serueth their turnes for the tyme. So Martin Luther after he had denied all testimonie of man besides hym selfe he beginneth thus aboute the number of Sacramentes Principio neganda mihi sunt septem sacramenta tantùm tria pro tempore ponenda First of all I must denye seuen sacraments and appoint three for the tyme. Marie this tyme lasted not long for in the same place he sayeth that yf he wold speake according to the vse of onelie scripture he hathe but one sacrament for vs that is baptisme But yet the confessioÌ„ of Auspurge whiche pretendeth to folow Luther in all things doeth allowe three by onelye scripture Mary Melancthon whiche professeth onelye scripture more than the rest and wolde seme to knowe Luthers meaning best of all men for that he lyued with hym holdeth fower by onelye scripture and Iohn Caluin holdeth two Agayne by onelie scripture Iohn Caluin fownd the title of heade of the church in king henry to be AntichristiaÌ„ vvhich novve our folovvers of Caluin in England doe finde by onelie scripture to be most christian Mary yet the Magdeburgians by onelie scripture do condeÌ„ne the same still In like sorte by onelie scripture the protestantes defended a greate while against Catholiques that no heretiques might be burned or put to deathe whereof large bookes were written on bothe partes But now our protestants in England hauinge burned some them selues haue fownd as they write that it is euident by scripture that they may be burned Luther by onelie scripture found that his folowers and the Sacramentaries coulde not both be saued together and therefore he condemned the one for arrant heretiques Doctor fulke findeth by the same scripture that bothe partes are good Catholiques neyther of them heretiques Finallie how many things doeth M. VVhittgift defend against T. Cartwright to be laufull by scriptureâ— as byshops deanes archedeacons officialls holy dayes and a hundred more whiche in Geneua are holden to be flatt contrarie to the same scripture So that this appellation to onelie scripture bringeth good case in manie mattâ—rs For by this a man maketh hym selfe Iudge and Censurer not onelie of all fathers doctors councels histories examples presidents customes vsages prescriptions and the like but also of the bookes of scripture and sense it selfe reseruing all interpretation vnto hym selfe But Catholiques albeit they gyue the soueraigntie to scripture in all things yet bindinge theÌ„ selues to other things beside for the better vnderstanding of the meaning of scripture as to councels auncient fathers tradition of the Apostles and primatiue churche with the lyke are restrained from this libertie of chopping and chaunging affirming and denyeinge allowinge and misliking at theyr pleasures For albeit they hauing wittes as other men haue might drawe some problable apparaÌ„ce of scriptures to theyr owne deuises as euery heretique hitherto hathe done yet the auncient interpretation of holie fathers and receiued consent of the churche not alloweing the same it wold preuaile nothing Mary the selfe-willed heretique that reiecteth all things but scripture and therein alloweth nothing but his owne exposition may runne and range and deuise opinions at his pleasure for he is sure neuer to be conuicted thereof allowinge no man to be iudge of his interpretation but onelye hym selfe or some of hys owne opinion This we see fullfilled in all heretiques and sectaries that now lyue whome it is vnpossible so to conuince by onelye scriptures but they will alwayes haue some probable shew whereby to defend them selues and theyr owne imaginatioÌ„s M. Charke therfore chanting so muche vpon this point of onelie scriptures treadeth the pathe of his forefathers and pleadeth for a pryuilege of ease which whether we will allovve hym or no he entreth vpon it of his ovvne authoritie and dravveth scripâ—ure to euerye deuise of his owne braine so violentlie as a man may take coÌ„â—â—ssion to see yt I shall haue many examples hereafter in this ansvver but yet one vvhich is the chefe ground of this his preface I can not omitt After he had proued ovvt of Saincte Iohn that vve must trie spirites and not beleeue euerye nevv spiritt whiche is true he will nedes alleage owte of the same Apostle a full and plaine rule as he termeth it whereby to discerne and trie his oure spirites The rule is this Euery spirit vvhiche acknovvlegeth Iesus Christe to haue come in fleshe is of God and euerye spirit vvhiche dissolueth Iâ—sus is not of God but of Antichriste Here now may be sene what difference there is in exposition of the scriptures For the auncieÌ„t fathers interpreted this place as of it selfe it is most euident â—o be gyuen as a rule against the Iewes which denied Christe to haue taken fleshe Also against Ebion and Cherinthus heretiques nowe gone into the worlde as fore-runners of Antichriste dissoluing Iesus that is denieing his godheade and coÌ„sequently denyeing the sonne of God to haue come in fleshe Martin Luther interpreteth this place to be vnderstoode of M. Charke and his felowes sayeinge That spirit is not of god but of Antichriste vvhich dissolueth Christs fleshe in the sacrament But to vs Catholiques how can it be by anie deuise wrested who neyther denye Christe to haue come in fleshe nor yet do dissolue the name of Iesus by anie doctrine of ours But yet Marke how M. Charke interpreteth this place and coÌ„fesse that he hathe a singular grace in abusing scripture VVhat soeuer spirit sayeth he shall confesse Christe to haue come in fleshe as a prophet alone to teache as papistes doe not teaching traditions besides the vvritten vvoorde also as a kinge alone to rule as papistes doe not defending the popes authoritie also as a preest alone to sanctifye as papistes doe not vpholding the Masse this spirit is of God and the other of Antichriste Is it maruaile yf these men build what they list vppon scripture when they can fovvnde so many absurdities vppon one sentence thereof I wolde here aske first whether M. Chark thinketh that vve exclude Christe vvhen vve allovve prophetes to teache vnder hym kinges to raigne vnder hym preests to sanctifie vnder hym or no If he thinke we exclude Christe he is to fond to reason against sensible men knowing not what they holde But yf he thinke we allowe prophets kings and preests vnder Christe onelie and in hys name how can he call this the spirit of Antichrist doe not the scriptures allowe Prophets and teachers vnder Christe in the churche Ephes. 4. Act. 5 Also kinges and rulers thoughe puritanes wolde haue none 1. Pet. 2. Act. 2 Also may not preestes sanctifie by the woord of God 2. Timo. 4 How then are these things accompted Antichristian doe not protestants teache the same what deepe Mysteries of puritanisme are these Christe is a prophete alone a kinge alone a preest alone Againe I aske what doe the traditions of Christe and his Apostles for of those onelie
sayeinge of all heretiques from the beginninge and this muste needes be the sayeinge of all heretiques for the time to come For except they take this waye it is vnpossible to stand or encrease against the Church And by this way a man may beginne what heresie he will to morow next and defend it against all the learning witt and trueth of Christendome Adioyne now to this that our aduersaries notwithstanding all request sute offer or humble petition that we caâ— make will come to no publique disputation or other indifferent and lawfull iudgement but doe persecute imprison torment and slaughter them which offer the same and then lett the reader iudge whether they desire offer iust triall or no â— M. Charke affirmeth Now for our partes as I haue sayd we offer vnto them all the best surest and easiest means that possiblie can be deuised or that euer were vsed in Gods Church for triall of trueth or discouering of heresie For as for the bookes of scripture seing we must receyue them vpoÌ„ the credit and authoritie of the auncient Church we are coÌ„tent to accept for canonicall and allow those none other which antiquitie in Christendome hathe agreed vpon Next for the contents of scripture yf our aduersaries will stand vpon expresse and plaine woords hereof we are content to agree therevnto and we must needes be farre superiours therein For what one expresse plaine text haue they in any one point or article against vs which we doe not acknowleige literallie as they doe as the woordes doe lie but we haue against them infinit whiche they can not admit without gloses and fond interpretations of their owne For example sake we haue it expreslie sayd to Peteâ— that signifieth a rocke vpon this rocke vvill I buyld my churche Math. 16. they haue no where the contrarie in plaine scripture VVe haue expresselie touching the Apostles he that is great among you let hym be made as the yonger Luc. 22. they haue no where there is none greater than other among you VVe haue expresselie this is my bodie Math. 26. you haue no where this is the signe of my bodie VVe haue expresselie the bread that I vvill gyue you is my fleshe Io. 6. they haue no where it is but the sygne of my fleshe VVe haue expresselie a man is iustified by vvoorkes and not hy faith onelie Iacob 2. they haue no where a man is iustified by fayth alone No nor that he is iustified by faith without workes talking of works that folow faith vvhereof onelie our coÌ„trouersie is VVe haue expresseselye vvhose sinnes ye forgyue are forgyuen vvhose sinnes ye retayne they are retayned Ioh. 20. They haue no where that preestes can not forgyue or retayne sinnes in earthe VVe haue expresselie The doers of the lavv shalbe iustified Rom. 2. They haue no where that the law required at ChristiaÌ„s hands is impossible or that the doing therof iustifieth not Christians VVe haue expresselie Vovv yee and render your vovves Psal. 75. they haue no where vow ye not or yf yow haue vowed breake your vowes VVe haue expresselie kepe the traditions vvhiche ye haue learned eyther by vvoorde or epistle 1. thess 2. They haue no where the Apostles left no traditions to the church vnwritteÌ„ VVe haue expresselie yf thovv vvilt enter into lyfe kepe the commaundements and when he sayd he dyd that allredie yf thovv vvilt be perfect goe and sell all thovv haste and gyue to the poore and folovv me They haue no where that eyther the commaundementes can not be kept or that we are not bound vnto them or that there is no degree of lyfe one perfecter than an other VVe haue expresselye vvoorke your ovvne saluation vvith feare and trembling Philip. 2. They haue no where eyther that a man can woorke nothinge towards his owne saluation beinge holpen with the grace of God or that a man should make it of his beleefe that he shalbe saued without all doubt or feare VVe haue expresselie doe ye the vvoorthie fruits of penaunce Luc. 3. They haue no where that faithe onelie is sufficient with out all satisfactioÌ„ and all other woorkes of penaunce on our parts VVe haue expresselie that euerye man shalbe saued according to his vvoorks Apoc. 20. They haue no where that men shalbe Iudged onelie according to their faith VVe haue expresselie that there remaineth a retribution stipend and paye to euerie good vvoorke in heauen Marc. 9. 1. Cor. 3. Apo. 22. Psal. 118. They haue no where that good woorkes done in Christ doe merit nothinge VVe haue expresselie it is a holie cogitatioÌ„ to praye for the deade 2. Machab 12. They haue no where it is superstition or vnlawfull to doe the same VVe haue an expresse example of a holy man that offered sacrifice for the dead 2. Machab. 