is doubtfull for the tongue is the instrument of speache and not such a cause The naturall knowledge of the latin speach or the knowledge thereof by arte is the cause If the tongue were the proper cause whosoeuer had a tongue should speake latin because where the cause is the effect followeth By which reason your owne woordes againe make concupiscense to bee sinne saying it is the affect of originall s 〈…〉 because such as the proper cause is 〈…〉 is also the proper effect the â—ause sinne and sinneful the effect also sinne and sinful But you that make many demaundes to me let me aske you what you meant to bring in the example of Christ who is called sinne in thâ—â— chapter and â—epâ—stle to the Corâ—th forwhich you falsely quote the 8. â—o the Râ—man 〈◊〉 you make the example like Shall 〈◊〉 expâ—â—â—de the former speach of Saint Paul calling concupiscense sinne Surely hereby you proue that Paul calling concupiscense sinne meant notwithstanding that it was altogether no sinne for Christ is altogether no sinne Againe howe vnlike are these examples Christ is called sinne because hee was a sacrifice for sinne that is to take away sinne concupiscense is called sinne because it is the effect fruite of originall sinne not taking it away but increasing it continually If you made conscience of your speach you would neuer misconâ—â—er the plaine woâ—rdes of the Apostles bring nothing for your defeÌ„ce but such impertinent similitudes For I appeale to your conscience may you not as fitly by these similitudes proue that the Apostle calleth fornication sinne by a figure or any other sinne neuer so great Saint Austeâ—â— place making it no sinne in y e 〈…〉 rate without conâ—â—t is expounded by himselfe afterwarde saying Concupiscence is not so forgiuen in Baptisme that it is not sinne but that it is not imputed as sinne For a clearer proofe hereof in another booke hee saith plainely it is 〈◊〉 For when Iulian obiected that conâ—â—piscence is wortâ—y praise because it is a punishment of sinne Austen tooke that away by an example of the wicked deuils whâ— though they in respect of Gods hande doâ— iustly punish yet themselues are vniust and sinfull whereupon this similitude fol 〈…〉 eth to proue concupiscence sinne euen when there is no consent As the blyndnesse of the heart which God remoueth who alone doth illuminate is both sinne whereby we beleeue not in God and the punishment of sinne whereby a proude heart is punished with worthie punishment the cause of sinne when any euill is committed by the error of a blind heart so the concupiscense of the flesh agaynst which the good spirit â—usteth is both sinne because there is in it a disobedieÌ„ce against the regiment of the minde and a punishment of sin because it is rendred to y e merites of the disobedient the cause of sin through the defect of that y t consenteth or the conâ—agion of that that springeth You were deceiued in citing Austen twise as hauing written but one booke De Nup. et Concup Clement hath no such place but against you hee hath these woordes in the booke of his exhortation to the GeÌ„tiâ—â—s speaking of the seuenth commandement among others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou shalt not lust for by concupiscense alone thou hast committed adulterie Which sentence sheweth what a sinne bare concupiscense is that alone without consent commeth so neere a degree of actuall adulterie You were also deceiued in quoting Ambrose for he hath no such place where you cite him Nazianzen I thinke hath no such oration as you dreame of such is your cause and such are your testimonies Wherefore it is false that all those good fathers are partakers with the Iesuites of that doctrine which blasphemously maketh the breach of the tenth commandement no sinne And because you so often presse the worde blasphemie so seldome vsed by me you must vnderstande that such doctrines especially now after so great reuelation of the trueth are the doctrines of deuils blasphemoâ—s against God and his holy woorde which teacheth the contrary as hath and shall bee further declared But nowe followeth the place of Gotuisus brought to proue the contrary doctrine Whosoeuer shall see a woman to lust after her hee hath already committed adulterie with her in his heart The Censurer in this place to note my ignoraunce bewrayeth his owne confounding hudling the first last part of the proposition which in Scholes are called subiectu and praedicatum For the question sta 〈…〉 th in y â— former place where Christ vsetâ— a word of concupiscence affirming that 〈◊〉 a man see a woman to lust or in concupisâ—enâ—e to desyre her where the force of sinne worketh in the first degree it is with content of heart brought to a further degree and becommeth actuall adulterie before God though it bee not actuall before men Therefore if I had as you miâ—conâ—â—er alleaged this place of Matthewe altogether in respect of the effect and as it is a breach of the seuenth commandement it had not made against the doctrine of concupiscense without consent But I cite