truelie manslaughter is vvicked and prohibited by godâ— lavve And againe manslaughter is good and commended by gods lavve for bothe these are verified in some of her braunches So in respect of diuerse braunches of concupiscence S. Augustin might saye concupiscence is synne the punishement of synne and the cause of synne But yet this is not true in euerie particular braunche of concupifcence and namelie of that braunche we now dispute of that is of concupiscence in the regenerat without consent as a man can not saye that euerye manslaughter is good nor that euerie manslaughter is euill And the cause why S. Augustin vsed this sentence against Iulian was for that Iulian dyd prayse concupiscence as a thing commendable for that it was a punishement of God sor sinne But S Augustin refuteth that sheweing that concupiscence in generall is not onelie a punishement for synne but sometimes also and in some â—eÌ„ it is sinne it selfe the cause of sinne thersore an euill thinge though no sinne without consent For so he sayeth against the same Iulian. Quantum ad nos attinet sine peccato sen per essemus donec sanaretur hoc maluÌ„ si ei nâ—nquam consentiremus ad malum sed in quibus ab illo rebellame eâ—si non lethaliter sed venialiter tamen vincimur in hiis contrahimus vnde quotidie dicamus Dimitte nobis debita nostra â— As for vs that are baptized we might be allwayes without sinne vntill that day when this euill coÌ„cupisceÌ„ce shall be healed that is in heaueÌ„ yf we wolde not consent vnto yt to euill But in these things wherein we are ouercome by this rebelliouse concupiscence veniallie at least though not mortallie by these I saye we geather matter daylie to saye forgyue vs our trespasses Heere Loe S. Augustin proueth concupiscence to be euill against the pelagian yet not to be sinne without consent against the protestant Thyrdlie that accordinge to the mesure or degree of coÌ„sent yeelded it may be ether veniall or mortall sinne against M. Charke a litle before obstinatlie denyeinge this distinction of sinnes And finallie S Augustin doeth not onelie proue this our pâ—sition purposelye in almoste infinite other places of his woorkes but also in his second booke against Iulian doeth confirme it by the vniforme consent of other fathers of the Churche as of S. Ambrose Nazianzen and others VVhat then shall we say but onelye pittie william Charke whiche fyndeth Augustin the doctor as hard against hym in all pointes as Augustin the monke The woordes of Christ alleaged by you to ouerthrow our position to witt euerie one that shall see a vvoman to lust after her hathe novv committed adulterie vvith her in his hart are truelie sayd of the Censure to be alleaged by you bothe ignorantlie against your selfe Fyrst for that the woorde hart there expressed importeth a consent without whiche nothing defileth a man as may be gathered by Christ his owne woordes in an other place sayeing that the things which defile a man doe procede froÌ„ the hart Secondlie for that the woordes import a voluntarie looking vppon vvomen to that ende to be inflamed with lust as bothe the latin muche more the greeke and Syriake textes insinuate and S. Chrisostom interpreteth hom 8. de poenitentia as S. Augustin also expoundeth them sayeinge qui viderit mulierem ad concupiscendam eam id est hoc fine hoc animo attenderit vt eam concupiscat quod est plene consentire libidini He that shall see a woman to lust after her that is shall looke vpon her to this end and with this mynde to lust after her which is in deede fullie to consent vnto the lust Now what replieth Sir william to all this surelie nothing but maketh along idle speake of praedicatum subiectum as pertinent to the matter as charing crosse to byllingsgate And in the end to quite the Lorde as he saythe moste carefullie from synne he alleageth S. Iames sayeing that God tempteth no man but euerie man is tempted dravven and allured by his ovvne concupiscence and then concupiscence vvhen it hathe conceyued bringeth furth synne But what is this against vs Doe we charge God with this sinne of coÌ„cupiscence when we denie it to be sinne at all except onelie when a man consenteth to it or rather doe you charge God withe it when you affirme it to be sinne as it is of nature without consent are we or you they that make God author of sinne is not Caluin condemned of our churche for this impretie a doeth he not holde that God is author of sinne in diuers places of his woorkes b Doeth he not condemne S. Augustin by name for holdinge the contrarie c Doeth not Peter Martyr his scholer holde the same How then talke you of quitting carefullie the Lorde from synne as though he were charged or accused therof by vs what hypocrisie what dissimulation what falshode is this in you Now the place of S. Iames as commonlie all other thinges that yow alleage maketh singularlie against your selfe Heare S. Augustins exposition argument whiche proueth our position out of the same woordes Cum dicit apostolus Iacobus vnusquisque tentatur a concupiscentia sua abstractus illectus deinde concupiscentia cum cònceperit parit peccatum profecto in hiis verbis partus a pariente discernitur Pariens enim est concupiscentia partus peccatum Sed concupiscentia non parit nisi conceperit non concipit nisi illexerit hoc est ad malum perpetrandum obtinuerit volentis assensum VVhen the apostle Iames sayeth euery one is tempted drawen awaye and Intised by his owne concupiscence afterward concupiscence when it hathe conceyued bringeth furthe sinne surelie in these woordes the childe is distinguished from the mother the mother that beareth is concupiscence the childe borne is sinne But concupiscence beareth not except she conceyue and she conceyueth not except she obtaine the consent of hym which is willing to doe euill Now goe M. Charke and acquite your selfe of grosse follie and ignorance whereof you are conuicted which wolde so carefullie quitte the Lorde of that wherewith we neuer meant to charge hym Of the first motions of concupiscence THE CENSVRE Thyrdlie you reporte the Iesuits to saye That the first motioÌ„s of lust are without hurt of sinne CeÌ„s 54. 89. It is moste true and playne as they delyuer it but you by clipping their vvoords make euerie thing to seeme a paradoxe They say the first motions of lust yf they come of naturall instinct only vvithout any cause gyuen by vs are no sinnes so long as vve geue no consenâ— of hart vnto them And the reason is because it lyeth not in vs they being naturall to prohibit them to come no more than it dothe to prohibit our pulse from beating And therfore seing no sinne can be coÌ„mitted vvithout our vvill consent of harâ— as I haue shevved before the first motions