12. They haue no example of any good man that euer reprehended it VVe haue expresselie that the affliction whiche Daniel vsed vppon his bodie was acceptable in the sight of God Dan. 10. They haue no where that suche voluntarie corporall afflictions are in vaine VVe haue expresselie that an Angel dyd preseÌ„t Tobias good woorkes and almes deedes before God Tob. 12. They haue no were that Angels can not or doe not the same VVe reade expresselie that Ieremias the pâ—het after he was deade praied for the people of Iâ—rael 2. Mach. 15. they haue no where the contrarye to this I leaue manie thinges more that I might repeate But this is enoughe for example sake to proue that albeit our aduersaries doe vaunt of scripture yet when it cometh to expresse woordes they haue no text against vs in lieu of so manie as I haue here repeated against them nor can they shew that we are driuen to denie anie one booke of the Bible nor to glose vppon the plaine woordes of anye one plaine place of scripture as they are enforced to doe But now yf they will not stand onelie to plaine and expresse woordes of scripture but also as in dede they must to necessarie collections made and inferred of scripture then muste we referre onr selues to the auncient primatiue church for this meaning of Gods woord For it is like they knew it best for that they lyued nearer to the writers thereof than we doe whoe could well declare vnto them what was the meaning of the same And then our aduersaries well know how the auncieÌ„t fathers do ground purgatorie prayer to saints sacrifice of the Aultar vse of the crosse and other like points of our religion besides tradition vpon the authoritie of scriptures also expounded accordinge to their meaning albeit oure aduersaries denie the same to be well expounded If our aduersaries will yet goe further for the triall of our Spirits we are well content and we refuse none that euer antiquitie vsed for the triall of a Catholique and hereticall spirit The olde heretiques
examples of many things vvhiche bothe vve and our aduersaries also doe beleeue vvhich neuerthelesse are not sett dovvne expreslye in the Scriptures although perhaps deduced therof As the perpetuall virginitie of our ladie after her childebyrth Tvvo natures and tvvo vvilles in Christ The proceeding of the holye Ghost equallie froÌ„ the father and the Sonne vvithout generation The vnion of the vvorde vnto the nature of man and not vnto the persone That God the father begat his Sonne onelye by vnderstaÌ„ding hymselfe That infantes vvithout reason should be baptized That the common Creede vvas made by the Apostles The celebration of the SoÌ„daye in steade of the Satterdaye The celebration of Easter onelye vppon a Sondaye The fovver Gospels vvhich vve vse to betrue Gospels not fained or corrupted That our epystle to the Romanes vvas vvriten by S. Paul And the other vvhich is to be seene to the Laodicenses is fayned and not vritten by hym seyng notvvithstanding S. Paul neuer mentioneth any epistle vvritten by hym selfe to the Romanes but yet sayeth that he vvrote one to the Laodicenses All these things I saye and many more are beleeued by vs generallye and yett none of them expreslie to be found in scripture THE DEFENCE To the charge of shameles belyeing the Iesuites M. Chark answereth nothing but thus hovv soeuer Goâ—uisus reporteâ—h or misreporteth the Iesuites yf I reporte hym faythfullie it is no sâ—ame to me But it is shame to your cause good Syr whiche can not be mayntayned but with lyeing on all handes And yet must not this shame lyght onelie on Gotuisus as you wolde haue it though you neuer named hym in your other bookes but vpon your selfe principallie First for that you had read this infamous lie refuted to kemnitius of whome Gotuisus woorde for woorde hath borowed it by payuas Andradius and proued to be as it is a moste shameles slaunder of his owne and no one woorde of the Iesuites Secondlie you must needs haue seene as no dowt but you had that Gotuisus reported an open vntruthe by the fower other places of Canisius whiche he alleageth for the same as well as the Censure of Colen All which fower places any man that will reade for the booke is coÌ„monlie to be solde in England shall see that Gotuisus is a shameles felow and you a playne deceyuer in that you cited onelie the Censure of Colen whiche you knew was not to be had suppressed Canisius which is extant to confound your vntruethe These tryckes may admonish men that are not vtterlie willfull how you are to be trusted in other matters of greater importance wherin your falshoode can not be so easylie conuicted to the sight of all men as in this it is Seeke all the bookes that euer the Iesuites wrote whiche are manye and yf you fynde in any one of them any one of these three odious woordes wherwith you charge them that is imperfect mamed or lame attributed to the scriptures I will yeeld in all the rest that you affirme of them But you haue a shyft to couer your dealing heerin and that is that seing we holde that all thinges necessarie to saluation are not written in the scripture Therfore we holde in effect saye you though not in woordes that the scripture is imperfect mamed lame VVhiche reason yf yt were true yet were your dishonestie great in settinge foorthe so odious woordes of your owne fayning for the wordes of the Iesuites But mark how voyde of reasoÌ„ this argumeÌ„t of yours is If a marchaÌ„t departing into an other countrie shoulde leaue his coÌ„maundementes with hys seruantes partlie in writing partlie by woorde of mouth might the seruantes saye that he had left them a broken commaundement writen but yf he should yet add further vnto them that yf they dowted of any thing they should repayre to hys wyfe and she should fullie resolue them therin might not he iustlie account hym selfe iniuried by theÌ„ yf they notwithstanding should accuse hym for leauing them an imperfect maymed and lame commaundement No more is it any defect to scripture or gods coÌ„maundement as S. Austen proueth at large li. 1. contra Cresc c. 32. that God hathe lefte certayne things vnwriten for that we may receyue the same by tradition in the churche as that doctor proueth whiche Churche Christ hathe commended vnto vs as his espouse in earthe to be heard and obeyed by vs in all dowtes The verie same doctrine teacheth the sayd father li. de fide oper ca. 9. and also ep 66. ad Don. To the twelue particular poyntes sett downe by the Censure as not contayned expresselie in scripture and yet to be beleeued M. Charke answereth that seauen of them are in scripture the other fyue for that they are not in scripture they are not of necessitie to be beleeued But heere is first to be noted that the questioÌ„ betweene vs and the protestaÌ„tes is of expresse scripture onelie and not of any farre fett place whiche by interpretation may be applyed to a coÌ„trouersie For this contention beganne betwene vs vpoÌ„ this occasion that wheÌ„ we alleaged diuerse weightie places and reasons owt of scripture for proofe of inuocatioÌ„ of Saints prayer for the deade purgatorie and from other controuersies our aduersaries reiected them for that they dyd not playnelie and expresselie decide the matter VVherupon came this question whether all matters of beleef are playnelie and expresselie in scripture or no whâ—che they affirme and we denye And for proofe of our part we alleage all these twelue particulars and many more which are poyntes necessarilie to be beleeued and yet not expresselie in scripture For answere wherof you shall see how this man is distressed First he sayeth that seauen of them are contayned in scripture Marie he flyeth from the question of expreâ—se scripture and alleageth places a farre of wherof the question is not For the Censure graunteth that many of them myght be deduced from scripture but not so expresselie as they are to be beleued But lett vs runne ouer these seuen pointes coÌ„tayned as he sayeth manifestely in scripture The first is of two â—â—tures and two willes in Christ for which he citeth these woords Of his sonne vvhiche vvas made vnto hym of the seed of Dauid according to the fleshe Also not as I vvill but as thou vvilt But how doe theese woordes proue euidentlie the matter in question That deductions heerof may be made from scripture admitting the interpretation of the Churche vpon the places alleaged I graunt but that interpretation of the churche beinge sett asyde the bare text onelie admitted these places can not conuicte an heretique that wolde denye ether the distinct natures or distinct willes in Christ as appeareth by the councell of Constantinople where after long stryuing in vayne with the Monothelitâ—s abowt this matter owt of scripture in the end they concluded in these woordes vve beleeue this for that
peoples saluatioÌ„ of that tyme. For God supplied it otherwyse that is by woorde of mouthe vnwritten And this maketh for vs for in suche tymes the written woord was not sufficieÌ„t without all other helpes as you affirme it is as for exaÌ„ple when onelie S. Mathewes Gospell was written and nothing els of the new testament yet graunt I that this scripture was sufficieÌ„t for that tyme. For that God supplied yt otherwyse by the woordes and speeches of his apostles So before Moyses wrote the lawe the patriarches had sufficient for theyr saluation thoughe they had ether nothinge or verie litle writen woorde And yet you can not saye that the written woorde of that tyme was sufficient of it selfe without all tradition by mouth VVerfore this answere is against your selfe as also that is whiche you frame to the secoÌ„d reason affirming that albeit dyuers partes of scripture be wanting now whiche was in S. Pauls tyme yet still it is sufficieÌ„t whiche I denye not being ioyned to the other supplies that God vseth For God supplieth by tradition and woorde of mouthe But whether in all tymes the onelie written woord that is extant be sufficient of it selfe to the whole Churche without all other helpes deliuered by tradition that is our question And of times past when the law was not written no man without impudencie can affirme that the written woorde was then sufficient And of our tyme that is after the writinge of the new testament Epiphanius sayeth Non omnia a diuina scriptura accipt possunt quapropter aliqua in scripturis aliqua in traditione sancti Apostoli tradiderunt All things necessarie can not be had from the scripture And therfore the holie Apostles left vnto vs some thinges writteÌ„ and some thinges by tradition VVhich signisieth sufficientlie what Iudgement the primatiue Church had of this matter as more at large shalbe shewed in the article foloweing whiche is also of this same argument Of teaching traditions besides the scripture Art 5. THE CENSVRE 5. You reporte the Iesuites to saye That the want of holy Scriptures must be supplyed by peeciâ—ge it out by traditions Cens fol. 220. This is coyne of the former forge all false and noe one such vvorde to be found in all their booke But yet as though they had sayed soe you fight manfullye agaynst this your ovvne sâ—ntence sayinge in manner follovvinge Contrarye to this is the lawe in Moyses Thow shalte not adde to the woordes which I speake to thee nether shalte thou take froÌ„ theÌ„ But vvhy do you breake the lavv M. Charke in reportinge the lavv you haue heere added the singuler nuÌ„ber in the Verbe and the plurall in the Noune and haue taken avvaye the numbers vvhich the lavv gyuer vsed chauÌ„ged the same at your ovvne pleasure and that for a purpose vvhich I could gesse at But let all thinges be lavvfull vnto you vvhat maketh this lavv for your pourpose By your meaning the Apostles and EuaÌ„gelistes did offend in adding any thing besides the lavve of Moyses vvhiche is absourd Nether did Moyses in this place forbiddinge to adde or take avvaye speake of his vvrytten lavve for he had not yet vvritten it but of those thinges vvhich he deliuered theÌ„ by vvorde of mouthe at