the virgins which were rauished by vyolence in the Primatiue Church did it were no sinne Lastly he should haue added done wittingly for although Iacob laye with Lya which was not his wife yet because he knew it not but thought her to be Rachel his wyfe he sinned not Soe that the perfect definition of sinne is not that which Monhemius did put down and the Protestantes folow but rather that which Iesuites together with S. Austen and other learned Fathers haue set doune to wit Sinne is a humane acte voluntarilye and wittingly commited against the law of God And this is to be vnderstood of actual sinne properly But now how doth M. Charke ouerthrow this doctrine forsooth thus Contrarye to this saythe he is the woord of God 1. Iohn 3. the transgression of the lawe is sinne You séeme to haue made a vowe M. Charke not to deale playnlye in anye one thing Can you not aledge one litle sentence without falsifyinge The woords of S. Iohn are these Euerie one that sinneth committeth iniquitie and sinne is iniquitie Or as you will perhapps séeme to enforce it out of the gréeke woorde Anomia Sinne is transgression of the law But why haue you fraudulently turned it backward you knew well the force of transposition out of Sophistrie that it changeth all the meaning of the sentence For if I saye Euerie man is a liuing creature it is true but if I turne it backward and saye Euerie lyuinge crature is a man it is false Soe these woordes as S. Iohn vttereth them are most true Euerie sinne is iniquitie or transgression of the law but as you vtter them they are false to wit That euerie iniquitie or transgression of the lawe be it neuer soe little or donne without ether consent or knowledge or by a madd maÌ„ or brute beast should be properlye a mortal sinne Soe that this firste blasphemye of the Iesuites commeth not to be soe haynous as you would make it but rather to confound your ignorance which vnderstand not soe cléere doctrine but huddle vp matters as M. Campion telleth you alsoe to note your vntruthe in misreporting their woordes and the Scriptures against them And of this first depend the other two that folow 2. You report the Iesuites to saye Concupiscence remayning in the regenerate although it be against the law of God yet is it not sinne properlye in it selfe or of his owne nature Cens. fol. 38. You wil néedes helpe the Iesuites out with that which maketh for your purpose Wher finde you in them the wordes Although it be against the lawe of God They saye that albeit this Concupiscence doe sturre or moue a man some times to doe things whiche are repugnant to the lawe of God yet if no consent of harte be yelded vnto it it reacheth not to the nature of a mortal sinne woorthye of eternal damnation And albeit S. Paul doe some times cal it sinne yet meaneth he not properlye but by a figure wherby the name of the cause is often tymes atributed to the effect as the latine spéeche is called the latine Tongue because spéeche is the effect of the tongue Soe Concupiscence being the effect of original sinne is called some times sinne but not properly but only figuratiuely as also S. Paul calleth Christ him selfe Sinne because he was the sacrifice for sinne And all this is S. Austen his note whose playne woords in the same place are Concupiscence is not sinne in the regenerate if conseÌ„t be not yelded vnto her for the accomplishing of vnlawfull woorkes The same teacheth not only S. Augustine in dyuers other places but also all other Fathers of the Primatiue Church as Nazianzenus orat de S. Lana Pacianus orat de bap Clemens Alexandrinus Li. 1. Pedago cap. 6. Cyprian ser. de lot peduÌ„ et Li. 2. ep 2. Ambro. Li. 1. de vocat gentiuÌ„ capit 5. Soe that al these good Fathers are partakers with the Iesuites of this blasphemie which you enforce vppon them But how doe you proue it to be blasphemie marie because Christ saythe Whosoeuer shall see a woman to luste after her he hath alredye committed adulterie with her in his harte But are you soe ignorant M. Charke doe you not sée that Christ by adding the woords in his harte meaneth onlye of him which geueth consent of harte to his luste and concupiscence and would put it in execution if he had tyme and place and abilitie but this is your common alleaging of Scripture 3. You reporte the Iesuites to saye That the first motions of lust are without hurt of sinne Cens. 54. 89. It is most true and playne as they deliuer it but you by clipping their woords make euerie thing to séeme a paradoxe They saye the first motions of luste if they come of natural instinct only without anye cause geuen by vs are no sinnes so longe as we geue no consent of hart vnto them And the reason is because it lyeth not in vs they being natural to prohibit them to come no more then it dothe to prohibit our pulse from beating And therfore séeing no sinne can be coÌ„mitted without our will and consent of hart as I haue shewed before these first motions can be no more sinnes in vs then they are in beastes for the like reason Nether is the ten the commaundement alleaged by you for the contrarie doctrine to wit Thou shalt not couet anye waye repugnant to this For this commaundement forbiddeth consent to these motions and not the verie motions which are not in oure power as the Scripture it selfe signifieth when