tauernes fieldes stables barnes douecotes or palaces vnsearched for vs. And how then is it possible to answere you by wryting Or what maruayle is there yf we offer you some tymes halfe a booke for the whole I doubt not but what soeuer extremitie or crueltie you vse which shalbe no greater nor longer than God will permit yet you are sure allwayes to be answered by some meanes or other that God wyll prouide Hytherto you haue had litle quyet repose in your intrusioÌ„ vpon gods Churche we contynuynge styll our claymâ— and tytle And heerafter you are lyke daylye to haue lesse as I hope vntill your heresie be rooted owt again as all her sisters haue bene heeretofore It is a great argument to the people that the credit of your cause is now crushed euen in your owne conceytes seyng you flye openlye and without shame all kynde of quiet tryall what soeuer and with furye moue the magistrate onelye to violence agaynst vs. VVhich thoughe we be redy to be are with all humiltie according as God shall gyue vs patieÌ„ce yet will we neuer yeeld to you therby in your heresies but in the myddest of our afflictioÌ„s will we resist your falshoode more than before This I thinke you sawe in the late martyrdome of good M. Campian and his companions whoe thoughe they dyed moste ioyfullie protesting their innocencie in all and singular the slaunders deuised against them thoughe I saye they protested pure innocencie therin both in thought word and deed and that vpon the eternall damnation or saluation of their owne sowles though also they forgaue moste franklie from the verie bottom of their hartes all their vniust accusers condemners tormentours executioners and you also ministers whoe of their deathe and tormentes were the onelie or principall instigatours yet dyd they amyddest all that humilitie modestie and Christian charitie detest with all possible vehemencie of their sowles all and singular your false and fowle heresies and so dyed moste constant pure and innocent martyres of their Lord Maister Iesus Christ. VVhose bloode I dowbt not but will fight agaynst your errours and impietie many hundred yeres after bothe you are past this worlde together And albeit yf they had lyued especiallie two of them being indued with suche gyftes and rare partes as they were which with you were greate causes of hastenyng theyr deathes they might no dowt haue done muche seruice in gods Churche and hurt to your cause yet could they neuer haue done it so strongly as they haue and doe and will doe by theyr deathes the crye wherof worketh more forciblie bothe with God man thaÌ„ any bookes or sermons that euer they could haue made VVherfore I can say no more but that they were well bestowed vpon you You haue vsed theÌ„ to the best Our Lord his holy name be blessed therfore And I beseeche hym of his infinite mercie to pardon your great offences iâ— the powring owt of their bloode And now to speake a woorde or two M. Charke as to your owne persone in particular there are twâ— things whiche principallie in this matter coÌ„cerne yoâ— The one is your writing heere answered the other your behauyour and demeanour towardes your aduesarie after that by gods permission he came to be withâ— some reache of your ministeriall power and authortie The one of these shall soâ—ewhat declare the othe For towching the first the discrete reader shall easiliâ— learne by this booke that what vaunt so euer you makâ— vnto your freendes or how great soeuer your owt-facing of M. Campian myght seeme to be in the Tower 〈◊〉 London by reason of your hygh place gaye apparel greate woordes assistance of freendes countenance â—f authoritie applause of protestants standing by yet shâ—l it appeare that you are not that maÌ„ in deede eyther fâ—r substaÌ„ce of learnyng or fidelitie in dealyng which yâ—u wolde be content to be taken for in the world abroâ—e For as for learnyng there are shewed so many brode examples heer of your grosse ignoraÌ„ce and that inâ—erye common matters bothe of diuinitie and philosophie as no man that hath iudgement can frame my other opinion of your skyll therin than as of a tâ—ing vtterly vngrounded in any of these two scieÌ„ces wherin it is well knowne that M. Campian was most excellent and coÌ„sequentlye you had litle cause to seeke triumph ouer hym as you dyd in this matter Mary as touching the second whiche is false dealing to deceyue you may haue the principalitie not onelie ouer hym whoe had to saye the trueth no talent at all therin but euen aboue the cheefe maisters of your owne syde most expert in that facultie For I assure you that of all shameles men that euer I read wherof this age God amend them hath brought forth many you maye weare the garland for bothe audacitie constancie in auouchyng open vntruthes against your ovvne coÌ„scieÌ„ce The treatise folowyng will make this playne y almost infinit exaÌ„ples Yet one or two for a tast will not omitt to touche in this place Martin Luther after his apostacie from the Caâ—â—olique church gaue counsaile to all good wyues that â—ad cold husbandes to lye pryuilye with the next of â—ynne or other that were of stronger complexion And â—ecause he was yet in some feare of the pope yf he soulde openlye haue putt in execution this doctrine h onelye counsailed husbandes for the tyme to gyue teir secret coÌ„sents heervnto Mary afterwardes when â—artin became so strong as he feared the Pope no moâ—e for that he was now pope of Germanye hym selfe â—e sayde that nowe he wolde gyue other counsayle â—owt this matter Heere M. Charke breaketh of and â—â—lleth into a sharp and bytter inuectyue agaynst the â—ensurer for charging Luther with a fowle doctrineâ—â—at after he recanted This seemeth a verie reasonable dfence But what are the woordes that immediatlye foow in Luther forsoothe that nowe he wolde doe wâ—â—se than before for nowe he wolde coÌ„pell the poore hubandes to graunt there wyues that libertie or els woâ—lde he tugge them by the lockes of the head And caâ— there be any more shameles dealynge than this of M. Chark hath that man any conscience trow yow whâ—â—e against hys owne knowleige wolde put this deceyâ— in printe heere can be no ignorance for the woordes folowed immediatlie whiche of purpose he left owt VVhat conscience then hathe this man in defending hys cause An other example may be this There was a controuersie betwene the Censurer and M. Charke whether concupiscence after baptisme be synne in the regenerat without consent And the Censurer to proue that it is not bringeth S. Augustins Authoritie in many plaine places wherby M. Chark being sore oppressed fyndeth no other releefe of his credit with the reader but to forge a place of S. Austen to the contrarye by corruption and so he doeth For wher as S. Augustin sayeth that coÌ„cupiscence is not so forgyuen in baptisme that it is not meaning therby that it is not
condemned for omitting to sounde the trompette whiche notwitstanding was no action saye you This is a common obiection borowed of our owne schoolemen and answered by the same Euery omission that is a sinne M. Charke implyeth some action that is cause ether directlie or indirectlie of that omission and so is principall part of the sinne as S. Chrisostome Ambrose and Basil doe proue I saye directlie or indirectlie and I wyll gyue examples of bothe First then I saye that I beynge bounde for example sake to goe to churche at a certaine hower I maye make a resolution with my selfe that I will not goe and then this acte of resolution in my mynd called no litio is the direct cause of this omission and the ground of the sinne And this was the sinne of Hely and of the watchemen before mentioned whereof the one determined not to punishe his childeren and the other not to sounde the trompet though they sawe the enemie comming as the text sheweth Secondlie I may omitt this goeing to the churche at the hower appointed not vpon any resolution made to the contrarie but for that I doe sett my selfe to doe some other action at that time as to write or the lyke whereby I doe occupie vp the time wherein I should goe to churche and so doe committ that omission without any particular resolution that I will not goe and in this case the action of writing coÌ„mitted in the tyme when I should haue gone to churche is the indirect cause of this omission and the grounde of the same being done wittinglie at suche time as it should not And so we see that euery omission includeth an act ether directly or indirectly goeing