that time the vvhich he vvilled them to keepe and obserue vvhollye and perfectly vvithout chaunginge it by addition or diminution or by their ovvne corrupte gloses as naughtie men are vvonte to doe And this is the true meaninge of that place and not as you vvould haue it that nothinge should be beleeued besides that vvhiche Moyses set dovvne for a litle after Moyses hym selfe commaundeth the lâ—vves to heare the Prophet vvhich God should rayse afâ—er hym as hym selfe meanynge therby Christ. THE DEFENCE Heere agayne M. Charke disburdeneth hym selfe vpon Gotuisus sayeing If the Censure of Colen hathe no suche vvordes Gotuisus fayled in vvriting their booke But gentle sir wiliam this matter is not so shyfted of You knew that Gotuisus tooke these woordes from kemnitius against whome they were proued false by Payuas before you wrote your booke as the most of his other reportes were How chaunceth it then you wolde vtter theÌ„ agayne without seeing the originall whether they were true or no Besyde this Gotuisus citeth Canisius for the same woordes where no one suche woorde is to be fownd whye looked you not in Canisius to see yt or whye had you not cited Canisius in your Margent as well as the Censure of Colen which you well knew was not to be had whye dyd you conceale Canisius I saye can you be excused from willfull dishonest dealyng in this matter No no your desperate resolution is to-too euident But saye you we holde the doctrine thoughe the Iesuites haue not the woordes VVhat doctrine M. Chark that the want of holie scripture must be peeced owt by traditioÌ„s It is false VVe speake not so vnreuereÌ„tlie of the scripture as shall better appeare by the article foloweyng VVe doe not teach that the scriptures are wanting or neede to be peeced It is your hereticall malice which deuiseth these woordes Though bothe partes of gods woord that is both written vnwritteÌ„ be necessarie vnto gods Church yet both of theÌ„ do staÌ„d in their full perfection assigned them by God nether is the one a mayme or impeachement to the other no more than is S. Lukes Gospell to that of S. Mathew or S. Pauls epistles to any of them bothe For as you may not saye that S. Mathewes Cospell is maymed for that S. Lukes is also admitted or that S. Pauls epistles are a peecing vp of the former Gospells no more can we saye that gods woorde left vs by mouthe in tradition is a â—ayme or detraction to that whiche he hath left vs in writing or that in writing to be a disanullyng of that whiche we had by tradition for that bothe are partes of gods woord of equall authoritie as shalbe shewed more largelie in the twelueth article together with certaine meanes how to knovv and discerne the same VVherfore these odious speeches against the dignitie of holie scripture doe procede onelie from the malice of you our aduersaries and of no cause or matter ministred by vs. After certaine tryflyng speeche to litle purpose M. Charke concludeth peremptorilie this article in these vvoordes To conclude it is a great iniquitie to adde traditions or your vnvvritten verities to the vvrytten vvoord of God vvherunto no man may adde because nothing is vvantynge and to hym that addeth shall the curses vvritten in the booke be added for euer cityng in the MargeÌ„t the place of the Apocalips vvhiche sayeth that vvho soeuer addeth or taketh avvaye from that booke of prophecie shall incurre the plagues vvritten in that booke But good Lorde when vvill these men leaue to abuse the scriptures learne to speake to the purpose yf vvee beleeue all that is vvritten in that booke of reuelations and other things besides reuealed vnto
the church some we haue opened to vs by writinge and some agayne we haue receyued delyuered vs by tradition of the Apostles in secret bothe whiche doctrines are of equall force to pietie nether doeth any man gaynsaye this whiche hathe anye litle knowleige in the lawes of tâ—â— Churche Heere now are S. Basil and VV. Charke at an open combate abowt traditions The one sayeth it is iniquitie to admitt them The other sayeth it is ignorance to reiect them The one sayeth they are of no authoritie or credit at all The other sayeth they are of equall force and authoritie vvith the vvritten vvoord of Christ and his Apostles VVhome will you rather beleeue in this case VVith S. Basil taketh parte Eusebius sayeinge Christi discipuli ad magistri sui nutum illius praecepta partim literis partim sine literis quasi iure quodam non scripto seruanda commendarunt The disciples of Christ at theyr Maisters beck dyd commend his precepts to posteritie partlie in writing partlie without writing as it were by a certaine vnwriten lawe Marke heere that traditioÌ„ is called an vnvvriteÌ„ lavve the things delyuered therby are the precepts of Christ and that they were left vnwryten by the becke or appointment of Christ hym selfe Epiphanius is yet more earnest than Eusebius For writing against certaine heretiques named Apostolici whiche denyed traditions as our protestants doe he proueth it thus Oportet autem traditione vti Non enim omnia a diuina scriptura accipi possunt Quapropter aliqua in scripturis aliqua in traditione sancti Apostoli tradiderunt quemadmodum dicit Sanctus Paulus Sicut tradidi â—obis alibi sic doceo sic tradidi in ecclesiis we muste vse traditioÌ„ also For that all thyngs can not be had owt of Scripture For which cause the holye Apostles haue delyuered some things to vs in scriptures and some thyngs by traditions according as S. Paul sayeth euen as I haue left vnto you by tradition And in an other place This doe I teache this haue I left by traditioÌ„ in Churches Heere you see Epiphanius doeth not onelye affirme so much as we holde but also proueth it out of Scripture VVith Epiphanius ioyneth fully and earnestlye S. Chrisostome writyng vpon these woordes of S. Paul to the purpose State tenete traditiones Stand fast and holde traditions Out of which cleere woordes S. Chrisostome maketh this illation Hinc patet quod non omniae per epistolam tradiderint sed multa etiam sine literis Eadem verò fide digna sunt tam illa quám ista Itaque traditionem quoque ecclesiae fide dignam putamus Traditio est nihil quaeras amplius By these woordes of S. Paul it is euident that the Apostles delyuered not all by epistle or writing vnto vs but many things also whiche are not wrytten And yet those are as woorthie fayth as the other For whiche cause we esteeme the tradition of the Church woorthie of faythe It is a tradition seeke no more abowt it VVhat can be spoken more effectualie against VV. Charke than this Is it now greate iniquitie to receyue traditioÌ„s or no how will he auoyde this vniforme coÌ„sent of antiquitie against his fond malepeartnes condemning all traditions for iniquitie Heere you see are the verie woordes auowed as also in S. Basil alleaged before which these new maisters doe so odiouslye exaggerate to the people dailie that we matche traditioÌ„s with the written woord of God These woordes I saye are heere maintained bothe in Chrisostome and Basil affirming the vnwrytten traditions of Christ and his Apostles to be of equall force and authoritie with the written woorde of the same And yet I trowe were they not blasphemous for sayeing so as these yonge gentlemen are accustomed to call vs. And this now in generall that traditions are that is that diuers things belonging to faythe are left vs vnwriten by Christ and his Apostles Also that this sort of traditions are of equall authoritie with the wrytten woord because they are the vnwriteÌ„ or deliuered woorde But now yf any man wolde aske me what or which are these Apostolicall traditions in particular I could alleage hym testimonies owt of the auncient fathers for a great number wherof some examples haue bene gyuen in the former article But lett any man reade S. Cyprian Serm de ablut pedum Tertullian de coron miiltis and S. Ierom. Dialog cont luciferianos and he shall finde store And albeit some thing hathe bene sayd of S. Austen before yet will I adde these few examples owt of hym for endinge of this article He proueth the baptisme of infants by tradition of the Churche lib. 10â— de gen cap. 23. He proueth by the same tradition that we must not rebaptize those whiche are baptized of heretiques li. 2. de bapt c. 7. lib. 1. cap. 23. li. 4. cap. 6. He proueth by tradition the celebration of the pentecost commonlie called whit-sondaye epist. 118. c. 1. He proueth by tradition that the Apostles were baptized ep 108. He proueth by tradition the ceremonies of baptisme as delyuered by the Apostles Li. de fide oper cap. 9. He proueth by tradition of Christ his Apostles that we should receyue the blessed sacrament fasting ep 1â—8 cap. 6. He proueth by lyke tradition the exorcisme of suche as should be baptized li. 1. de nupt concup cap. 20. li. 6. contra Iulian. ca. 2. He proueth by the same tradition that we must offer vpp the sacrifice of the masse for the deade li. de cura pro mort ageÌ„da ca. 1. 4. Serm. 32. de verbis Apostoli I omitt many other suche thinges whiche aswell this learned doctor as other most holye fathers of the primatiue Churche doe auouche by onelye tradition of Christ and his Apostles without writing whiche to beleeue or credit if it be such great iniquitie and blasphemie as VV. Charke will haue vs to esteeme then were these auncient fathers in a miserable case and this new minister in a fortunate lot But yf the countenance of this new Sir doe not surpasse the credit of those olde Saints I weene it will not be hard to iudge how fond and foolishe hys raylinge speeche ys against a doctrine so vniformlie receyued in Christ his Churche as the doctrine of traditions hath bene from the beginning VVhether the Iesuites speake euill of Scripture Art 6. THE CENSVRE You reporte the Iesuites to saye The holy Scripture is a nose of waxe Cens. 117 God forgyue you for abusing so muche these learned men Marie you take the vvaye to ouermatch both learning and trueth too yf you may haue your desire He that vvill reade the place by you quoted shall finde the Iesuites vpon occasion geuen them to saye in effect thus that before the rude and ignorante people it is easie for a noughtie man to vvreste the scripture to vvhat interpretation pleaseth hym beste for the flatteringe ether of