it saythe This commaundement which I doe geue the this daye is not aboue thee And as S. Austen learnedlye prouethe out of an other place of scripture wher this commaundement is expounded to wit Goe not after thy concupiscence That is consente not to them or followe them not 4. You reporte the Iesuites to say The holye Scripture is a doctrine vnperfecte maymed lame not contayning all thinges necessarie to fayth and saluation Cen. fo 220. You are tooe shameles M. Charke in setting for the these for the Iesuites woordes Lett anye man read the place and he shall finde noe such thing but rather in contrarie manner the holy Scripture with reuerente woordes most highlye commended Notwithstanding they reprehend in that place Monhemius for sayinge that nothing is to be receaued or beleued but that whiche is expreslye founde in the Scripture For reproofe of which heresie they geue examples of manie thinges which bothe we and our aduersaries also doe beleue which neuerthelese are not set downe expresâ—ye in the Scripturs although perhaps â—educed therof As the perpetuall virginitye of our Ladye after her childe-birth two natures and two willes in Christe the procéedinge of the holye Ghost equally from the Father and the Sonne with out generation the vnion of the worde vnto the nature of maÌ„ and not vnto the personne That
in ep 1. ad cor Isodorus Li. diu offic cap. 18. Damascenus Li. de ortho fid cap. 14. with others Nether importeth it anie thinge though the woorde facere dothe not signifie to consecrate of his owne nature for the facte of Christe going before draweth it to that signification as if a man should singe and afterwarde say to the standers by Hoc facite Doe the same héere facere should signifie to singe though not of his owne nature 12. You reporte the Iesuites to say Traditions are of equal authority with the woorde of God we must beleue thē though they be manifestlye against the Scripture Cens. fol. 230. You drawe towards an end M. Chark therfore you wil make a soūd lie for a parting blow You haue here added of your owne We must beleue them thoughe they be manifestlye against the Scripture The Iesuites say no such woord but they affirme the former parte of your wordes although not soe generally confusedly as you report For they say not that all traditions are of equal authoritye with the woord of God but only such as are certaynlye descended from Christ his Apostles and were deliuered by thē to be obserued as parte of the woorde of God For there are two kinds of traditions or doctrines receaued onlye by woord of mouthe the one called Ecclesiastical because they were begone and left vs only by the Church and thes ar of no greater authoritie then the writinges and other decrées of the Churche are The other are called Apostolicall or deuine left vnto vs by Christ the Apostles and thes are of no lesse authority then if they had ben writen by thē or then are the other things which they wrot For if a maister should leaue vnto his seruantes one thing in writing and an other thing by woord of mouthe they are of equal authoritie as all men wil graūt Thes traditions therfor if they be certainly knowen to come frō Christ his Apostles the Iesuites say they are of equal authority with y e written word not al traditiōs as you malitiously reporte And now that Christ his Apostles left vnto the Church diuers doctrines by word of mouth only not writen it is proued by inuincible argumētes as by the testimonies of the Councels Fathers stories of the Primatiue church by many places of scripture as namly by that S. Paule saithe to the Thessalonians Brethern stande fast and hould the traditions which you haue lerned ether by word of mouth or by our epistle Also it is proued by doctrines which we haue and hould the Church hath so done frō the beginning which doctrines notwithstanding are not writen but receaued by worde of mouth from Christ and the Apostles as baptisme of infantes celebration of the sondaye the nomber of the bookes of Scripture the fast of lent and the like wherof I haue geuen more examples before in your fourth reporte Now this being soe how vainly doe you bring in M. Charke against this the sayng of Christ touching the superstitious scribes and Pharases In vaine doe they worshipe me teaching doctrines that are but the traditions of men In your owne conscience I aske you is this anything pertaining to our purpose or contrarie to the Catholiques doctrine which I haue set doūe if it be not why doe you soe shamlesly deceaue the people with such impertinēt stuffe But this is your onlye refuge and herein lyethe the whole mayntenance of your cause to reporte vs still amisse and to refute vs with that whiche nothing pertayneth to the matter As in this place whiche you haue héere brought in let the reader marke how manye differences there be betwixt it and our purpose First Christ in this place reprehendeth the teaching of doctrins that are but of men and we talke of doctrines deliuered vs by Christ and his Apostles Secondly Christe reprehendeth not al obseruation of traditiōs of men but the noughtie obseruation of them by estéeming them more then the worde of God and by breaking the worde of God for the obseruinge of them which we also doe condemne Thirdlye those traditions of the Pharases which