it for the former part of the propositioÌ„ which sufficiently proueth bare concupiscense to bee sinne For if the consent of the heart make concupisceÌ„se to be adulterie theÌ„ must concupiscense it selfe be also sinne because otherwise the consent of the heart cannot make any lawful desire to be adulterie but the fruite and the tree must be of the same nature Saint Iames doeth moreouer proue this who wil not that a man should say God tempteth him and so charge the Lord with sinne but he turneth vpon man the whole worke and al the blame of sinne froÌ„ the first sinne of tempting to the ripe ful birth thereof The Apostles wordes in this place are full to make this proofe calling it a mans owne lust or lusting adding moreouer that a man is tempted therwith drawen away and as with a baite intited which thinges can not bee in bare concupisâ—ense except it were sinne and a sinful cause of sinne from the which Iames doth carefully quite the Lorde Also this concupifcense because it hath â—entation violence and a baite to sinne before câ—nsent of heart be giuen and before the secret adulterie of the heart be coÌ„mitted it cannot be of faith and therefore the Apostle giueth sentence that it is sin for whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne be it before or after the consent of heart Therefore out of these woordes of Christ it is truely proued by the nature and effect of concupiscense that it is sinne of it selfe seeing presently with consent it is made a sinne in so high a degree as is adulterie Also herein my alleadging of Scripture is founde to be according to the matter and argument without any error of doctrine alteration of sense or appiying it otherwise then it may be truely and profitably applied wherefore you gaue to much
libertie to your penne in charging mee with common misalleadging of Scripture But seeing you graunt y t this second point of doctrine is also mainteined by the Iesuites euen in such sort as they are charged all men may see It is hard to say whether you are more ready to defeÌ„d their doctrine or to take a pretensed aduantage of quarell against my wordes In the thirde place the Iesuites are charged to say The first motions of lust are without hurt of sinne This third doctrine is graunted by the Censurer as most true and playne but yet I must not go without â—ome accustamed taunt Hee chargeth mee that by clipping their wordes I make euery thing to seeme a Paradox This is only says to accuse without any shew of proofe For what â—â—nefit was there to mee in leauing out these wordes If they come of naturall in 〈…〉 onely without any cause giuen by vs or what gayne you by adding them seeing they are superfluous For I pray you are not all the first motions of lust meerely natural euermore of some cause giuen by vs and dwelling within vs namely the corruption of old Adam what shiftes are they then which you vse to helpe a weake cause If to defende this addition of waste wordes you shall obiect the temptations of Satan offered without any cause giuen by vs I answere you cannot properly call them motions of lust being but outwarde prouocations to lust and sinne wherewith many times a mortified man is not prouoked to lusting sinning by which neuerthelesse Satan woulde moue but is resisted by faith he entreth not in to worke those motions of lust which do affect vs and whereof our question is moued Your comparison bet 〈…〉 e these first motions of lust and the pulse making the one to be no more sinne then the other is without iudgement For you can not conclude from that part of our natural soule wherby we haue life and sense only to that part wherein our reason and affections are placed because the former is not in the same sort corrupted as the second neyther doeth sinne so woorke in naturall life and sense as it doeth in the heart by the corruptions and guiltinesse of the soule The necessarie actions of life as eating drinking sleepe breath also the â—â—cessarie actions of sense as smelling seeing hearing feeling and the rest they are of themselues al free from sinne remaining as they were in man before his fall But euery imagination and cogitation of maâ—s heart is euill euermore as God testified to Noâ— much more the lusts and desires thereof Wherefore to compare the lustes of sinne to the puâ—se which is meerely naturall and without sinne was to bring the simple into a dangerous opinion that the one is as lawfull as the other For a cleere example of this difference it may be 〈◊〉 that Christ had the working of the pulse and other naturall opera 〈…〉 of life and â—ense but hee was far euen from the least concupiscense I thinke in your owne iudgement Therefore this your example of the pulse to defende the first motions of lust is neyther in substance nor in shewe to any purpose Moreouer you make the first motions of lust no sinne because it lyeth not in our power to prohibite them by which reason you defende sinne by the necessitie thereof But seeing this necessitie commeth of our selues by our corruption and custome of sinne how can