Tom. 7. vvittemb page 380. * A Lutheran exhortation O pleasant Martin Gen. 1. Currucam cuÌ„ ossibus Iohn 1. Socrat. li. 5. hist. ca. 10. Examples of shifting scriptures and doctours Psal. 75. Against the rocke pag. 153. Math. 19. Against the rock pag. 154. Iacob 2. D. Fulke loco citato Rom. 2. 1. Cor. 7. Math. 19. Hovv protestantes deny all fathers Math 16. Against the rocke pag. 242. Against the roke pag. 291. Ibidem Psal. 14. Against the fortresse pa. 52. Against purg pag. 262. Against purg pag. 237. Against the crosse pag. 146. Hovv protestantes reiect the interpretatioÌ„ of their ovvne vvriters LVTHER CALVINE The final conclusion of protetestants for triall The varietie of triall that Catholiques doe offer 1 Books of scripture 2 Expresse-vvoordes Supremacie HEGOVMENOS Real presence Iustification AbsolutioÌ„ Vovves Traditions Commaundementes VVorkes Penaunce Prayer for the deade Sacrifice for the dead Voluntarie corporall afflictions Almes Prayer of sainctes 3 Necessarie collections vpon scrippture 4 Councells 5 Doctors of the olde Churche Li. 1. contra Iulian. c. 2. Socr. li. 5. hist. ca. 10. Li. 2. contra here 6 The Catholique Churcheâ— Cont. ep fundam cap. 4. In hys booke against the profane innouaâ—ioÌ„s of all heresies in the beginninge Vniuersalitie Antiquitie Consent 7 Succession of Popes Contr. ep fundam cap. 4. Iohn 21. Li. 2. cont Donatist Li. 3. cont haer cap. 3. 8 Infectionâ— vvith olde heresies 1. Tim. 3. Marke this gentle reader Tvvo conditions Iniurious dealinge of our aduersaries Protestantes doe holde olde heresies Aug. li. de he ad quod vult haere 53. Epipha haer 75. Against Brystoes motiues pa. 15. Li. cont vigilantium Against the motiues pa. 54. 9 The manners of olde heretiques Lib. 2. cont lit Petil. cap. 51. De vnitare ecclesiae cap. 12. Li. 3. contr lit peti c. 4. Lib. 2. ca. 9. contr epi. parm ep 169. ad Euseb. Li. 1. cont maximinuÌ„ Lib. 6. cont Donat. Victor depersecutione vandalica Orat. 1. 2. in Iulianum THE PREFACE Intituled a conference betvvene M. D. fulk and the papists iÌ„ vvesoiche castell The maner of protestaÌ„tes disputations of M. HANMER Intituled an ansvvere to a Iesuites chalenge In 2. thes 2 2. Thes. 2. Intituled the Iesuites Banner A fovvle lye Diego Payuas Andradius de orthodoxis explicationibus In opere catechistico pag. 350. Moste false The description of our iustification Gal. 4. Tit. 3. Canis in opâ—re Câ—te pag. 764. Assert 26. 27. Assert 2. The vnlearned â—olye of Meredith Hanmer Li. de vera reli c. 14. lib. 1. â—etr c. 13. sess 6. c. 18 Ierom. in expos simb ad Dam. Augu. ser. 191. de temporeâ— Sess. 5. Li. 1. cont 2. ep pelag c. 13. The effect of M. Hanmers booke Cap. 1. In iniâ—io Fol. 2. Fo. 5. 26 ImpertineÌ„t matters folovved by M. HaÌ„mer The effect of M. Charks booke The order diuisioÌ„ of this booke 1 Nickenames against Iesuites Mat. 12. Luc. 6. Act. 6. Rom. 8. Athan. in vita S. Anthonii Eremitae THE PROTESTANTS Rayling scurrilitie in vritinge Hanmers sâ—urrilitie Against purgatorie pag. 241. D. Fulks tallent in rayling In his reteÌ„tiue against the motyues In his ansvver to the booke of purgatorie prayer for the dead Intituled AN OVERTHROVVE of StapletoÌ„s forâ—resse of faythe Intituled A REIOYNDER to Martials replye Iohn Caluin his spirite in raylinge Against Stapletons fortresse pag. 75. Luthers prerogatiue in rayling Rom. 8. Lib. cont regem An. To. 2. vvitt teÌ„b fo 331. Fol. 333. O impure spirit of a prophet Fol. 334. Fol. 335. Fol. 337. Fol. 338. Hovv intollerable is this in a renegate fryar Fol. 339. See the pride of an apostata against three famouse vniuersities Fol. 442. Fol. 345. Fol. 333. Fol. 337. Luthers speeche against Caluinistes and of Caluinistes against him Tigurini tract 3. coÌ„t supremam Lutheri confessâ—onem * Ergo luther had deuills vvhiche after Charke denyeth Et nunc semper in saecula saeculâ—rum In sathana siâ—tum supersathanasiatum persathanasiatuÌ„ Pag. 61. Iesuytes no Secte 1. 2. 4. Reg. 1. 4. Reg. 2. Dan. 1. Marc. 1. 3 The description of sactaries 4 The name of Iesuits 1 OF ELIAS and vvhether he be a paterne of monkes Ep. 13. ad paulinum ep 4. ad rusticum Elyas Elyzeus monkâ— of the old testament Ge. 2. 3. 4. 2 OF S. IOHN Baptist vvhether he vvere a president to monkes Cap. 6. Plin. li. 5. c 17. nat hist. Ioseph li. 2. ca. 7. de bello Iudaico Cap. 6. S. Ihon a monke of the nevve testament 3 THOVCHINGE the true definition of a sectarie The difference betvvyxt heresie and a sect The signification of heresie more generall then of a secte A fond argument 1. Cor. 1. Schisme Ad quod vult hae 69. Heresie Error Tract 5. in Ioh. The erroneous schisme of the Corinthians 1. Cor. 1. The exposition of S. Pauls vvoords 1. Cor. 1. An exaÌ„ple Heresies of the pharises HOVV THE PHARISES vvere a sect in tvvo senses A sect or heresie may sometimes be taken in good parte Act. 26. Tyrannis Against Bristovvs Motiues pag. 14. M. Charks definition of a sect Great absurâ—â—â—â—â—â— M. Charcks fond ouersight Act. 26. Gal 5. 2. Pet. 2. VVhether the Iesuites be a sect by M. Charks definition Nath. 28. Mark 16. Math. 10. Coloss. 3. Gal. 5. 6. Rom. 12. Chastizing of oure bodies Mat. 3. Marc. 1. Heb. 11. Ca. 10. li. 3. Ep. 22. ad Eustoch * But you vvill saye S. Ierom. vvas no protestant In ca. 16. li. 3. Reg. An offer of coolinge physicke to the ministers of England In LondoÌ„ In Banberie Charks belyeing of the Iesuites Gab. prateol in haer de flagellantib Ger. tract cont flagel The heresies of vvhippers Pratcolus vbi supra Alphon. lib. 3. cont haeresee 4 THE NAME of Iesuites ImpudeÌ„cie Turianus in apologetico cap. 1. 5. Fond exclaming for nothinge An euideÌ„t example * Intituled Gentle girckes for Iesuites to be-come true Israelytes Monks and friars In psa 132 Li 11. hist. cap. 3. Li. 3. cont li. Petil. ca. 40. Books vvriten in the commeÌ„dation of moÌ„kes and fryars Luc. 9. Ioh 11. Mat. 19. 1 Of the vvorde religious D. Tho. secunda secuÌ„dae q. 18. art 1. Marc. 10. 1. Cor. 7. Câ—EROS Orig. ho. 7. in Iere. Hier. in 12 Ierem. 2 Of Good euel religious Against Sâ—â—pleton pag. 96. VVHETHER THE State of our monks Noâ—â—es be the same as vvas in the primatiue church 1. Cor. 4. Hereticall consequences Charks bolde slaunderinge of all religious peopâ—e TOVCHING RELIGIOVS VOVVES De mor. eccl cap. 31 de opere monachâ— c. 14. 15. Cogginge foystinge In Psal. 75. circa fineÌ„ Questione vel regula 14. fusius explicaâ—a Ep. 6. ad Theodorum lapsum Heb. 13. Nonnes In psa 83. Lib. cont Iouinian Li. 1. ep 11. Li. de vir cap. 29. Li. ad vir lap cap. 5. De bono vâ— duitatis c. 9â— Ibid. ca. 8. Against
sayd trueth and also confirme many of your owne syde that now iustlye doe wauer vpon this open discouerie of your feare in tryall VVherfore once againe I saye vnto you ministers obtaine vs this disputation thoughe it be onelie but for a shevv therby to hold maintaine your credites VVe protest before God that vve seek it onelie for the triall of Christ his trueth for searche vvherof vve offer our selues to this labour charges perill of lyfe VVe aske for our safties but onelie such a vvarrant from her Maiestie as the late Councell of Trent dyd offer vnto all the protestaÌ„ts of the wolrd wherof you haue the copie vvith you VVee will come in what kynde number at what tyme to what place you shall appoint Yf you will haue your owne countrie meÌ„ they are redie to come Yf you will haue straungers to dispute in your vniuersities before the learned onely there shall not want For your selues vve gyue you leaue to call all the learned protestants of Europ for your defence VVe will take onelie our owne countrie men yf you permitt vs. VVe gyue you leaue to oppose or defende to appoint questioÌ„s to chuse owt controuersies to begynne or end at your pleasure and to vse any other prerogatyues that you please so that they impugne not the indifferencie of tryall VVhat can yow alleage whye yow should not accept this If you had leuer make this triall in other countries than at home before your owne people as perhaps you had chuse you what protestant state you lyst and procure vs therin the forsayd saftie from the prince and we will nether spare labour nor cost to meet you therin also Or yf this seeme hard or lyke you not then take you but the paynes some number of you to come into any Catholique kyngdome or countrie where you best please And wee will procure what securitie soeuer reasonable you shall demaund for your persons And more then that we will beare your expenses also rather than so good a woorke shall remayne vnatteÌ„pted And yf you can deuyse any other conditioÌ„ to be performed on our partes whiche I haue left owt doe you adde the same and we will agree by the grace of God to fullfill it If we offer you reason than deale somewhat reasonablie with vs againe For all the world will crye shame and begynne to discredit you yf you will nether gyue nor take vpon so great oddes as heere are offered you If you dare not venture with disputatioÌ„s yet graunt vs certaine sermons to encounter with you vpon this matter Or yf that also be to daungerous procure vs but a litle passage for our bookes at leastwyse you M. Charke shall doe an honorable acte to obtayne licence of free passage for this booke vntill it be answered by you to the end that men hauinge reade this ouer may be the better able to conceyue your answer when it comethe THE ANSVVERE TO THE PREFACE TOVCHINGE DISCERNINGE of Spirites MAister Charke besides the matter in question maketh a praeface to the reader touching the vtilitie necessitie and waye of tryeing spirites alleginge the woordes of S. Iohn whereby we are willed not to beleeue euerie spirite but to trie the spirites whether they be of God VVhich he saythe he and his felowes offer to doe and we refuse But that this is clearlie false and a formall speche onelie withoute trueth or substance our dedes doe testifie which are alwayes with indifferent men as good as woordes Our bookes are extant whereby we haue called to tryall all sectaries of our tyme as they rose vpp and shewed new spirites as Luther Corolostad Swinglius Munster Stankarus and Caluin whome our aduersaries folow as one of the last And nowe in England yf we had not bene willing or rather desirouse of this triall of spirites we wolde neuer haue laboured so muche to obtayne the same of our aduersaries in free printing preaching or disputatioÌ„ much lesse wolde we haue aduentured our liues in comming and offering the same to theÌ„ at home with so vnequall conditioÌ„s on our syde as we haue done and doe dayly for the triall of truthe And yf all these our offers and endeuours ioyned with so many petitions and supplications for triall haue obtained vs nothing hitherto but offence accusations extreme rackings and cruell deathe me thinke M. Charke had litle cause to make this preface of our refusing triall and their offering the same except it were onelye for lacke of other matter and to kepe the custome of sayeing somewhat in the beginning But perhappes M. Charke will saye that althoughe we offer triall yet not suche nor by suche meanes as in his opinion is lawfull sure and conuenient VVhen we come to the coÌ„bate then remayneth it to be examined whiche parte doeth alleage best meanes whiche shalbe the argument of this my answer to this preface And I will endeuour to shew that all the meanes of tryall which M. Chark his felowes will seme to allow in woord for they offer none in deede are neyther sure possible nor euident but onelie meere shyftes to auoyde all triall and that we on the coÌ„trary parte doe not onelie allow but allso offer all the best and surest wayes of tryall that euer were vsed in Gods churche for discerning an hereticall spirit from a Catholique The onelie meanes of tryall whiche M. Chark will seme to allow is the scripture wherto onelie he wolde haue all triall referred and that which can not be tryed therehence by hym must stand vntryed And then as yf we refused all tryall of scripture he vseth his pleasure in speche against vs. But this is a shyft common to all suche as M. Chark is And the cause thereof I will declare immediatlye S. Augustin dothe testifye it of the heretiques of his tyme. And all the sectaries of our dayes doe make it plaine by experience referring theÌ„ selues in woordes eche one to the holie scripture onelie for maintenance â—f there errours and denyeing all other meanes of tryall whereby the true meaning of scripture may be knowen The causes of this shyft in all new teachers are principally three The first to gett credit with the people by naming of scripture and to seme to honour it more than their aduersaries doe by referring the whole triall of matters vnto it The second is by excluding councels fathers and auncitours of the churche who from tyme to time haue declared the true sense of scripture vnto vs to reserue vnto them selues libertie and authoritie to make what meaning of Scripture they please and thereby to gyue colour to euerye fansie they list to teache The third cause is that by chalenging of onelie scripture they may delyuer them selues from all ordinances or doctrines left vnto vs by the first pillers of Christe his Church thoughe not expresselie sett downe in scripture thereby assume authoritie of allowinge or not allowing of comptrolling or permittinge what soeuer liketh or