before and causing the sayd omission As also appeareth playnlye by the definition of synne so often repeated owt of S. Austen l. 22. contra Faustum cap 27. and owt of S. Ambrose li. de Paradiso capi 8. And that whiche M. Charke addeth for ouer throw of my instances sayeing that not deuills but the euill in deuills not euill men but the euill in men doeth repugne against the lavve of god ys too too chyldysh and absurd to come from hym that professe the Learnyng For I am sure there is no yong scholler whiche hathe studyed Logik in Cambrige but knoweth that actio tribuitur toti concreto non acâ—identi inhaerenti that action is attributed to the whole coÌ„cret and not to the accident inhereÌ„t Althoughe the accident inherent be ratio formalis of the action As for example the phisitian is sayd to cure his patient and not the Phisick in the phisitian though he doe it by his phisick The vniust iudge synneth in gyuing wronge sentence and not the iniustice in the iudge for proofe wherof the iudge shalbe damned and suffer tormentes for it and not the qualitie of iniustice in hym The lyke is in deuills and in all euyll men whoe doe properlie repugne against gods lawes and doe sinne properlie and not the euill within them And the contrarie thereof is olde heresie as may appeare by S. Augustin writing against some that sayd not we but the darkenesse within vs haue offended Nether is it contrarie to this as M. Charke imagineth that all things were created good by God For God created not lucifer a deuyll but a good Angell nether Herod an euill man but a good Theyre owne lewdnesse made them euyll Therfore albeit wicked men and deuylls be euill and doe repugne the lawe of God yet the creatures of God are not euill at leastwise as they are creatures of God for that God as I haue sayde created them not euill Secondlie you reprehend that I call sinne an humane or reasonable action and you wolde rather call yt as you saye an vnreasonable action whiche argueth in you some lack of reason For what doeth not all electioÌ„ bothe good and badde procede of reason doeth it not procede ab intellectu practico whiche is the seate of discourse and reason as the philosopher proueth is M. Charke so vnlearned in all foundation of philosophie Doeth not S. Augustin proue of purpose that peccatum fit ab anima rationali that sinne procedeth froÌ„ the minde endewed with reason againe that consentio ad peccatum fit in ratione that consent to sinne is made in reasoÌ„ what saye you by the good morall woorkes of the gentils as their iustice theyr temperance and the like whiche you though falsely doe Iudge to be sinnes for that they proceded not of faith were they all vnreasonable actions But you obiect against this owt of S. Paul vvhat so euer is not of faithe is sinne therfore saye you vvhether it be reasonable or vnreasonable it is sinne Iumpe by this a horse might be a sinner for that his actions proceede not of faithe But I answere to S. Paul with S. Ambrose that he meaneth who soeuer doeth a thing against that whiche faith prescribeth that is against a mans owne conscience and iudgement he sinneth But yet that all morall good woorkes of infideles as iustice liberalitie the like were not sinnes S. Augustin proueth at large against M. Charke lib. de spir lit ca. 26.27 and 28. And S. Ierom. in cap. 29. Ezechielis Finallie to returne and conclude our purpose S. Aug. proueth against the Manaches that peccatum est defectus voluntarius animae rationalis Synne is a voluntarie defect of a reasonable mynde and therfore is it a resonable action But what doe I talke of voluntarie M. Charke denyeth synne to be voluntarie VVhat shall I saye It were infinit to stand and proue euery principle of diuinitie against so peruerse and obstinate a man And theÌ„ prouerbe is common a long eared creature maye denie more in an hower than the best learned in the worlde can proue in a yere But he that will see long and large proofes of this with infinite scriptures and reasons for the same lett hym reade but S. Augustin in anie of these places li. de duabus nat c. 11. de spiritu lit ca. 31. Et li. 3. de lib. arb c. 18. and li. de vera relig c. 14. lib. 1. retract c. 13. 15. li. 4. confes c. 3. and in diuerse other places where he repeateth often these woordes Sinne is an euill so voluntarie as it can be by no meanes sinne except it be voluntarie And Christ hym selfe proueth the matter euidentlie when he sayeth that those thinges vvhiche doe defile a man doe come from the hart Matth. 15. v. 18. But yet heere M. Charke hath two obiections First originall sinne is not voluntarie sayth he ergo all sinne is not voluntarie This albeit it be not to the purpose the CeÌ„sure talking onelie of actuall sinne as it professeth yet is it moste false and neuer diuine sayde so before VVilliam Charke but onelie the pelagians whoe therby wolde haue taken awaye originall sinne from infants as hauing no will as S. Augustin testifieth
and saye Euerye liuing creature is a man it is false Soe these vvoordes as S. Iohn vttereth them are moste true Euerie sinne is iniquitie or transgression of the lawe but as you vtter them they are false to vvitt that euery iniquitie or transgression of the lawe be it neuer so litle or done vvithout eyther consent or knoulege or by a madde man or brute beast should be properlie a mortall sinne Soe that this first blashemie of the Iesuits coÌ„meth not to be so haynouse as you vvolde make it but rather to confound your ignorance vvhich vnderstand not so cleare doctrine but hudle vp matters as M. Campian telleth you also to note your vntruthe in misreporting their vvords and the scriptures against them And of this first depend the other tvvo that folovve THE DEFENCE For couering of falshoode in this place M. Charke is constrayned to vse a falshoode or two more according to the sayeing that one lye is not maintayned but by an other things aequiualent sayeth he as for example the definition and the thing defined may be conuerted one mutuallie maye be affirmed of the other as the gospell is the povver of God to saluation And the povver of God to saluation is the gospell And therefore these two woordes also siâ—ne transgression of the lavve But I denie this consequence for transgression of the lawe is not the definition of sinne as hath bene proued nor is it equall in signification with the same but reacheth further than sinne as the former discourse sheweth And thefore it is but absurdlie brought in againe heere as a thing graunted seing thereof is all the contention Secondlie let M. Charke looke leste he be deceyued wheÌ„ he sayeth the power of God to saluation is the proper definition of the gospell seing Christ hym selfe whiche notwistandinge is not the gospell but author of the gospell is called by the same woordes in an other place DVNAMIS THEOV that is The povver of god and no doubt but to saluation as M. Charke will not denie VVherfore though it import not our matter at all yet I thinke M. Charke was somewhat grosselie ouerseene in choyse of this example After this for some countenance of his fraudulent transposition he sayeth as for the transposition lett the Apostles vvoordes be marked sayeing God is a spirit Yet the vvoordes lye thus in the greeke text a spirit is God VVherfore let not transposition seeme straunge to you No more it doeth M. Charke in common speeche and in a tongue that will beare it as the latin and greek doeth But when we measure the weight of woordes or propositions and that in oure English tongue as in our matter it falleth out traÌ„spositions are frauduleÌ„t as in