Christ reprehendeth were certayne idle and foolishe external ceremonies as the washing of cuppes and the lyke and dyuers of them were directe contrarye to the worde of God as certaine corrupt expositiōs of the law as Christ noteth there And these were of thrée kindes The one left by Rabbi Akiuam the other by Rabbi Iuda the thyrde by the sonnes of Asomoneus which interpretations all were called Deuteroseis that is secondarye expositions after Moyses of which peruerse expositions came al their errours of the Talmud But now what is this to the holye Traditions of Christ and his Apostles or of the Primatiue Church 13. Lastly you report the Iesuites to say We must worshippe the image of Christ with lyke honour that we doe the holy bookes of the Ghospel fol. 66. Agaynst which you bring in S. Paul askinge What agreemente is there betweene the temple of God and Idoles I answere much more agréement then there is betwéene the matter we talke of and this place of S. Paule For he talketh of drawinge the yoke with infidels and our question is whether the worshippe done to the image of Christ and to the Byble be al one or no But you by callinge the image of our Sauiour an Idole shew your selfe impious and you are accursed for it by the seuēth general Councel And by putting such great difference betwéene the worship of Christes Image and his books of the Ghospel you proue your vnderstanding to be very litle For if you graunt any kinde of worshippe to the one how can you deny the same to the other séeinge that both are creatures and as the Image was made by the Karuer so the letter of the Byble by the Printer and the hononr done to the one and the other is not to them selues but onely to God whose Image and word they are But if you denye al kinde of honour to them both in that they are creatures for we assigne no diuyne honour vnto them Thē first your place of S. Paul of difference is nothing to the purpose Secondlye what wil you saye to the worshipppe done vnto the Arke vnto the Cherubins vnto the serpent of brasse Why doth Dauid say Doe you adore the stoole of his feete Why are we commaunded to bowe our knée at the sounde of the name of Iesus which is but a creature representing Christ to the eare as his image doth to the eye S. Austen geueth this reason for it Because the honour done to these thinges doth redounde vnto him who is signified by them But you are so wilful M. Chark as you wil not vnderstād y e difference betwéene an image and an idole nor betwéene the honours done vnto a creature and to the creator but malitiously you wil stil confound the same in our names
can a man damne him selfe doe what mischefe he can except the wil refuse to beleeue In his booke de capti Babil cap. de baptis The ten commaundementes appertayne nothing vnto vs. Serm. de Moys It is a false opinion and to be abolished that there are foure ghospels For the ghospel of Iohn is the onelye fayre true and principal ghospel In prefa ad nouum Testam And this he sayed because the other thrée Ghospels spake too much of good works If anye woman can not or wil not proue by order of law the insufficiencie of her husband let her request at his handes a dyuorse or els by his consent let her lye priuilye with his brother or with some other man Lib. de matri in epithal super 1. Cor. 7. If the wife wil not come let the maid come Serm. de matrim Matrimonie is much more excellent then virginitie Li. de vot euang Christ and S. Paule did not counsaile but dissuade virginitie vnto Christians Lib. de vot monast It is as necessarie for euerye man to haue a wife as it is to eate drinke or sleepe Li. de vo coniu in asser art 16. Al Christians are as holy and is iust as the mother of God and as the Apostles were Serm. de Trin. de B. Maria com ep 1. Pet. I leaue other infinit beastly doctrines which he taught for the inuentiō wherof he had much conference with the deuil him selfe whom Bishoppe Lindan and dyuers others wryte to haue bene séene talke bodyly with him by men of very great credit And Luther himselfe confesseth in his workes that he had often and familier speache with him and that he was first moued by him to wryte agaynst the Masse in the yeare 1534. He also diserybeth his voyce sayinge that it was so terrible huge and dreadfull that he was lyke to dye dyuers times after the nightes conference with him And that dyuers men were slayne by such conference Notwithstanding it was his chaunce to escape albeit as he sayeth he did eate more then a bushell of salte together with this deuil But yet neuerthelesse he was deceaued in the ende as al men are that deale with such Marchantes For Luther going one night drunke to bed as Hosius wryteth was founde there the next day deade slayne as is thought by this his familier deuil For he was a pitifull creature to looke on as Sainctes describeth al blacke with his tonge lying out as a man stranguled And this was the end of Luther after almost thirtye yeres lyuinge in all kynde of sensualitie pryde and dissention not onelye with the Catholique Church but also with his owne broode and ofspring Carolostadius Oecolampadius Bucer and Zuinglius parents of the Protestantes religion whom he perseruted cursed and condemned to the very pitt of hel for damned Heretickes as yet appeareth in his bookes writen agaynst