serua mandata yf thow wilt be saued kepe the cōmaundements and so deliuer all his gospellers from the burden thereof what differēce is there in these two speches of Christe seing they are bothe spoken to that yong man and bothe in the singular number as infinite other things of the Gospell are to other particular persones as to the Cananaea to the Adulteresse to Nichodemus to the Cēturio to Zachaeus to the blynde deafe and others which notwithstanding are common to all in that they touche eyther lyfe or doctrine The like absurd shiftes I might repeate in a hundred other points VVhat can be more plaine than the woordes of scripture videtis quoniam ex operibus iustificatur homo non ex fide tantum Doe you see how that a man is iustified by woorks and not by fayth onelie But yet it auayleth nothing VVhy so they auoyde it by interpretation S. Iames say they vnderstandeth of Iustification before men and not before God O poore deuise S. Iames hathe in the same place talking of fayth without woorkes Nunquid poterit fides saluare eum Can faythe without woorks saue him doeth S. Iames meane here of saluation before men or before God Again whē S Paul sayeth factores legis iustificabuntur the doers of the lawe shall be iustyfied whiche is the verie same thing that S. Iames in other woordes sayeth that mē shalbe iustified allso by woorks Doeth S. Paul mean before men or before God Yf you say before mē the text is against you which hath expressely apud deum before God The like euasiō they haue whē we alleage the woords of S. Paul qui matrimonio iungit virginem suam benè facit qui non iungit melius facit he that ioyneth his virgin in mariage doeth well and he that ioyneth her not doethe better VVhereof vve inferre that virginitie is more acceptable meritoriouse before God than mariage allthough mariage be holie No say our aduersaries S. Paul meaneth onelye that he doeth better before men and in respect of vvorldlie commodities but not before God But this is absurd for they graunt the former parte of the sentence he that ioyneth his virgin doeth vvel to be vnderstoode before God for that it is sayde also in other vvoordes non peccat he doeth not sinne whiche must nedes be vnderstoode in respect of God How thē can they denie the second clause and he that ioyneth her not doeth better not to be vnderstoode in respect of God also and in respect of merit and rewarde in the lyfe to come especiallie whereas Christ promiseth the same rewarde to virginitie in an other place where he sayeth there be Eunuches vvhich haue gelded them selues for the kingdome of heauen he that can take it lett hym take it You maye see now by this litle and I might shew by many mo examples howe bootelesse it is to bring scripture when we agree not vpon the interpretation VVhat then shall we bring the auncient fathers and doctors of the primatiue church for the vnderstanding of scripture shall we interpret it as they doe vnderstad it as they vnderstoode it No that our aduersaries will not agree vnto but onelie in matters indifferent owte of controuersie VVhere soeuer in matters of controuersie betwene vs and them the olde fathers doe make against them as in all points they doe there will they denie their exposition For example The consent of auncient fathers is alleaged against M. Fulke attributing superioritie to Peter vpon the woordes of Christ Thovv art Peter vpon this rocke vvill I buyld my Church but he auoydeth it verie lightlie thus It can not be denied but diuerse of the auncient fathers othervvyse godlye and learned vvere deceyued in opiniō of Peters prerogatiue S. Ambrose Ierome Chrisostom Cyrill and Theodoret are alleaged for expounding a pece of scripture against M. Fulk Ioh. 5. abowt Antichrist How doeth he shift it thus I ansvver they haue no ground of this exposition S. Ierome with all the ecclesiasticall writers are alleaged for interpreting of the woords of Daniel cap. 7. against the protestants M. Fulke I ansvver that neyther Ierome nor anie ecclesiasticall vvriter vvhome he folovveth hathe any direction out of the scripture for this interpretation S. Austen is alleaged for interpreting Dauids woordes he hathe placed his tabernacle in the Sunne of the visibilitie of the churche Fulke Austen doeth vvrongfullie interpret this place S. Ambrose Ephraim and Bede are alleaged for interpretatiō of certaine scriptures Fulke Gods vvoorde is so pitifullie vvrested by them as euery man may see the holie ghoste neuer meant any suche thing S. Chrisostome is alleaged for certaine interpretations of scripture Fulke he alleageth in dede scripture but he applieth it madlie and yet he often applieth it to the same purpose◠alas good man The consent of fathers is alleaged for interpretatiō of certaine places of scripture of the prefiguration of the crosse of Christ. Fulke The fathers do rather dallie in trifeling allegories than sovvndlie proue that the crosse vvas presigured in those places I might here make vp a greate volume yf I wolde prosecute this argumēt to shew how these new doctors doe contemne reiecte all authoritie antiquitie witt learning sanctitie of oure forefathers of all men in effect that euer liued beside them selues yea of their owne new doctors and maisters also when they come to be cōtrarie to anie new deuise or later fansie of theirs This is euidēt in Luther reiected by his ofspring about the reall presence number of sacraments images bookes of the Bible order of seruice and the like Also in Caluine reiected about the head of the churche in England and about all the gouernmēt thereof in Geneua And I coulde alleage here diuerse examples where he and Beza bothe are reiected by name in diuerse points bothe of puritanes and protestants in England when they differ from them but that this preface wold growe to be too long VVherefore I maye perhaps yf this booke come not otherwyse to be too greate adde a short table or appendix in the end to shew by examples the vnconstant dealings of our aduersaries herein and that in verie dede when all is done and sayd that may be and all excuses made that can be deuised the verye conclusion is that onelye that must be taken for truthe whiche pleaseth them last of all to agree vppon and theyr bare woordes must be the proofe thereof For those bookes onelie be scripture in the bible whiche they appoint in those bookes that onelie is the true sense whiche they gyue out the fathers erred in all things where they differ from them the new doctors as Luther Caluin and the rest sawe so much onelie of the truthe as they agree with them and no further This is the sayeing of our aduersaries this is the saying of all the other sectaries of our time this hathe bene the
about the matter But now for the right vse of this way of triall there be two conditions to be obserued of his part whiche will obiect an olde heresie to an other The first is that the partie doe in dede holde that thinge whiche he obiecteth and not a certaine likeliehoode of it For that were to slaunder and not to obiect As when oure aduersaries doe obiect to vs the heresie of Pelagius abowt free will it is a mere slaunder For we holde that mans will beinge preuented and holpen with the grace of God may woorke well but he helde that it could do the same by the power and force of nature without the helpe of gods grace as S Augustin proueth at large in his booke of free will The like iniurie they doe vs in many other things which they obiect against vs as the heresie of those whiche dyd sacrifice to our ladie and the like whiche we doe not The second condition is that the heresie obiected be in dede suche as was accompted and condemned for an heresie in the primatiue churche and not onelie that an heretique held it For heretiques doe holde diuerse truethes alwayes together withe falsehode And for lack of this condition doe our aduersaries often abuse the simple people As M. Fulke oftentimes sayeth prayer for the deade is an heresie because the Montanists which were heretiques helde it But lett hym proue that euer this was accompted one of MoÌ„tanus hys heresies theÌ„ he proueth somewhat But that he can neuer doe for he grauÌ„teth Austen Ambrose Chrisostom Ierom and others â—o haue vsed prayers for the deade whoe notwitstanding were great enemies to Montanus and all his errors VVherefore this is a verie malitiouse kynde of abusing people And I heere saye again that lett hym and all the protestants in the worlde proue that we doe holde in dede but anie one thing which was accoÌ„pted an heresie in the primatiue church we will graunt that we are not the Catholique Churche but that in all other things we erre besides But we in charging them vvithe heresies doe obserue allvvayes the foresayd tvvo conditions As for example vve charge them vvith the opinion of Aerius vvhiche denied prayer for the dead And that they holde this verie same opinion they vvill not denie And that it vvas accompted an heresie in the primatiue churche vve alleage for vvitnesses S. Augustin and Epiphanius Hovv doe they auoyde this No vvaye but by sayeinge that Augustin and Epiphanius vvere deceyued in recording that for an heresie vvhiche vvas none for that is M. Fulks answere whiche is to condemne all that age for that those holie fathers wrote downe heresies as they were taken in those dayes by the church The lyke we doe about vigilantius whose opinions were among others that Saints were not to be prayed to nor their reliques to be honored Now that the protestants hold this no man dowteth And that this was accompted heresie in the primatiue churche we cite S. Ierome for a wittnesse which wrote against hym VVhat shift is there here None but to deface S. Ierome and commend vigilantius and to denie it to be an heresie for so doeth M. Fulke sayeing further that Ierome rather raileth than reasoneth and that vigilantius vvas a good man and his opinion sovvnd The like order we take in a nuÌ„ber of other olde hereticall points whiche we charge them withall as may be sene in the tables and books sett owt of this matter Now yf our aduersaries could bringe vs to anie suche confession of heresie the matter were ended But they can not and therefore I know they will neuer admitt this way of triall The last way of triall whereof I will speake at this time is to consider the maners of olde heretiques to compare the same with oures And here I wolde haue also the former two conditions obserued To witt that we consider suche qualities onelie as were accompted hereticall in them that is proper to heretiques and to examine them trulie withoute partiall affection in our selues For example S. Augustin doeth note it as an hereticall propertie in the donatists to hate the See of Rome and to call it cathedram pestilentiae the chair of pestilence Doeth this agree to protestants or to vs As also the defaming of the said See sor the euell pretended lyfe of some particular men As likewise he noteth it as an hereticall tricke in them to persuade the people that the visible churche had erred and oppressed the true churche banishinge her from the sight of the worlde Doe not our aduersaries say the verie same Also he noteth the same heretiques for hatinge and condemninge the lyfe of monkes as also for dravving Nonnes out of theyr cloysters and ioyninge them selues vvith the same in pretended vvedlocke Finallie he noteth it as hereticall in the ArriaÌ„s to appeale from traditions to onelie scripture Now before S. Augustin Optatus noted it as hereticall in the donatists to breake aultars vvherevpon the bodie and blood of Christ vvere kept as the woordes of Optatus are And about the same time Victor Vticensis wrote his storie against the vandall heretiques where he setteth furthe moste liuelie the state of our time by the maners and behauiours of those heretiques in breakinge chalices prophaning of holie Chrisme spoylinge of churche vestimeÌ„ts throweing the blessed sacrameÌ„t of the aultar on the ground with other moste horrible abuses to the same not to be repeated in prohibiting masse to be sayd by edicts and proclamation and a hundred things moe whiche are the verie exercises of our aduersaries now The like things in many points doeth S. Basil obiect as sacrilegious against Iulian the Apostata and his folowers wherfore I thinke our aduersaries will not admitt The cause inforcinge the author to break of pag. 1.2.3 M. Charks vntrueth and hypocrisie pag. 5.6.7.8 A Challenge to M. Charke and all his brother ministers for disputation page 9. 