the verie example whiche you alleage a spirit is God if you wolde inferre therof ergo euerie spirit is God as you inferre that euery transgression of the lavve is synne you should easilie see your owne falsehood For Angels also are spirits as the scripture sayeth and yet not Goddes And heere for my learning I wolde know of you Sir in what tongue the Apostle sayeth God is a spirit different from which you say the greek hath a spirit is God surelye M. Chark you are ouer bolde in your auouchements of the scriptâ—re For not onelie the greeke but also the latin and Syriak hathe Spiritus est deus and therfore bothe fondlie and falsely doe you attribute it as peculiar onelie to the greeke But M. Charke reserueth a sure carde for the end therewith to dashe all that hath bene sayd before and that is the sentence of S. Iohn afterward omnis iniquitas est peccatum all iniquitie or transgression sayeth he is sinne VVhich seemeth so plaine against me as he greatlie insulteth and triumpheth affirming that the victorie by this one senteÌ„ce is gotten but beleeue hym not good reader for he thinketh not so in his owne coÌ„science but well knoweth that this sentence maketh greatlie against hym thoughe he wolde deceyue thee with the bare sound and equiuocation of woordes For in the former sentence where is sayd sinne is iniquitie S. Iohn vseth for the woord iniquitie ANOMIA in greeke which signifieth any transgression or variance from the lawâ— be it great or litle as hath bene proued and as the nature of the greeke woord importeth in which sense it is most true that euerie iniquitie is not sinne as I haue shewed as S. Augustin proueth of verie purpose l. 2. cont Iul. pela c. 5. And alleageth also S. Ambrose in the same opinion as also Methodius apud Epiphanium her 64. quae est Origenis And S. Augustin proueth it in many other places besides shewing in our verie case how concupiscence is iniquitie in the regenerat but yet no sinne And this for the first place Now in the second place where the same Apostle sayeth euerye iniquitie is sinne he vseth not the same generall woorde ANOMIA VVhiche he vsed before but ADICIA which is a more speciall woorde and signifieth an iniustice or iniurie as the philosopher sheweth assigning it as the contrarie to Iustice and therfore no maruaile though this kinde of iniquitie be sinne as S. Iohn sayth yea great sinne also for of such onelie S. Iohn talketh in that place sayeing there is a sinne to death I doe not saye that any man should aske for that all iniquitie is synne c. whereby is euydent that the Apostle taketh not iniquitie in this place expressed by the woord ADICIA in the same sense wherein he tooke it before vsing the woord ANOMIA VVhiche M. Charke well knoweing sheweth hym selfe a willfull deceyuer in that he wolde delude his reader with the equiuocation of the latin translation which at other times he reiecteth withoute cause or reason Lastlie he chargeth me with alteration of the text of scripture for translating omnis qui facit peccatum euerie one that sinneth where I should haue translated sayth he euery one that doeth sinne This is a charge woorthie of M. Charke that will playe small game rather than sytt owt I praye you sir what difference is there in the two phrases your vvyfe spinneth and your vvyfe doeth spinne But you coÌ„fesse in deede there is litle holde in this and therefore freendlie you doe pardon me for it and doe conclude sayeing you think perhaps to serue the Lorde in your opinion and I knovv I serue the Lorde You are happie that haue so certaine knowlege of your good estate M. Charke though to vtter it in this place I doe not see what occasion you had But I praye you let me learne how you came to this knowlege Not by Aristotles demoÌ„strations I am sure which yett are the onelie means of certaine science properlie How then by fayth but you know that faith can assure nothing whiche is not reuealed by the woorde of God VVhat parte of gods woorde then teacheth vs that william Charke in particular serueth the Lorde
a-right but yow will saye perhappes Your spirit within you telleth you soe And my spirit M. Charke telleth me the contrarie One of them must needes be a lyeing spirit and whie not yours as well as myne These are fansies gentle syr william proper to hereticall braynes to assure them selues such knowlege aboue other men Luther sayde many yeres after he was a protestant ego credo fortiter imo ausim dicere scio purgatorium esse I beleeue stowtelie yea I dare auowe that I know there is a purgatorie Yet he denied it after Martin Bucer wheÌ„ he was a Zuinglian knew as he sayd that doctrine to be deliuered from heauen but yet afterward comming backe to be a Lutheran he protested openlie that he knew it was moste false And againe returninge to be a Zuinglian he knew it was true againe and the other false and yet all this while certaine knowlege can not be false Yf a man should aske all the sectaries now lyuing they wold say the same that you doe of theyr certaine knowlege VVherefore me think you might haue spared these woordes of your certayne knovvlege whiche nether helpe your cause nor hurt ours any further than the credit reacheth of your owne bare woorde that also in your owne commendation Of concupiscence Art 2. THE CENSVRE 2. Secondlie you report the Iesuits to say ConcupisceÌ„ce remayning in the regenerate although it be against the lawe of God yet is it not sinne properlye in it selfe or of his owne nature Cens. fo 38. 1 you vvill needes helpe the Iesuits out vvithe that vvhiche maketh for your purpose VVhere fynde you in them the vvordes Although it be against the lawe of God They saye that albeit this concupiscence doe sturre or moue a man sometimes to doe things vvhiche are repugnant to the lavve of God yet yf no consent of harte be yeelded vnto it it reacheth not to the nature of a mortall sinne vvorthie of eternall daÌ„nation 2. And albeit S. Paul doe sometimes call it sinne yet meaneth he not properlie but by a figure vvhereby the name of the cause is ofâ—entimes attributed to the effect 3. as the latin speeche is called the latin tongue because speeche is the effect of the tongue So concupiscence being the effect of original sinne is called sometymes synne but not properlie but onelie figuratiuelie as also S. Paul calleth 4. Christ hym selfe Sinne because he vvas the sacrifice for sinne And all this is S. AusteÌ„s note vvhose plaine vvordes in the same place are ConcupisceÌ„ce is not sinne in the regenerate yf consent be not yeelded vnto her for the accomplishing of vâ—lawâ—â—ll woorkes The same teacheth not onelye S. Augustine in diuerse other places but also all other fathers of the primatiue church as Nazianzenus orat de S. Lauacro Pacianus orat de bap Clemens Alexandrinus li. 1. pedag c. 6 Ciprian ser. de lot pedum li. 2. ep 2. Ambr. li. 1. de vocat gentium cap. 5. Soe that all these good fathers are partakers vvith the Iesuits of this blasphemie vvhiche you ensorce vpon them But hovv doe you proue it to be blasphemiâ—â— Marie because Christ sayeth whoe soeuer shall see a woman to lust after her he hath alredie committed adulterie with her in his harte But are you so ignorant M. Charke Doe you not see that Christ by adding the vvoordes in his hart meaneth onelie of hym vvhich geueth consent of hart to his lust and concupiscence and vvolde put it in execution yf he had time and place and abilitie but this is your common alleaging of Scripture THE DEFENCE The charge of helpinge owt the Iesuits doctrine with these woordes although it be against the lavve of God he layeth vpon Gotuisus But I accept not this excuse For he might haue seene in Canisius pag 184. 