them Wherefore whether the Protestantes or the Iesuites may be more ashamed of their first father let the indifferent Reader iudge There is the lyke lyfe or worse wryten of Calum by a french man that lyued with him of the same religion at that time and was translated into Englishe by a countrye man of ours and had bene put in print ere this had not my L. of London by an euil chance gotten the copye into his handes Fourthly you wil néedes bringe the Iesuites in discredit by certayne blasphemous doctrines which you say they hold in a booke writen by common consent called Censura Coloniensis out of the which you haue for examples sake put downe thirtine blasphemies in their owne very wordes as you saye noting the leafe and adding the cleane contrarye doctrine out of the worde of God And that men should knowe that you deale playnely and bring their very words and no sillable of your owne you haue put their sayinges doune in a differēt romane letter But M. Charke in brotherly charitie let me reason the matter a litle with you Are you not ashamed of this falshode did you not thincke that this your booke might be examined by some man or other in déed you haue al the Printes to your selfe and your searchers are so watchful as nothing can passe their handes to the discouering of your doinges and therefore you may both saye and print what you wil And our eares may wel burne on this side the sea and our harts rew at the shameles vntruethes which we heare and sée vttered there amongste you dayly but we can not remedie it and this that I wryte now I make account it may as wel perishe as dyuers things of greater importāce haue done heretofore But suerly me thincketh a wise man that had care of his soule might sée the lighte at a litle hole and descrye the conclusion by a few premisses If you in so short a pamphlet vtter so many so manifest so inexcusable vntruethes as I wil now shewe which notwithstanding you might reasonably doubt leste perhapps they might be disclosed what wil you and your felowes dare auouch in your sermons spéeches and discourses which you are sure shal neuer come to the examination But now let vs consider these wicked blasphemies of the Iesuites with whom if you haue dealt truelye and honestlye thē let al be beléeued which you speake dayly of vs if you haue done otherwise then the same malice which droue you to abuse your selfe towards them may also iustelye be suspected in the reste of your doinges and sayings towards vs. 1. First therefore you reporte the Iesuites to say It is not sinne what so euer is agaynst the word of God Censura Colon. leaf 44. These wordes are guilefully reported péeced and culled out for your purpose of a large discourse and yet most true in their sense The occasion whereof was this One Monhemius a Lutherā against whose Catechisme this Censure of Colē was made would néeds proue Concupiscēce remayninge after Baptisme to be a damnable mortal sinne albeit no consent of harte were geuē vnto the same and for proofe of the same he brought in this definitiō of sinne Sinne is what so euer repugneth to the law of God The which definition the Censure of Colen affirmeth not to be in al respects perfecte but that dyuers wordes should be added to the same as for example in stéede of that he sayeth Sinne is what soeuer c. he should haue sayed Sinne is an action for that there be dyuers things which repugne against the law of God as euil men euil lawes the deuils and the lyke which notwithstandinge are not properlye sinnes for that they are not actions Secondlye he should haue sayed not onely Sinne is an action but Sinne is a humane or reasonable action for if a mad man a foole or a beast should commit an acte prohibited by Gods lawe as for example kill a man it were properly no sinne Thirdly he should haue added voluntarie for if a man should doe a noughtie acte against his will as
whether we wil or noe and that only to blind the poore people withal and to maintayne matter of rayling agaynst your mother the Catholique Church God forgeue you for it And thus M. Charke I haue answered bréefely your slaunderous false reportes of the Iesuites doctrine Now let modest men iudge what cause you had to breake into those vnséemelye words sayinge These and many other blasphemies do the Iesuites maintayne There is not a spider nor a spiders web in anye corner of the Popes breste but these doctors wil hould it no lesse holy thē that which commeth out of Christs brest But doe not euen the Papists that know these thinges easely see how thes Iesuites in these doctrines bewraye the spirit of Antichrist What néedeth all this M. Charke If a lying spirit be the spirite of Antichrist then he is bewrayed ether in them or in you If an ignorant rayling spirite be it we can geue a good gesse where he dwelleth Surely me thinke your zeale ouerran your wit in this place as it did also not longe agone when you hauinge the bewe of a Masse booke and finding the blessed virgin named Mother of God in the same you cryed out Blasphemye vntil your felow blushinge at your ignorance brought you in minde of the antiquitie of that name You are too ouergréedie of our discredit and it hurteth your owne cause You séeme to haue made a compacte betwéene you euerye man to lye his parte and so by force to ouerbeare vs. You haue plaied yours and M. Hanmer followeth pretilie after you whoe is not ashamed toauouch without citing the place that S. Thomas of Aquyne holdethe The wearinge of Frauncis and Dominickes cowle to haue power to remoue sinne as wel as the Sacrament of Baptisme Which is as true as that which you affirme to wit That Cardinal Poole blushed at dyuers enormities in Popery And That the Catholickes in England at this daye doe confesse Images Pardones Prayinge to Sayntes and Seruice in the Latine tong to be wicked things All which is as true as your newes from Rome caused amongst you to be printed of late with your ordinarie approbatiō of Seene and allowed Wherin for the defacinge of that citye you shew the heauie hand of God towards it in signes and tokens the 23. 