10.11 VVhye protestantes appeall to onelie scripture pa. 13. The dissention among heretiques of our tyme vppon onelie scripture page 14. Protestantes do admitt no tryall at all page 18. An absurd hereticall interpretation of scripture touchinge S. Iohn Baptist his place of lyuinge apparrell and diet page 19. Euident testimonies of scriptures and fathers for the reall presence in the sacrament page 20. Luthers mislyking of Corolostadius Zuinglius Oecolampadius others touching the reall presence pag. 22. M. Fulk his arrogant kynd of answering page 25. The protestants kynde of tryall is onelie that to be trueth whiche they will haue to be trueth page 26. Catholikes offer many kyndes of triall of spirites pa. 27. As by bookes of scripture and the expresse woorde therof Ibidem By necessarie collections vpon scripture page 29. By Councells page 30. By doctors Ibidem By the Churche and her notes Ibidem By sucession of Byshoppes page 31. By agreement of the doctrine of our aduersaries with olde heresies page
blinding of the people but heerof you shall see more after when we come to speake of theyr dissention And this shall be enough of this matter for this time Now we come to examine whether the Iesuites be a blasphemous sect or no as M. Charke calleth them and the Censure denieth for thus it foloweth vpon that whiche went before OF sectes and sectaries THE CENSVRE Mary I cannot let passe to tell M. Charke that to call the Iesuites A blasphemous sect seemeth not onelie levved but also vnlearned And as for their blaphemies they come to be examined after but hovv they may be termed A secte I cannot see For yf liuing more straitlie then the common sort in apparell diet or order of lyfe doe make a sect then not onelie Iesuites but Elias Elizeus Daniâ—l and Iohn Baptist are also to be called sectaries for that they are reported in the scripture to haue led a different and more straite lyfe in those points than the common sorte and yet are commended in scripture for the same But yf sectaries are onelie made as in dede they are by cutting them selues of in opinion of religion from the generall bodie of the Catholiques churche as braunches from the tree and by holding a seuerall faith in religion to them selues then can not Iesuites by your ovvne confession be anie secte vvhoe differ not one Iote in opinion of religion from the vniuersall Catholique churche but as yovv say defend euerye litle point of the same be it neuer so vntrue or absurd in your sight VVherfore vnlearnedlie yovv call them a sect as also vnseemelie yovv skoffe at theyr name of Iesuites vvhiche they chalenge not to them selues nor euer vse it in theyr vvritings or speeche but onelie naming them selues a Societie dedicated peculiarlie to the honouringe of the name of Iesus by preachinge the same in all places of the vvorld vvithout any revvarde and vvith vvhat daunger bodelie soeuer THE DEFENCE The answer to this is somewhat confuse and vnorderlie But I will reduce it to the order heere set downe To the examples alleaged he sayeth As for the exaÌ„ples of Elias Elizeus Daniel and Iohn Baptist they are no lesse vvickedlie than vnlearnedlye alleaged to auovve the Iesuites order This is a hoote entrance as you see ioyned with a manifest cauille For these examples are not alleaged to auow the Iesuites order absolutelie but in one point onelie of different lyfe from the common sorte whiche point notwithstanding is fownd also in other besides Iesuites But marke his reason VVhat are you able sayeth he to bringe out of the vvorde of God vvhie Elias should after more thaÌ„ tvvo thovvsand yeres be brought in for a patrone of friers I answer first as before that these examples are onelye brought to proue that differeÌ„t apparell dyet or straite order of lyfe doe not make sectaries as you haue affirmed and now can not defend and therfore hauing nothing else to say you make these vaine and idle interrogatioÌ„s in steade of proofes For you aske agayne vvhat vvas there in Elias Elizeus or Daniel that may liken them to Iesuits I answere there was to our purpose now in hand different maner of lyfe from the common sort of men whiche notwithstanding made them no sectaries as you wold haue the Iesuits to bee for that cause To this I add which is more than I nede that S. Ierom. proueth plainlie that Elias and Elizeus were the beginners captaines and patrones of Monks and monasticall lyfe whome he calleth for that cause Monachos veteris testamenti monks of the olde testamen The same hathe Sozomenus of Elias L. 1. Hist. cap. 12. Now deale you with these men M. Charke about the matter And as for the number of two thowsand yeres whiche you cite so preciselie as though antiquitie should lett these prophetes to be examples of monasticall lyfe It is an argument woorthie suche a diuine as you are for by that reason nether Adam could be a patrone of maried men nor Abell of Shepheardes nor Cain of husbandmeÌ„ne nor Enoch of citizens nor Iabell of dwellers in Tents nor Iubal of Musicians nor Tubalcain of smithes for that they liued twise as long a goe as Elias dyd And yet the scripture sayth they were begynners and patrones of all these things Genes 2.3.4 To the example of S. Iohn he answereth Iohn Baptist that may seeme to make moste maketh nothing at all for you for that it is to be thought he vvas an extraordinarie a perpetuall Nazarete therfore his calling vvarranted hym for hys austere extraordinarye attyre dieâ— vvhiche restraint or the like is not novv layd vpon those vvhiche teache in the church You alwayes do willfully mistake the question M. Charke For we affirme not that extraordinarie austeritie of lyfe is layd vpon any man of necessitie but onelie that it is lawfull and maketh no sect when it is voluntarie taken and vsed Moreouer yf we graunt S. Iohn were a Nazaret yet that proueth not that all his austeritie of lyfe was layd vpon hym by necessitie of that vocation as may appeare in the booke of Nuâ—bers where the lyfe of a Nazaret is described and Plinie with Iosephus describing the lyfe of Esseans muche harder than the Nazarets doe mention no such great austeritie as the scriptures doe in the lyfe of S. Iohn Baptist. VVherfore though he were a Nazaret yet moste of his austeritie was voluntarie and so might be an example platforme to Monks especially seing Nazaretes also dyd make a religious vowe for theyr dedication to God as our religious people also doe vse as appeareth in the booke of Numbers And finallie that S. Iohn was a Monke of the new testament and a paterne of Monasticall lyfe though this be more than I am bound to proue all these fathers foloweinge doe testifie with one consent S. Gregorie Nazianzen orat de S. Basilio S. Chrisostome ho. 1. in Marc S. Ierome ep ad Eustochium Cassianus collat 18. cap. 6. Sozomenus li. 1. hist. c. 12. Isidorus li. 2. de diuin offic ca. 15. Theophilact in cap. 1. Luc. Nicephorus li. 8. Hist. c. 39. and others Next after these examples he reprehendeth my description of a sectarie sayeing that it bevvrayeth great vvant of learning for that it confoundeth heretiques vvith sectaries and maketh no distinction betvvene the generall and the speciall for all heretiques are sectaries sayeth he but all sectaries are not heretiques For learning heere I striue not lett the opinion therof fall where it best lyketh the reader to place it But in matter of truthe M. Chark is greatlie ouer seene in this place and doeth vnwoorthelie chalenge the credit of a learned man for this answere hauing incurred two grosse errors in the same For first among diuines Ecclesiasticall writers an heretique and a sectarie is all one there is no generall and speciall betwene theÌ„ as he imagineth
diuersitie of opiniō as hath bene shewed M. Charke can not geue one example to the cōtrarie for the maintenance of this absurde definition of different forme in profession c. VVhereby he wold make all them sectaries whiche differ in anye externall forme By whiche reasō all their owne byshops ministers Iudges lawyers and the like are sectaries and all diuersities of states are sects For is there not a different forme in making of a byshope and of a minister is not there diuersitie in their authorities in their apparell in their state and forme of lyfe notwithstanding that bothe doe professe ministerie of the woorde The laye man and the preacher doe professe one religion and yet is there no difference in the forme of their profession is the ministers forme of apparell of preaching of ministring the sacraments of obedience to his byshope of obseruing the statuts of college or church wherein he is nothing different from any other laye man or is he a sectarie for this who wold say this and much lesse print yt but onelie william Charke I leaue the begynning of his definition as too too childish ridiculous for hym that professeth learning where he sayeth a sect is a companie of men as yf a man should say an heresie is a compauie of men or an opinion is a companie of men or a frencie is a companie of frentike men VVhen S. Paul saieth I liued a pharisey according to the most certaine sect of our religion will ye say he meant according to the moste certaine number of men of his religion or rather according to the moste certaine deuided opinion of his religion for the number of phariseys were not certaine Againe when S. Paul sayeth the vvoorks of the flesh are manifest as sects c. VVill you saye here multitudes of men are workes of the fleshe where as the greek hath heresies So like wyse when S. Peter sayeth of false prophets they bryng in sectes of perdition in greeke heresies of perdition will you saye multitudes of men of perdition I omitt many other examples in scripture which doe conuince your absurditie and besides that doe proue our principall point that sects and heresies are all one Although I am not ignorant that in common speeche this woorde sect may improperlie signifie the men also whiche professe the same but not in a definition where the proper nature of eche woorde is declared After this new definition set downe M. Charke proueth the Iesuites to be a sect by the same for whose disgrace onelie he deuised it His collection or argument is this Seing therefore the Iesuits receyue a peculiar vovve to preache as the Apostles dyd euery vvhere to doe it of free cost to vvhipp and torment them selues after the example of a sect called by the name of vvhippers and condemned longe a goe seing thy are deuided from all others and doe folovv the rule of Loyolas it appeareth plainlie they are a sect A substātial conclusion for a man of your making These be like the conclusions ye made in the tower against M. Campian I meane not of your last conclusion to dispache hym at Tiburn for that was vnanswerable although nothing foloweing of the premisses I meane of your pretended dysputations wyth hym But to our matter what is there in this illation that can make the Iesuits a sect if it were all graunted to be true that they vovv to preache as the Apostle