73â— which Gotuisus citeth also for the same as well as the Ceâ—sure of Coleâ— and whiche M. Charke confesseth to haue reade that Gotuisus belyed the Iesuits in his reporte for that there is no suche thinge in the places alleaged of Canisius as by reading any man may see VVhichâ— declareth euidentlie that yow haue no playne meanyng but a secret intention to deceyue As also when you assure your reader that I denyeing concupiscence to be a mortall sinne according to the question betwene Monhemius and the Iesuits doe thereby graunt vnder-hand that it is some kinde of sinne VVhich was no more meant by me than you denyeing before Martin Luthers mariage to be sacrilege dyd meane thereby to graunt vnder-hand that it was adulterie fornication or any other lesser sinne of the fleshe The exposition of S. Pauls woordes callinge concupiscence improperlie sinne quia peccato facta est because it was wrought in vs by originall sinne as S. Augustin sayeth M. Charke reiecteth calling it a wraÌ„gling exposition though it be the exposition of the primatiue churche and so recorded by S. Augustin in many places of his woorkes as lib. 1. de nuptio concup ca. 23. li. 1. contr 2. ep pelag c. 13 lib. 1. retract c. 15. li. 2. cont Iul. c. 13. and li. 6. c. 11. All whiche M. Charke as better learned in S. Paul than Austen all the fathers of that time contemneth as easilie as yf it were the exposition of some vnlearned boye and beginneth hym selfe like a doctor to discourse a-new vpon S. Pauls meaning mary as it commonlie falleth out to suche malapert marchants he is no sooner in but he is ouer the eares in absurdities For his discourse is this S. Paul proueth sayethe he that though the lavve sturreth vs to synne yet is it no synne VVell this maketh for vs. For soe we may reason that though concupiscence doe sturre vs to sinne yet is it no sinne But what inferreth he therfore sayeth he yf the lavve vvhâ—che is holie doe come in question notvvithstanding of synne for that it prouoketh our corrupt nature to synne hovv muche more concupiscence vvhich is vncleane in it selfe This proueth nothing M. Charke but from the place a disparatis where commonlie children and distracted men take their arguments For how holdeth this yf the lawe for sturring to sinne be called in question of sinne and be no sinne then concupiscence for sturring to sinne must be called in question of sinne and be sinne in deede but he will saye perhappes the force of the argument standeth in the woordes holie vncleane in this order yf the lawe being holie be called in question of sinne what shall we saye of concupiscence which is vncleane and what more can you say M. Charke than to call it in questioÌ„ of sinne that somewhat more than the lawe is called in question which is bothe pure and holie and no wayes ether vncleane or euill or the effect of sinne as we graunt concupiscence is and yet for all this not properlie sinne without consent of hart as S. Augustin in the places alleaged proueth
And this now of consequent supposinge the Antecedent were true as it is moste false For who will graunt those absurd impious propositions The lavve sturreth vs to sinne the lavve prouoketh our corrupt nature to sinne S. Paul sayeth I had not knowne sinne but by the lawe but he neuer sayeth that the lawe sturred hym vpp to sinne but onelie that it discouereth sinne vnto hym euen as the looking glasse discouereth the spotte in a-mans face and maketh vs to see it whiche we did not before but yet procureth not that spotte And S. Paul gyueth an example sayeing I had not knovvne concupiscence yf the lavve had not sayd thovv shalt not couet In whiche woordes that he meaneth of voluntarie coÌ„cupiscence that is whereto ether consent or delectation is yeelded S. Augustin besides the places alleaged testifieth li. 1. de nup. concup c. 29. li. de spiritu litera cap. vlt. li. 19. con Faustum c. 7. cont 2. ep petil li. 3. c. 7. And it is moste woorthie of laughter which M. Charke for filling vp a page discourseth of S. Pauls estate sayeing Paule coÌ„pareth his staâ—e before his knovvlege of the tenth coÌ„maundemeÌ„t vvith his state aftervvard He knevv other synnes before by the light of nature but he knevv not coÌ„cupisceÌ„ce till he knevv the teÌ„th coÌ„maundemeÌ„t I praye you Sir what was S. Pauls state before his knowlege of the tenth commaundement was not S. Paul borne a Iewe brought vp from his youth in the law at the feet of Gamaliel how then coulde he be ignoraÌ„t in â—he tenth coÌ„maundemeÌ„t and yet be hable to discerne other sinnes by the light of naturall reason doe you thincke vppon your woordes before you send them to the print S. Augustins example of the latin tongue M. Chark reiecteth for that the tongue is not suche a cause of the speche as originall sinne is of concupiscence But what a reason is this to reproue so learned a man as S. Augustin was for vvhoe knovveth not as I haue shewed before that comparisoÌ„s or similitudes are not of necessitie to holde in euerye pointe but in that onelie wherein they are compared Though then the tongue be onelie the instrumeÌ„tall cause of speeche originall sinne the formall cause of concupiscence yet is it sufficieÌ„t to shevve that effects may take vppon them oftentimes the name of their causes and consequentlie asvvell concupiscence the name of sinne as the tongue the name of speeche Nether is it necessarie as M. Chark reasoneth that euery effect of originall synne should be synne in the regenerate For that all our penalties as hungar thirst sicknesse the like are effectes of originall sinne in vs but yet not sinnes in them selues as nether coÌ„cupiscence in the baptized vvhose guylt is vtterlie taken avvay by baptisme as S. Ambrose and S. Augustin doe proue To like effect is alleaged by the Censure the exaÌ„ple of Christ called sinne in the scripture not for that Christ and concupiscence are like effectes of sinne as M. Charke quareleth but to shevve that a thinge may be called sinne by the scripture figuratiuelie and yet be no sinne properlie albeit yf vve consider Christ as he vvas hostia pro peccato a sacrifice for our sinne in vvhich seÌ„se onelie S. Paul calleth him sinne No maÌ„ can denie but Christ so considered vvas a certayne effect of our sinnes also that is Christ crucified or the crucifieinge of Christ vvas a certayne effect of our sinnes for that our sinne vvas the cause of that deathe and sacrifice And vvhere you controll my quotation of the â— to the Romanes as though there vvere no suche thing in that place doe you reade but the third verse and confesse your ouersight And yf you will not beleeue the text reade Origen and S. Augustin and they will tell you the cause whie he is called sinne by S. Paul in that place But nowe for the auncient fathers alleaged in the Censure as partakers of the Iesuits blasphemie I maruaille M. Charke vouchesafeth to examine them sâ—ing in other places he contemneth vtterlie their authorities calling them my breade zovvle of fathers Mary here belike he hathe gotten some sleyght to shyft them of or at leastwise some part of theÌ„ For as for S. CypriaÌ„ and Pacian he passeth ouer without sayeing any woord vnto them To S. Ambrose and Clemens AlexaÌ„drinus he answereth that they haue no suche thynges in the places alleaged whiche is somewhat worse than passing ouer for it is a flatt vntruethe seing in those places as the reader may see by conference they proue all sinne to be taken awaye in the regenerate by baptisme and the sowle left pure