it be any excuse or defence for the trespasse what wil you say to originall sinne shall it be no sinne because it lyeth not in vs to resist it no more then we can resist our owne conception and is lesse in our power to resist then the pulse Like to the former comparison of the pulse is that which followeth making the first motions of lust to be no more sinne in vs theÌ„ they are in beastes But this comparison proueth no more theâ— the other for as there is no law giuen to prohibit the pulse so there is no lawe to restraine these motions in beastes but man is tyed to a lawe for euery action last or first great or small as is proued by the great commandement Thou shalt loue the Lorde thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soule and with all thy strength and with all thy mynde So that what lust or thought soeuer swarueth from this entire and absolute loue of God it is against this his commandement and therefore a sinne against his most soueraigne and most glorious Maiestie to whome wee owe all the seruice and holinesse of all the heart of all the mynde and of al our powers whatsoeuer Therefore to say wee must not or can not pull in the raynes of our first lustes or that they are as lawfull in vs. as the pulse or as they are in bruite beastes is indeede to reache a beastly libertie and to laye open the way to all vncleannesse without controulement Yf all your readers did knowe howe little proofe is made by similitudes they would all see the insufficiencie of your defence that so often vse them and so vnfitly in place of playne and sure arguments Now for the tenth commaundement alledged as a contrary doctrine y t Censurer sayth it is not any way repugnant to that the Iesuits teach For proofe whereof as the Papistes make of the tenth commaundement two commaundementes so this fellowe maketh of two seuerall breaches of two diuers commaundementes but one sinne and that agaynst the seuenth commaundement onely But there can not be a commaundement agaynst the which there is no sinne Therfore as it was declared in the former article there is a sinneful desire first which is concupiscense agaynst the tenth the assent whereunto maketh it adulterie which is a sinne of another degree and agaynst the seuenth commaundement So the Censurer must by duetie receyue home agayne his owne â—aunt of hudling and confounding for confounding the sinnes of two diuers commandements Furdermore y â— Censurer being caâ—ied awaye into errour by the olde translation against the trueth and other faithfull translations woulde proue that the lawe is in our power to doe it and that therefore these first motions of luste are not forbidden by the tenth commaundement because it is not in our power to resist them That his argument may appeare I will set it downe to be more easily discouered Whatsoeuer is commaunded that is not aboue vs but in our power to resist the first motions of lust is not in our power therefore to resist the first motions of lust is not commaunded The first proposition is false and as I said a false translatioÌ„ brought to proue it For Moses saith The Lawe is not hidden from vs and the Censurer saith It is not aboue vs Moses sheweth that it is reuealed the Censurer would proue that it is in our power Moses speaketh chiefly of the Gospell and the Censurer referreth it altogether vnto the tenne commandemeÌ„ts But that the
spread abroade your owne vncharitable and vntrue termes censuring me and not my answere For you accuse me of subtiltie of falsifying of malice of flatterie for profite of infinite repeticions in the termes of Pope and Popery of inuention and excesse in railing and of bolde lyes and assertions whatsoeuer with out blushing Almost euery lyne soundeth loud with some foule reproch Therefore to answere you in them al 〈◊〉 report not y â— chalenge subtillie for my purpose but for a plaine discouerie of Campions practise which is full of distoyaltie full of Popish rebellion and I haue donâ—â—t so iustly that you haue thought it good to say little or nothing in his defence Secondly what moued you to charge me as falsifying the challenge whereas you haue not in al your censure so much as mentioned the least corruption against me I know I followed some speciall copies which came neither co 〈…〉 tiy nor corrupted to my handes but 〈…〉 ed their comming and one an other with great consent Such a charge maketh your false accusation to fall vpon your selfe as a false accuser for a iust recompâ—nce of your vniust sentence The third â—ccusâ—tâ—on of malice is agaynst the brotherly loue yon speake of for the report of Campions dissoyall and seditious practises being apparauntly true and in soine of you broken out into actuall and vnnaturall rebellion and founde readie to breake out in others you cannot well charge mee with malice in declaring a trueth except you can for full execution of your office looke into my heart and there finde that I neuer felt 〈…〉 s no excuse in this place to maynteine your Iesuites and Semynaries that their seedes of sedition their libels