dyd Yow know the scripture doeth allow and commende the dedication of a mans lyfe by vow to gods seruice Num. 6. Psalm 131. VVhat then To preache euery vvhere and at free cost This you should be a shamed to say seinge Christ hym selfe commaundeth it to his Apostles Teache all nations preache the gospell to all creatures yovv haue receyued it freelie geue it freelie And S. Paul gloryeth muche that he had taught the gospell of free cost 2. Cor. 11. VVhat then maketh them sectaries To vvhipp and torment them selues yf it were true why for what reason It is writen of S. Paul by hym selfe that he chasteyned his owne bodie 1. Cor. 9. yea and that he caried the brāds of Christe in his flesh 2. Cor. 4. And the scriptures do talke muche of mortyfyeing our members of crucifyenge our flesh and the like and neuer a woord of pamperinge the same And ecclesiasticall stories doe make large mention of great seueritie of the auncient fathers and Saints heerein As of the seueritie in lyfe of S. Iohn Baptist and other Saints Also of the Saints of the olde testament who went about as S. Paul sayeth in camels hears in goats skinnes and the like And he that will see great store of examples gathered together out of all antiquitie about this matter lett him reade but one chapiter of Marcus Marulus de castigatione corporis per flagella of chasteyning the bodie with whippes S. Ierom. testifyeth of hym selfe by an occasion gyuen to a secret frende of his That his skynne vvas novv become as blacke vvith punishement as the skinne of an Ethiopian And Ioannes Cassianus that liued about the same time hathe infinite examples of the practises of holy fathers in this point And albeit Peter Martyr a renegate friar after he had now coped with a wenche doeth ieast at S. Basil and S. Gregorie Nazianzen for the hard handling of their owne bodies yet there is reason to think that they knew what they did as well as he And yf you ministers of England wold vse a litle of this salue sometimes also possible the worlde wold goe better with you fewer Eatons should neede to stand on the pillorie for lyeing with their owne daughters fewer hynches flye the countrie for rauishing of yong gyrles especiallie being preachers and hauing wiues of their owne besides And manie other foule enormities in this kynde wolde easier be auoyded But yf you will not practise this remedie your selues for contristing or making sadde the holie ghoste within you as your phrase is yet impute it not as Schisme and heresie to them which vse it moderatelie as you may imagin the Iesuites will being not fooles nor hauing yron bodies but sensible as yours are And as for the last reason you add of their folowing Loyolas his rule of lyfe and that they are deuided from others made schismatikes therby I haue shewed before that being but a particular direction of lyfe and maners grounded on the scripture and practise of auncient fathers and allowed by the superours of the Churche it can be no matter of sect or heresie nether are Iesuites seperated frome others by this but rather nearer ioined with all the godlie for that vertue is but one and he that leadeth the most vertuouse lyfe is ioyned nearest to Christ and to all good Christians And this now may be answered supposing that all were true that you report in this place of the Iesuites lyfe and vocation which is not
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
Apostolical and Euāgelical traditiō the doctrine of fathers haue taught it The second point is the proceeding of the holy ghost from the father the sonne equallie For this M. Charke quoteth vvhen the holye ghost shall come vvhiche I vvill send you from my father the spirit of trueth vvhiche proceedeth from the father But this proueth not expresselie that the holie ghost proceedeth equallie from the father and the sonne together but rather seemeth to inclyne to the heresie of the Greekes that it proceedeth onelie from the father And therfore the heretiques which denyed this equallye buylded their heresie especiallie vpon this place as S. Cyrill noteth Agayne this place telleth not whether it proceedeth by generation or without generation from the father and yet we must beleeue it to be without generation The third poynt is the vnion of the vvoorde vnto the nature of man not vnto the persone For which M. Chark citeth And the vvorde vvas made fleshe But what is this to the point thys proueth that the woorde tooke our fleshe but whether he tooke the nature of man onelye or the persone onelye or bothe together it expresseth not And heere is to be noted by the waye M. Charks lacke of iudgemēt not onelie in the matter but euen in the verie termes of diuinitie For he reprehendinge my woords as vnsounde in that he vnderstoode thē not he chaungeth thē thus That the vvoorde dyd take the nature of man to be one persone and not the persone VVhiche are bothe fond and erroneous For the woorde tooke not the nature of man to be one persone seeing the woorde was one persone before he tooke that nature of man vnto it selfe Nether could the nature of mā be that one persone as M. Charke semeth to weene for so should nature persone be cōfounded in Christ. But I thinke M. Chark neuer studied yet these matters and therfore he myght haue bene lesse malepert in reprehendinge yf he wolde The fowerth doctrine is of baptizinge of infantes For which M Charke quoteth these woordes of Genesis The infant of eight years olde shalbe circumcised in mankynde This hathe nothyng expresselye as yow see for baptisme And yf we had nothing but this lawe for our warrant in baptizing of infantes how chaunceth it that wee baptize infantes before or after the eight daye also why baptize we infantes of woman kynde also whiche were not circumcysed in the lawe Beza was strycken quyte dumme in the disputation of poysie in fraunce withe this demaunde as the byshope Claudius de Saynctes reporteth whoe was present VVherfore I had rather folow S. Austen who contendeth and proueth that baptizinge of infantes is onelye a tradition of the Apostles and not left vs by anye written scripture li. 10. c. 23. super Gen. ad lit And the same teacheth Origen ho. 8. in leuit The fyueth doctrine whiche M. Charke auoweth to be in scripture is the chaunge of the Sabboth daye into Sundaye For which he citeth these woords owt of the reuelations I vvas in spirit in our Lordes daye But heere is no mention of Sundaye or Saturdaye muche lesse of celebratiō of ether of them leaste of all of the chaunge of the Sabbothe appointed by God into any other daye Is not this chaunge then of the Sabboth daye appointed by the law substantiallie proued from this place of scriprure trow yowe The sixt poynt is abowt the fower Gospels and epistle to the Romanes whiche he sayeth to be proued scripture owt of scriptute But yet he quoteth no place of scripture where they are proued to be scripture but onely sayeth they are proued ovvt of the vuoords by the inscription there expressing the names of the vvryters therof But what a mockerie is this is the bare names of the Apostles sufficient to proue that they were written in deed by the Apostles whoe can proue owt of scripture that these names were not counterfayted The fayned epistle to the Laodicenses hathe it not the name of S. Paul in it and begynneth it not with the verie same style as his other epistles doe and yet is it reiected as counterfaite and that onelye by tradition The fayned gospell of S. Bartholomew had it not his name in it and yet was it not reiected The fayned Gospell of S. Thomas had it not his name and yet Origen sayeth he reiected it onelie for that the tradition of the churche receyued it not The three counterfait Gospells among the hebrewes had they not as holy titles as the rest and yet they were reiected by tradition of the churche as Epiphanius sheweth VVhen Faustus the Manachie denyed the Gospell of S. Mathew sayeth not S. Austen Mathaei euangelium prolatū aduersus faustum Manachaeum per traditionem The Gospell of Mathew was alleaged against Faustus the Manachie by traditiō VVhat can be more euident than all this to proue our opinion of the necessitie of tradition and to confound the fond madnes of this poore minister that will haue the bare titles of bookes sufficient to proue their authoritie and so certainlie as the true scripture it selfe once knowen is to be beleeued The seuenth doctrine whiche he holdeth to be expresselie in scripture is that God the father begatt his sonne onelie by vnderstanding hym selfe Marye he citeth no place fort it but reprehending the darkenes of the woordes which notwithstanding are most playne and vsuall to those whiche haue studyed any thing i◠diuinitie he flyeth to an other matter sayeing vve beleeue by testimonie of the vvoorde that Iesus Christ is the onelie begotten sonne of the father And for this he quoteth a place or two of scripture whiche needed not For we holde this to be expresselie in scripture more than in fortye places But the question is of the manner howe this generation may be whiche though it appertaine not to the simple to trouble them selues with all yet the Church must defend it agaynst aduersaryes whoe will obiect as often they haue done hovve can God beyng a spirit begett a sonne and yet the sonne not to be after his father in tyme or nature but equall vvith hym in them bothe vvhat mean you saye they to holde that the holye ghost proceedeth from the father that the sonne proceedeth not but is begotten vvhye is it heresie to saye that the sonne proceedet◠from the father or that the holye ghost is begotten vvhat difference is there betvveene theese speeches hovv doeth the father begett and the lyke All these are poyntes of diuinitie to be discussed And though M. Charke seemeth ignorāt in them all not to vnderstand so much as the verie termes them selues moste playnlie sett downe yet Catholique diuines kuowe what the Churche hath determined heerin against heretiques and infideles And albeit these thynges be not expresselye sett downe in scripture yet are they no lesse to be beleeued thā the other mysteries of the Trlnitie VVherof I