cleane as the light it selfe whiche can not stande yf concupiscence remayning be a fowle sinne as M. Charke affirmeth but he addeth that Clemens in an other place hathe some what against vs to witt that hy conâ—npiscence onelie a man coÌ„mitteth adulterie whiche is true yf a man gyue consent therunto as appeareth by Christ Math. 5. But the first motions onelie without any consent or delectation in them I maruaile M. Charke is not ashamed to call adulterie seing Clemens in the same place exhorteth the gentiles to resist these motions of concupiscence and not to yeelde vnto them and so to auoyde adulterie whiche he wolde not haue done yf these very first motions theÌ„ selues which are inauoydable were adulterie without yeelding any consent vnto them To Gregorie Nazianzen alleaged in orat de S. Iauacro he answereth that Nazianzen neuer vvrote any such oratioÌ„ as I dreame of But if he dreamed not yet I thinke at least he was halfe a sleepe wheÌ„ he wrote this ether vnderstoode not the books name being writteÌ„ somewhat short whiche were too badde in so greate â— diuine or else neuer sawe NazianzeÌ„s woorkes which were worse or else not able to answere the place wold shyft it of with suche a sleyght which were worst of all That which he hathe for shyfting of S. Austen I vnderstande not his woordes are these lett the reader skanne them you vvere deceyued sayeth he in citing Augustin tvvyse as hauyng vvriten but one booke de nuptiis concupiscentia Heere yf he meane that S. Austen hathe written but one booke de nupt concup and that I was deceyued in citing hym twyse as hauing written two bookes then is S. Austen hym selfe against hym whoe sayeth in his second booke of Retractations that he had written two bookes de nuptiis concupiscentia But yf M. Chark meane that I thynke S. Austen to haue wrytten but one booke de nupt concup and so doe erre in citing hym he is deceyued For I cite hym thus in the Censure li. 1. de nupt concup whiche signifieth the first booke and no man citeth a first booke which thynketh not that there is a secoÌ„d Vherfore this fond charge eyther tasteth of ignorance or of greate desire to quarrell VVill you stand to it that S.
Augustin hath written but one booke of this matter I wolde gyue a good thing that I were by you whyle you reade this to see whether you can blushe or no. But yet I call backe my wishe agayne For I thinke you wolde make me more a fearde than I you a shamed for that your Purseuantes are stronger than our argumentes And this is but concerning the quotation of S. Augustin for about the text it selfe M. Charks behauioure is a great deale worse and suche in verie deede as yf a man had care of his owne sowle he wolde neuer trust suche a felow more that against all honestie trueth shame and respect bothe of conscience â—redit falsifieth so learned a fathers writinges against his plaine and euident woordes and meaning For whereas S. Augustin alleaged by the Censure in many places else of his woorkes sayeth auoucheth confirmeth and proueth that Concupiscentia iam non est peccatum quando â—lli ad illicita opera non consentitur concupiscens nowe in the regenerate is not sinne when consent of mynde is not yeelded to vnlaufull woorks M. Chark answereth S. Augustins place is expounded by him selfe afterward sayeing CoÌ„cupiscence is not so for gyuen in baptisme that it is not synne but that it is not imputed as synne this seemeth plaine and Augustin appeareth contrarie to hym selfe But what is the principall woorde in this sentence that maketh moste for M. Charke The word Synne you will say for that being taken away in the former clause the sentence maketh quite against hym VVell then that woorde hathe he added of hym selfe and yet hathe corrupted the whole senteÌ„ce besides For S. Augustines woordes are these quaeritur c. si in parente baptizato potest esse concupiscentia peccatum non esse cur eadem ipsae in prole peccatum sit The question is sayth S. Augustin whie this concupiscence is sinne in the childe before it be baptized yf it be no sinne in the parent nowe baptized heere you see by the way that it is holden as a matter out of doubt that concupiscence is no sinne in the parent whiche is baptized and the reason S. Augustin yeedelth immediatlie in the answer sayeing Ad haec respondetur dimitti concupiscentiam carnis in baptismo non vt non siâ— sed vt in peccatum noÌ„ imputeâ—ur quamuis reatu suo iam soluto manet tameÌ„ c. To this is answered that the coÌ„cupiscence of the fleshe is forgeuen in baptisme not that it is not or remayneth not but that it is not imputed into sinne Yt remaneth still though the guylt be taken awaye Heere now we see that S. Augustin affirmeth onelie that concupiscence is not quite taken awaye by baptisme but yet the guilt thereof is so that it is no more imputed into the nature of a sinne The cause whie it is left he vttereth in diuers places as when he sayeth ad agonem manet non sibi ad illicita consentientibus nihil omnino nocitura Concupiscence remaneth to fight withall but yet in such sort as it can hurt vs nothing at all yf we coÌ„sent not to her vnlaufull suggestioÌ„s Secondlie we see that S. Augustin in this verie place proueth directlie our verie position that concupiscence in the baptized is not sinne also that it hath no guilt and that it doeth hurt nothing vvithout consent vvherby M. Charkes lacke of Iudgement and shame may be noted in bringing this place of all others against vs adding that hovv soeuer the Iesuits distinguish yet these sinnes the first motions of concupiscence â—vhich by the Iesuits doctrine are so called figuratiuelie except vve fynde mercie vvill fynde no figuratiue condemnation Thyrdlie vve may beholde and lament the pityfull desperate resolutioÌ„ of our aduersaries whoe seing and knoweing their owne vveaknes yet to couer their miserie dare abuse forge and falsifie playne authorities as in this place this shamelesse creature hath done in so many points For first vvhere as S. Augustin sayeth Concupiscence is forgyuen in baptisme he translateth concupiscence is not so forgyuen in baptisme Secondlie vvhere as S. Augustine saythe it is forgyuen not that it be not or remaine not he traÌ„slateth not that it is not sinne Thirdlie for imputed into synne he traÌ„slateth imputed as sinne Fowerthlie he cutteth of the woordes immediatlie goeing before where S. Augustin sayeth concupiscence in the parenâ— baptized is no synne as also the voordes immediatlie foloweing and affirming that concupiscence remayneth but vvithout guilt and consequentlie can not be sinne Hathe this man anye conscience any trueth any good meaning any sparke of grace seeketh he to instruct or to deceyue to proue and defend or to couer dissemble Is this he whiche protested suche sinceritie in his dealing as before God and Angels is this the credit of a puritane protestant O how miserable are those people whiche hange their soules vpon the trust of such disseÌ„bling and deceyuing men And this for the fyrst place cited by M. Charke for his sentence of S. Augustin for he citeth two chapiters in one booke the first thereof hath as you haue seene the other hath no one woorde tendinge that waye but cleane to the contrarie For S. Augustin layeth downe proueth our position of purpose in muche more ample and vehement maner than I can against M Charke and sheweth it also by examples how the Apostle called concupiscence sinne improperlie vocatur peccatum quia peccato facta est cum iam in regeneratis non sit ipsa peccatum Si autem vocatur lingua locutio quam facit lingua manus vocatur scriptura quam facit