24. and 25. dayes of Ianuarie last past 1580 at what time you report 2. sonnes and 3. rainbows to haue appeared with most terrible earthquakes wherewith fell doune the gate of S. Peters killinge 14. persons besids 8. soldiers Also two stéeples of S. Peters Church crushing the Church and killing 38. preistes besides Quiristers and other people Also the Churches of the Franciscans of S. Iames of S. Bartholomew of our Lady the whole Abbaie of Marie Magdalene the braue artillerie house of Rome with a hospital wherein were 150. persons besides other infinite buildinges which the reuenew of a Kingedome wil not repayre and al this as you interpret in token of Gods wrath towardes the Pope Of which no one sillable being true as many both here and in England can testifie your resolutiō appeareth which you haue made to auouch any thing be it neuer so false so blush at nothing be it neuer so shamful and to inuente what so euer maye séeme for the purpose to entertayne or de lude the simple people Towching the Man Concerning the man whom you answere To let passe all your euill speach towardes him as pardonable in you which knowe litle ciuilitie you séeme to deale otherwise verye hardlye with him for what so euer he sayeth or doeth you wil haue it to be taken in euil parte If he speake humblye he dissembleth If he yéelde commendation he flattereth If he she we confidence in his cause he vaunteth If he offer trial he meanethe not performance If he proteste his meaninge he must not be credited If he desire audience he must not be admitted Finally what so euer he can imagine to vtter for iustifiinge of him selfe or his cause it must auayle nothinge William Charke will haue him condemned for vnlearned proude wicked and trayterous to the state and he makethe this generall conclusion That no man can teache or maintayne the Catholicke fayth in England but he must be thereby an enimie to God and a traytor to the state The firste parte whereof touchinge God I let passe as an ordinarie reproche of his vncleane mouth whereby he condemneth al the noble Princes of Englande and other our vertuous auncestors from the first conuersion of that land vnto our age But towchinge the second parte of his conclusion concerninge the state I must say a worde or two Doe you hould M. Charke that noe man in Englande can be of an other religion then yours but that of necessitie he must also be a traytor This is hote doctrine Héere agayne your zeale ouerrunneth your wit or rather your malice ouerlashethe all reason Must euerye man be an enymie to the state which lykethe not that religion whiche is fauoured bye the State what saye you to the Apostles whiche were of an other religion then the states Princes wher they came and they taught maintayned and furthered their owne religion within the same states and will you for this fact of theirs condemne them of treason against the said states of teaching rebellion against those Princes If you dare affirme it their owne woordes shall reproue you which declare vnto vs how they notwithstanding their contrarie religion taught all dutiful obedience in temporal matters towardes those Princes being but infidels and otherwise wicked men the which notwithstandinge the Apostels did commaund al Christians to obey in conscience as substitutes of God and soe they did as appeareth by their Apologies written in defence of their innocencie in these poyntes at such times as they were charged with the contrarie as we are now I might make the like demaunde of Athanasius Hillarius Eusebius versellensis and others which ceased not to mayntaine teach and defend their religion in the hottest persecution of the Arians and yet were noe traytours to the states which fauoured the contrarie religion Morouer in Quéene Maryes time wil you saye that al For his martirs were traytours to the state or that all of your opinion in these and other countries where the states fauour not your religion are traytours and rebels nether maketh it anye thing to the purpose for you to saye that our religion is false and yours true for the question is generall whether euerye man of a contrary relygion must nedes be an enemie to the state which you affirme and we deny Nether is that argument to be respected wherwith some of your chéefe prelates vse to presse Catholikes some times saying that they in Quene Maryes time wished al euil to the Prince and estate and therfore we must nedes doe the same now This argument I saye houldeth not for that there is difference of spirites in men