time as S. Paul vvrote this vvanted diuers important partes as the Ghospel of S. Iohn the Apocalips and some other vvhich vvere vvriteÌ„ after coÌ„sequeÌ„â—lie should haue bene superfluous yf the other before had bene â—ufficient Secondly because vve lacke at this daye many parts of scripture vvhich of likelyhoode vvere in S. Paules time As the booke of Nathan the Prophetâ— vvith the volume of the Prophet Gad. 1. Paralip vlt. The booke of Ahias salonites and the vision of Addo the Prophet 2. Paral 9. Many of the Parables and verses of Salomon for he vvrote three thousande of the one and fiue thousand of the other 3. Reg. 4. Also the epistle of S. Paul to the Laodicenses Colos. 4. vvhereof it folovveth in M. Charkes ovvne seÌ„se that if all the scripture put together is onely sufficient to perfection then our scripture novv lacking dyuers partes of the same is not sufficient And so me thinkethe M. Charke vvrestethe this place againste hym selfe THE DEFENCE After a long apologie in defence of loose translatyng of scripture wherin M. Charke will perforce retaine opinion of honest dealing he coÌ„meth to refute the first reason about profitable and sufficient sayethe that sometimes profitable may stand for sufficient As where the Apostle sayeth to Timothie Exercise thy selfe to godâ—ynes For bodilye exercise is profitable but to a litle but godlynes is profitable â—o all thyngs hauyng promisse bothe of this lyfe of the lifâ— to come Heer sayeth M. Chark it can not be denyed but by profiâ—able is mente suffâ—cieÌ„t VVhich suppose were true yet were it but a slender argumeÌ„t of one particular to inferre an other But in myne opinioÌ„ M. Charke is vtterlie deceyued in this matter For as S. Ambrose S. Ierome S. Austen doe expound this place S. Paules meanyng is to putt an antithesis or differeÌ„ce betwene corporall exercise pietie sayeing that the one is but litle profitable but the other that is godlynes hath her promysse of rewarde in all actions taken ether for this lyfe or for the lyfe to come Out of all I say she reapeth coÌ„moditie and is profitable For in all actions whiche are taken in hand for charitie and loue of God whiche is true pietie therin is merit and rewarde whether the actions be about matters of this lyfe or of the lyfe to come And whoe wolde say heere that profitable signifieth sufficient His second reason he frameth in these woordes vpon the place of S. Paul before alleaged that vvhiche is profitable to all the partes that may be required to perfectioÌ„ can not be but sufficient for the perfection of the vvhole but that the scripture is profitable in suche maner the Apostle doeth fullie declare in rehearsing all the particular partes vvhiche are necessarie as to confute to correct and instruct in iustice ergo the scripture is sufficient God help you M. Charke I assure you you are a simple one to take controuersies in hand VVhat boye in Cambrige wold euer haue reasoned thus If you had sayed that whiche is sufficient to all the partes in particular is sufficient to the whole you had sayed somewhat But how foloweth it that what soeuer is profitable to all particular partes should be sufficient to all haue you not Learned that there is causa sine qua non whiche is not one he profitable but also necessarie to all partes wherof it is such a cause and yet is not sufficient alone ether to the partes or to the whole As for example the heade is profitable yea necessarie to all the actions of this lyfe as to sing weepe dispute and the lyke for without a heade none can be done and yet is not the head sufficient alone to performe these actions as we see by experience For that euery one whiche hath a heade is not able to doe these thinges Hys thyrd reason and argument is taken from the woordes of S. Paul immediatlie goeinge before in the place now alleaged to Timothie whiche are these for that thou hast learned the holye scripâ—ures from thy infancie vvhiche can instruct thee to saluation throughe the faythe vvhich is in Iesus Christ. Loe sayeth M. Charke heer the scriptures are sayed to be sufficient to saluation But I denye this For the Apostle sayeth they can instruct Timothie and shew him the waye to saluation and can bryng hym also to it yf he will folow them But doeth it folowe heerby that they are sufficient for the whole churche and in such sort as all doctrine by tradition is superfluous Euerie epistle of S. Paul instructeth a maÌ„ to saluation wolde also bryng any man to heauen that shoulde folow the same exactlie But is therfore euerie epistle of S. Paul sufficieÌ„t for the whole Church wherof onelie our question is and are all other supeâ—fluous Againe it is to be noted that S. Paul speaketh heere principallie of the olde testament For he speaketh of the scriptures which Timothie beyng nowe a byshope had learned from his infancie whiche was before the newe testament was wryten And will M. Charke saye that the olde testament is sufficient to Christian men such as Timothie now was for their saluation without any other write You see this man lyke the hare in the nett the more he struggleth the more he encombreth and intangleth hym selfe To my two reasons in the Censure to proue that S. Paul in the place alleaged spoke not onelye of all the whole scripture together but also of euery particular booke therof whiche notwitstandinge can not be sayed to be sufficient of it selfe without other he answereth in effect nothinge but for excuse of his fraudulent translating Omnis scriptura all scripture where as he translated omne opus bonum euerie good vvoorke euen in the same sentâ—nce he alleageth a place or two owt of the scripture where this woord omnis signifieth all aswell as euerie one VVhiche I denye not but some times it may be especiallie in greek but yet that there is ordinarilie a difference betwene these two propositions omnis homoâ—est corpus and totus homo est corpus I â—row your logicians of Cambrige wherof you talke will affirme with me And yf there be ordinarilie such a differeÌ„ce and your selfe obseruing the same in the former parte of the same sentence why you showld alter your translation in the second part therof I can not imagine except you mente fraude But now to my two reasons In the first I saye that S. Paul coulde not meane to Timothie of all the scriptures together which we now vse For that all was not then written as the Gospell of S. Iohn and some other partes To this he answereth that there was enough written then for the sufficient saluation of men of that tyme and that the other partes added afterwarde were not superfluous But this is from the purpose For I graunt that in all tymes when there was least writen vvord yet was there sufficient for the
vs els vvhere by God doe vve incurre this curse of S. Iohn therby S. Iohn sayeth nothing may be added or taken awaye from the perfectioÌ„ of that most excelleÌ„t mysticall booke of reuelations but dyd he meane heerby that nothing should be credited besides that vvhiche is there vvritten S. Iohn hym selfe vvrote diuerse things vvhich are not in the Apocalips yea by the iudgement of kemnitius a protestant he vvroote hys vvhole Gospell after the Apocalips And yet I thynke by this additioÌ„ of his Gospell he did not runne into the curses of that booke How theÌ„ is this place alleaged agaynst vs for beleeuyng those thynges whiche our auncetours haue delyuered vnto vs as receyued from the mouth of Christ and his Apostles how holdeth this argument no man may adde to the booke of Apocalips ergo no man may beleeue a traditioÌ„ of Christ or his Apostles May not a man aswell inferre ergo we may not beleeue the actes of the Apostles But this is their common alleaging of Scriptures It is Lamentable to see the sleight dealings of these men in matters of suche importance It is a great iniquitie sayeth Charke to add traditions or your vnvvritten verities to the vvritten vvorde of God VVhat meane you Sir by adding whoe doeth add or in what sense If God left any doctrine by tradition vnto the Churche and our auncetours haue deliuered the same vnto vs especiallie those of the primatiue Churche what shall we doe in this case shall we refuse yt It seemeth daungerous and I see no reason For the same men that delyuered vnto vs the scriptures and sayed this is gods written woorde and sayd of other forged scriptures this is not gods written woorde the same delyuered vnto vs these doctrines sayeinge this is Gods woorde vnwritten As for example S. Austen and Origen doe teache vs that baptizing of infants is to be practized in the Churche onelie by tradition of the Apostles S. Ierom and Epiphanius tell vs that the fast of the lent and other the lyke is a traditioÌ„ of the Apostles Dionisius and Tertullian saye that prayers and obâ—ation for the dead are traditions of the Apostles S. Basil teacheth that the consecration of the font before baptisme the exorcisme vppon those that are to be baptized theyr anointing with holie Chrisme and diuers lyke thinges are delyuered vnto vs by prescript of Christ and his Apostles Thus testifie these men and no man in the Churche controlled theyr testimonie at that tyme wherby it is euident that all that Churche beleeued it Nowe what shall we doe when these and many other lyke things are delyuered vs by our fore-fathers the doctors and cheefe pyllers of Christ his Churche shall we reiect and discredit them wherfore or vppon what ground these men were nearer to the Apostles tymes than we are by many hundred yeeres and therfore could better tell than we can what the Apostles left by tradition or left not Agayne they were no dishonest men and consequentlie wolde not write a lye or deceyue vs wittinglie And yf they wolde yet other men wolde haue controlled them VVhye then should it be suche iniquitie in vs to receyue and beleeue the traditions which they deliuer vs as M. Chark sayeth it is If they come from the mouthe of Christ his Apostles as thes fathers doe affirme then are they parte of Gods woorde also as well as the other whiche are written But you will saye I knowe they come not from Christ and his Apostles And how I praye you can you proue that to me whye should I beleeue you rather than these holye fathers whiche lyued so long agoe I doe not see fot example sake why I should beleeue a CHARKE or a FVLKE commyng but yesterdaye from the Grammer Schoole before a Cyprian a Tertulian a Basil a Ierome a Chrysostome an Ambrose or an Austen especiallie in a matter of fact as our case is seyng they lyued more than twelue or thyrtene hundred yeeres nearer to the deed doeing than these ministers doe and yet to this extremitie am I driuen For hearken a litle how D. Fulck handleth these men about traditions S. Cyprian is alleaged agaynst hym sayeing that the mynglyng of wyne and water in the Chalice is the tradition of Christ hym selfe Fulke but yf Cyprian had bene vell vrged he vvolde haue better considered of the matter Tertulian is alleaged sayeing that the blessing with the signe of the crosse is a tradition of the Apostles Fulke Tertulians iudgement of tradition vvithout scripture in that place is corrupt S. Basil is alleaged for the same matter affirmyng the custome of blessing with the signe of the crosse to be an Apostolicall tradition Fulke Basil is an insufficient vvarrant for so vvoorthie a matter S. Ierome is alleaged sayeing that Lent fast is the tradition of the Apostles Fulke Ierome vntruelye ascribeth that tradition to the Apostles S. Chrisostom is alleaged sayeing â—hat the Apostles decreed that iÌ„ the sacrifice of the Aultar there should be made prayer for the departed Fulke vvhere he sayeth it vvas decreed by the Apostles c he muste pardon vs for crediting hym because he can not shevv it ovvt of the Actes and vvritings of the Apostles But dyuers fathers are alleaged together beside Chrisostome for the same matter Fulke vvhoe is vvytnesse that this is the tradition of the Apostles you vvill saye Tertulian Cyprian Austen Ierome and a great many moe But I vvolde learne vvhye the Lord vvould not haue this setforth by Mathevv Marke Luke or Paul vvhy they vvere not chosen scribes heerof rather than Tertulian Cyprian Ierome Austen and other suche as you name But this is a counterfait institutioÌ„ fained traditioÌ„ And in other place beyng vrged by the lyke he discrediteth all antiquitie sayeing It is a coÌ„mon thing vvith the Aâ—ncient vvriters to defend euerie ceremonie vvhiche vvas vsed in their tyme by tradition of the Apostles Heere now are sett before me a payre of balances with fulke and Charke in one ende and Cyprian Origen Tertulian Basil Ierome Chrisostome Epiphanius and Austen in the other ende for all these fathers as you see affirme constanlie traditions of Christ and his Apostle besides the written woord Fulke and Charke denye the same They alleage particular examples Fulk opposeth hym selfe to them all But whiche in reason should I rather beleeue You shall heare some of them speake S. Basil the great was a maÌ„ I trow to be matched in credit with Charke the minister His woords are these Dogmata quae in ecclesia praedicantur quaedam habemus e doctrina scripto tradita quaedam rursus ex apostolorum traditione in mysterio id est in occulto tradita accepimus quoruÌ„ vtraque parem vim habent ad pietatem nec hiis quisquam contradicit quisquis sane vel tenuiter expertus est quae sint iura ecclesiastica Among the doctrines whiche are preached in