manus Concupiscence is called sinne because it is made in vs by originall sinne whereas it selfe is not sinne now in the regenerate euen as the speeche whiche the tongue maketh is called the tongue and the writinge whiche the hand maketh is called the hand The verie same hath S. Augustin against Iulian the pelagian towching S. Pauls calling of concupiscence sinne whiche in deede properlie is no sinne except consent be yeelded thervnto as there S. Augustin proueth by the woordes of Paul hym selfe VVherfore M. Charke doeth fraudulentlie alleage his woords against the same Iulian to proue that all concupiscence is sinne For S. Augustin sayeth onelie of concupiscence in generall that it is synne and the punishement of synne and the cause of synne whiche is true of concupiscence in generall as it comprehendeth all her braunches and all estates of men for concupiscence is the punishement of sinne in all men In them that gyue consent it is the cause of sinne in them that are not baptized it is sinne it selfe whether they gyue consent or no. But yet is it not nedefull that all these points should be verified in euerye particular braunche of concupiscence as for example Manslaughter in generall comprehendeth murder chaunce medley execution by Iustice and the like and in respect of these braunches a man may say
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
he placeth concupiscence of the fleshe wherof we talke in the reasonable parte of the mynde and not in the sensityue parte which is as much as yf a man should appoint seeyng to be in the nose smellyng to be in the eyes For the motioÌ„s of coÌ„cupisceÌ„ce are nothing els but the rebellioÌ„s of our seÌ„sitiue partes against the parte wherein reason is and how then are not they in the parte sensityue are they not called the concupiscence of the fleshe Dothe not S. Paul saye the fleshe coueteth or hathe concupiscence agaynst the spirit Dothe not he saye playnlie I feele an other lavve in my members repugnyng to the lavve of my mynde Is not heere concupiscence placed in the members and reason in the mynde what intollerable ignoraÌ„ce is this in a preacher yea in a conquerour of learned M. Campian eauen vnto Tyborne But his second absurditie is yet greater than this in affirmyng that the sensuall parte of man is not so muche corrupted by originall synne as is the reasonable part whiche is cleane false and the contradictorie therof is true For albeit all partes be corrupted yet the sâ—â—sible parte more by reason of the rebellyon of the sensityue parte against the reasonable whiche I haue named before and euerie man by experience dothe fynde more temptation in his sensitiue partes to witt in his senses imagination and other like partes and members of his bodie than he dothe in his reasonable partes to wytt in his iudgement and wyll especiallie good men who fynde greate rebellyon often tymes in their sensuall partes thoughe their iudgement be ryght and their wyll most holye and firme S. Paul felt this when he sayd O vnhappie man that I am vvho shall delyuer me from the bodie of this deathe And agayne I my selfe doe serue the lavve of God in my mynde but in my fleshe I serue the lavâ—e of synne signifyinge therby the violent rebellion of the fleshe In whiche sense also it is sayd by the wyse man the bodye that is corrupted aggreueth the mynde And S. Paul sayethe I doe not that uuhiche I vvolde but that vvhiche I hate By all which is shewed that the inferiour parte of man called the sensatyue parte is more corrupted by the fall of Adam than the reasonable for that by the force of concupiscence placed principallie in it it maketh warre and offerreth violence to the other So that heerin also M. Charke was fowlie ouerseene His third absurditie is ioyned with flatt pelagianisme where he sayeth that the necessarie actions of lyfe and sense remayne novv in man as they vvere before hys fall Heerof S. Austen shalbe witnesse whose woordes are these Yf any man shall affirme that by the offence of preuarication in Adam the vuhole man that is man bothe in bodie and sovvle is not chaunged into vvorse c he is deceyued vvith the errour of pelagians and is contrarie to the scriptures The lyke teacheth Prosper lib. 1. de vocat gent. ca. 7. Into these errours and heresies falleth M. Charke whiles leauing the sure doctrine of the Catholique Churche he deuiseth owt newe wayes after the fashion of all heretiques wherby to excuse naturall actions from sinne VVe excuse them from sinne and doe saye the cause to be for that they are not voluntarie whiche is one principall point required aswell in sinne as in vertue as hathe beene shewed M. Charke deuiseth he can not tell what him selfe in this pointe but onelie that he wolde not saye willinglie as we doe thoughe he haue nothing to saye besides But yet against this poynte of voluntarie he obiecteth once more originall sinne whiche as he sayeth is not voluntarie But it hathe bene answered before shewed how it is voluntarie not onelie in men of discretion but also in infantes SecoÌ„dlie he alleageth owt of Genesis that the cogitation of mans hart is euill euer more To whiche I answere that it inclineth to euill by reason of concupiscence left in vs but yet is not that inclination synne without consent as hathe bene proued before Thirdlie he obiecteth the commaundemeÌ„t thovv shalt loue thy God vvith all thy hart vvith all thy sovvle and vvith all thy strength By whiche commaundement he imagineth the first motions of concupiscence to be also forbydden and consequentlie to be sinnes whiche is false For as S. Austen well writeth in dyuers places thoughe we be sturred by this commaundement to all perfection that we can in this lyfe yet no more is inioyned vs therby vnder payne of synne and damnation but onlie that we doe not yeeld consent to sinne as hathe bene shewed before in the Censure and is now presentlie to be examined more at large in explication of the tenthe commaundement whiche contayneth the verye same meaninge that this commaundement dothe Vpon all this that goeth before VV. Chark maketh this conclusion agaynst vs. Therfore to saye vve must not or can not pull in the raynes of our first lustes c is in deede to teache a beastlie libertie and to laye open the vvaye to all vncleannesse vvithout controllement Heere now is shewed the ordinarie practise of all lyeing heretikes and speciallie of protestantes whose fashion is to charge the Catholique Church with odious conclusions deduced of false principles deuised by them selues For which parte doeth enlarge or pull in the raynes of our lustes the protestant or the Catholique doctrine surelie yf to pull in or enlarge the raynes of our lustes be to gyue them scope or to represse the motions as all men I thinke will confesse then consider I pray you whoâ— doe this ether VV. Chark and hys felowes or we They teache that these first motions of lust are naturall and doe present them selues vnto vs without our wyll and when they doe so come we can not lett their effect but that they woorke sinne in vs whether we consent or not consent So that by this doctrine protestantes doe not onelie lett owt the raynes but doe qwyte take awaye bothe raynes and brydle owt of our handes For yf lustes come without our will and woorke sinne in vs without our consent what raynes are there left in our handes to pull in Yf they be sinne in me whether I consent or not consent shall I stryue agaynst a thyng that is impossible whoe will not rather execute his lustes with pleasure than resist them with payne yf whether he consent or not they are sinne So that in deede this is that libertine doctrine of protestantes which looseth the raynes and layeth open the waye to all vncleannesse as bothe by experience nowe appeareth in the worlde and by reason is euident And our contrarie doctrine is that whiche pulleth in the raynes of lust and layeth the foundation of all vertue among Christians yf it be executed accordinglie To witt the doctrine vvherby vve teache that albeit these first motions be naturall and doe present them selues vnto vs many tymes without all