their masses their bulles and open â—rmes are things done for conscience and religion for in making such trayterous practises the effectes of your religion and conscience you subscribe to Saunders booke and both make the tree very euill because the fruite is very badde therein also you graunt me that which afterwarde you doe denie Touching the fourth accusation of palpable flatterie towarde 〈◊〉 states for gaine if you thinke them vnw 〈…〉 thie of such prayse examin the thoughtes of your owne heart in that behalfe if my duetie and conscience bounde me to say no lesse in their defence against Campions vngodly suggestions you haue iudged before the time and one who by the grace of God is well able to proue his speciall hatren of flatterie and gaine by such vngodly meanes In the fifth reproch I take it as a plaine note of somewhat that your eares tingle and are wearied with the termes of Pope and Poperie But your infinite repetition of such superstitions cause often repetition of these fittest wordes to expresse the same for the matter must be wearisom and worne out with you before the proper termes thereof be worne out or buried with vs. Neither can I promise it then for as the notorious superstition of Scribes and Pharisees the iniquitie of Pilate and the hardnesse of Pharao while they liued will in no age suffer their odious names to die so the Pope and poperie may for like rebellion receiue the like punishment remayning for euer in all detestation But you for what cause I can easely gesse haue scarsely once mencioned the Pope in all your booke although hee be your Lorde and father and to you neerer and deerer then either the Prince or the loue of your countrey Vpon my answere you promised to enlarge your selfe and in brotherly loue but you do onely enlarge your selfe in answering a fewe articles cited against the Iesuites out of Donatus Gotuisus in all the rest you are very short so that my answere is not answered but by your malicious and bold Censure here and there noted for a worde or for a syllable making litle for you or against me in the rest it is charged and ouercharged with your free taunts and vniust sentence Your brotherly charitie I thinke is somewhere els bestowed My order in answering the pamphlet from point to point it pleaseth you to call rouing that you may perswade the reader I did not leauell at the certaine marke in my aunswere nor keepe a right order Wherein you giue me occasion to speake of your order which may fitly be called a disorder such as also may bee looked for 〈◊〉 your hands if you your fellowes should come to disputation The order you haue framed to your selfe in foure partes first touching the sect of Iesuites secondly touching Campion thirdly touching the challenge and lastly touching the dialogue added to the answere is at your pleasure to roue in deede at your owne markes to bee large or shorte to touch or passe by to answere or leaue vnanswered as may serue best for your skill and make most for your purpose NotwithstaÌ„ding seeing you haue frained this order and layde downe these 4. partes to my hande I will followe them in the same order least I might seeme with you to make some answere where I please and let the rest alone Touching the Iesuites I Acknowledge my labour imployed to bring in discredit the Iesuites whose infections are well knowne abroade and are nowe entred to worke treason in the land Also I graunt the speaches which in al hatred of Popish practises so directly attempted against the Maiestie of God and peace of this noble kingdome I vttered in diuers places of my answere and are nowe by you not vnfitly gathered together to be seene in one view And because you charge me with ordinarie rayling I might fully requite you with placing your ordinarie and extraordinarie railings in one ranke that you may knowe your owne and take them home But I haue no such purpose and if I had where you haue gathered my fit wordes against the wicked monkish friers or frierly monkes to fill tenne lynes I might gather of your reproches more then can come into tenne leaues Therefore I leaue it to the indifferent reader of your booke to iudge with what minde it is like you accused mee of rayling that rayle so your selfe or for want of modestie you that haue beene so immodest and so bitter or of absurd assertions you that haue so many Concerning your charge that I abuse the Iesuites those learned men I answere that godlines is true learning and the only foundation of good life without the which if they had any learning or haue any shew of good life the greater is their sinne and hypocrisie in imploying such giftes of God to so vile a purpose as the defence of manifest falshoode and superstition True it is that the world doth knowe them and such as they bee But it is a small thing to be knowen or loued of the worlde our ioye is that God doth know his and maynteine their right That I call the Iesuites a sect which you so finde fault with all it is not my doing alone but many haue done it before me and that learnedly as shall appeare