maintainyng of your ruynous and most impious cause you endeuour in vayne to discredit them by exaggerating one poore comparison or similitude whiche they vpon occasion vsed to expresse the wickednes of you heretiques that abuse scripture and not to attribute any imperfection to scripture it selfe No man in the world euer spake more reuerentlie of holye scripture than Iesuites doe And whether they seeke to execute it in lyfe as muche as our ministers of England or no let them be iudges that know bothe theyr conuersatioÌ„s I myght heere alleage infinite testimonies owt of theyr workes how with what reuerence they speak of scripture But one place onelie of Canisius
shall serue for this tyme. He hath wryten two large and learned volumes of the corruptions of gods woorde by the heretiques of our tyme where he hath these wooâ—des Est ergo verbum dei c. VVherfore the vvoorde of God is as holie scripture conteyneth the knovvleige of saluatioÌ„ the cleare lanterne and shynyng lampe it is the hydden mysterie the heauentlie Manna the pure and proued golde the learnyng of Saints the doctrine of all spirit and trueth the loking glasse the liuelye fontayne the sealed booke vvhich booke vvho soeuer doe vse vvell they are Gods scholars they are spirituall they are vvyse they are iust they onelye are made the freendes and heyres of almightie God These are Canisius a Iesuites woordes And doe these men speak baselye of scriptures as M. Chark heere accuseth them But now we come to examine the text alleaged by M. Chark agaynst the Iesuites to wytt Lex domini immaculata the law of our Lord is vnspotted or vndâ—filed which M. Charke wolde haue to signifie that the scripture is so perfect playne in sense as no wicked man may wrest or abuse the same For whiche absurd reasoninge and wrestinge of scripture he being now reproued by the Censure heare what he answereth and how he defendeth hym selfe The Censure sayeth he supposeth me to haue but one Byble and that of the olde translation onelie vvhich hathe the lavve of the Lord is vndefiled c. but the original hath the lavve of the Lord is perfect And the best translations haue so translated it your olde translation goeth alone The 70. folovv the rest Heere you see that M. Charke bryngeth diuers reasons for his defense First that he hath diuers Bybles in his house and that of diuers translations Secondlie that the original or hebrew text of this verse in the Psalme hath not immaculata that is vndefiled or vnspoted but rather perfect in that sense as he defendeth it Thirdlie that all the best translations haue it so and that our olde translation differeth from them all Fouerthlie that the septuagint or seuentie greke interpretours are also against vs here in This is all M. Charkes defense But here by the waye wolde I haue the reader to Marke how muche M. Charke getteth to hys cause Yf I should graunt hym all that he hathe here sayd surelie he should gayne onelie that the law of God is perfect And is this against any thinge that we saye or holde or is it against the signification of the woord immaculata in the olde latin translation whiche he impugneth Is not a thinge immaculate or vndefiled also called perfect euen as on the contrarie a filthie or defiled thinge is called imperfect If then we should graunt that the hebrew and greeke textes had the woord perfect in them in steed of the latin woord immaculata yet this dothe not condemne the olde translation for vsing the woord immaculata immaculate For that immaculate as hath bene shewed signifieth also perfect from spot mary not perfect in that sense wherin M. Charke talketh and for proofe wherof he alleaged this sentence to witt that because the law of the lorde is perfect therfore the scripture can not be wrested whiche is a most false and absurd illation vppon the worde perfect For S. Paules epistles are persect together withe other scriptures and yet S. Peter sayeth that many men dyd wrest and depraue them But now lett vs consider the seuerall fower pointes of M. Charkes former answer whiche as yow see if wee should graunt vnto him without contradiction yet had he gayned nothing therby But lett vs examine them Touching the first whiche he answereth that is abowt the varietie of Bybles and translations which he hath at home I will not stand or coÌ„tend with M. Chark Let hym haue as many as he please the matter is howe well he vnderstandeth or reporteth those Bybles and not how many he hath The second poynt is false that the hebrew text disagreeth from the olde latin translation as shalbe shewed after The thyrd is fond that all the best translations doe differe from the olde translation heerin For what best or better or other good latin translation hath he than the olde whiche was in vse in gods Churche aboue thirtene hundred yeeres past as may be seene by the citations of the fathers whiche lyued then whiche was afterwarde also ouervewed corrected by S. Ierom which was also so hyghlye coÌ„mended by S. Augustin what other better translation I saye hath william Charke than this auncient which he so contemneth except he will name some latter of our tyme as of Erasmus Luther or the like whiche Beza hym selfe notwithstandinge affirmeth to be nothing lyke the olde traÌ„slatioÌ„ for exactnes The fowerth poynt which he addeth is a shameles lye that the septuagint in greeke doe dissent from the woorde immaculata in the latin For their woorde is AMOMOS which their owne lexicon will expound vnto them to be immaculate innocent irreprehensible To returne therfore in a woorde or two to the originall text the hebrew woorde is TAMAM or TAM which the septuagint doe interpret as you haue heard AMOMOS that is irreprehensible and the auncient latin translation immaculata immaculate And what refuge then can M. Charke fynde heere I doe not denye but that it signifieth also perfect for that what soeuer is irreprehensible and without spott may also be called perfect as hath bene shewed But how doeth this proue that it signifieth to be perfect in sense in suche sorte as it may not be wrested or peruerted In the 118. Psalme where our auncient translation hath beati immaculati in via your owne englysh bible hath translated it M. Charke blessed are those that be vndefyled in the vvaye and the Hebrew and greeke woordes are TAM AMOMOS as in the other text How then doe you rayle at our olde auncient translation for that wherein your new englishe byble doth the verye same the lyke you may see in infinite other places as leuit 3. v. 1. 6. Also Num. 6. v. 14. VVhere sacrifices are appointed to be immaculate according to the auncient tranflation And your englishe byble translateth it so too sayeinge they must be without blemishe where the hebrew and greeke woordes are TAM and AMOMOS as before By whiche is seene that M. Charke careth not whether he runneth what he forgeth or whome he reprehendeth so he maye seeme allwayes to saye somewhat And of all other shyftes this is the last and the easiest and of most credit and least able to be spyed of his reader as he thinketh to inueighe against the olde latin translation when he is pressed vnauoydablye with any place of scripture alleaged For this shyft besides the present couering of the difficultie yeeldeth also some opinion of Learning to his Maister gyuinge men to vnderstand that he is skillfull in the learned tongues whereas God knoweth the refuge is vsed for bare