fault of ours yet allwayes by the help of gods grace that neuer wanteth it standeth in vs to admitt or reiect them to gyue consent or to resist to their motions And yf we consent they are sinnes but yf we consent not but vanquishe them they are cause of merit and rewarde in heauen though the motions them selues be infirmities and spottes left in vs by originall sinne And this maketh men to stryue and resist them and to keepe their myndes cleare from consent and finallie to stand stronglie in the spirituall battaill betwene the fleshe tempting and the spirit resisting wherin the protestant fighteth not at all for that he hath no hope of victorieâ— And yet gentle reader coÌ„sider their impudencie in chargyng vs with that beastlie libertie which they teache onelie them selues There foloweth now the tenth commaundement thou shalt not couet alleaged by M. Charke for condemnyng of the first motions of lust VVhiche commaundement the Censure expoundeth owt of S. Austen and by an other place of scripture which is the best manner of exposition that may be that it is meant onelie of consent to wytt that we must not gyue coÌ„sent to our lustes of concupiscence nor folow them So that this tenth coÌ„maundemeÌ„t by S. Austens expositioÌ„ maketh nothing against the first motions whiche are without consent but onelye against the lustes wherto we yeeld assent To this Syr VVilliam replyeth nothing but onelie sayeth Austens opinion appeareth by the places alleaged before VVhich is true for it appeareth that S. Austen is moste euident and flatt against M. Charke and more earnest than I can be And that M. Chark hath no shewe owt of hym for one syllable on his syde but onelie a place forged by hym selfe as hath bene declared Next to this it pleaseth M. Charke to put downe fower manifest lyes for helpyng hym selfe owt with some shew of matter sayeing As the papistes make of the tenth commaundement tvvo commaundementes so this felovve maketh of tvvo seuerall breaches of tvvo diuers commaundementes but one synne Bothe these I saye are slaunders For first the Catholiques make but one coÌ„maundement of the tenth coÌ„maundement But the question is which is properlie and distinctlie the tenth commaundement For the protestaÌ„tes for mayntaynyng of a cauill against the Catholiques will haue these two braunches thou shalt not couet thy neyghbours vvyfe And thou shalt not couet thy neyghbours hovvse fyeld c. to be but one onelye coÌ„maundement that is the tenth And coÌ„sequentlie they will haue these two other braunches thou shalt not haue straunge gods before me And thou shalt not make vnto thy selâ—e any grauen Idole c. to be two distinct coÌ„maundementes But S. Austen contendeth in dyuers places that these latter two braunches make but one onelie commaundement that is the first commaundemeÌ„t and that the second clause therof prohibiting the makyng of Idoles is but an explication of the first clause that prohibiteth false goddes And therfore that these other two brauÌ„ches of coueting our neyghbours vvyfe And of coueting his goods doe make two distinct coÌ„maundemeÌ„tes to witt the nyenthe and tenthe the nyenth prohibiting all internall consent of hart to carnall sinne the externall complishement and woorke wherof is prohibited by the sixt commaundement after this account whiche is thovv shalt not committ adulâ—erie And the tenth prohibiting all internall consent of hart vnto couetousnes the externall accomplishement wherof is prohibited by the seuenth commaundement whiche is thovv shalt not steale So that by this account of S. Austen and other learned men foloweing his opinion these two braunches thovv shalt not couet thy neighbours vvyfe and thovv shalt not couet thy neighbours hovvse or field c. doe make two distinct commaundemeÌ„tes answering to the sixth and seuenth as hathe beene sayde And the reason of this opinion is first for that those two braunches thovv shalt not haue straunge goddes before me and thovv shalt not make vnto thee any grauen thing or likenes to adore it c contayne in deed but one thyng and therfore can not make two distinct commaundementes as the protestantes teache but one onelie commaundement And consequentlie these latter two must needes make two sundrie commaundemeÌ„tes or elles there could not be teÌ„ne Secondlie for that the septuagint or 70. interpreters doe recite them distinctlie as two commaundementes in their greke translation repeating the verbe twyse as I before haue alleaged them Thyrdlie because it was most couenient that the two generall internall consents vnto the two lustes of Carnalitie and Couetousnes called by S. Iohn and distinguished by the names of Concupiscence of the flesâ—e and concupiscence of the eyes should be expresselye particularlie forbydden by two distinct commaundementes For that in these two fountaynes of poyson doe lye the greatest and most daungerous baytes of synne in this lyfe If you aske why the woorkes forbidden in the other commaundementes had not for lyke reason also theyr internall concupisceÌ„ces of lustes forbydden by distinct and seuerall commaundementes it is answered that the internall temptations against the other commaundementes are nether so frequent nor so daungerous as these are and consequentely they are sufficientlye prohibited by the woordes sett downe in these commaundementes them selues that prohibet the woorks partlie also their prohibitioÌ„ may be vnderstoode by the prohibition of these two internall concupiscences or lustes for whiche causes is problable that S. Iohn made mention of these two concupiscences onely and not of any other as in his sentence beâ—ore alleaged apearethe And now albeit these reasons and the lyke dyd moue S. Austen in his time and many learned men sence to deuyde the tenne commaundemeÌ„ts in this order yet is not the matter a matter of faythe nor so defined by the churche as a man may not folowe an other opinion yf yt seeme more reasonable vnto hym For the auncient fathers had alwayes dyuers opinions abowt the diuision of the decaloge or tenne commaundementes without any difference of beleefe For the Hebrewes as Iosephus and Philo with whome also agreeth Irenaeus doe appoynt owt fyue commaundementes to the first table concerninge the honour of God fyue to the second table concerninge the loue of our neyghbour But the Greekes as Origen Procopius Clemens Alexandrinus Hesychius with whome agree also S. Ambrose S. Ierome doe assigne fower to the fyrst table and six to the second table But S. Austen and the most part of the latines foloweing hym doe appoint onelie three preceptes to the first table and seuen to the second And yet all doe agree vppon tenne commaundementes By all which may be seene the shameles dealing of M. Chark heere in charging Catholiques to make two commaundementes of the tenthe commaundement and muche more the malitious calumniation bothe of hym and all hys felowes in affirming euerye where in all theyr bookes and sermons to the people that Catholiques leaue owt the second
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