whiche as well in that place as in the first booke of his retractations c. 13. he proueth moste leardnedlie that originall sinne is voluntarie in vs by the first voluntarie acte of our first father in whiche acte we all dyd sinne voluntarilie that beinge an vniuersall acte of all mankynde contained in Adam as also the Apostle confirmeth sayeing of Adam In quo omnes peccauerunt In whome all haue sinned His second obiection is of the citie of refuge appointed by God among the Israelites for them that had killed a man vnwillinglie whereof he wolde inferre that vnwilling manslaughter is a sinne But I am ashamed of M. Charke that professinge skill in scriptures doeth so ignorantlie alleage them against theyr playne meaninge and against hym selfe For that chapiter sheweth at large how these cities of refuge were appointed amonge the leuits for indifferent triall of manslaughter leaste the next of kynne to hym whiche was slayne called there the reuenger of bloode shoulde reuenge the acte vppon the kyller before the matter were tried But when the thing was now examined in the citie of refuge by sufficient witnesses as the scripture appointeth then yf it were fownd that the slaughter was committed willinglie and of hatred then the murderer was delyuered into the hands of the reuenger of bloode to be slayne for the same But of vnwillinglie and without malice liberabitur innocens de vltoris manu sayeth the text the innocent shalbe deliuered frō the hand of the reuenger But yet he shall not departe from that citie vntill the deathe of the high pryest For that as Rabby Isaac Arameus writeth the highe pryest whose cities these of refuge amonge the Leuits were had interest and dominion vppon this man by the lawe of Leuits during his lyfe for the benefit whiche he had receaued by the place of refuge To whiche also Rabbi Moyses and Rabbi Leui Ierson doe add an other reason for that yf he should haue returned presentlie amōg the kinred of the mā killed his verie sight might haue styrred thē vp to reuengement vppon hym agayne after the triall passed But in the deathe of the high pryest the publique sorowe was so great as all men forgate theyr priuate iniuries and dyd vse commonlie to forgeue one an other all offences saye these learned Iewes And now I aske againe whie M. Charke brought in this exāple Doeth not this make cleare against hym prouinge that manslaughter vnwillinglie done is no sinne but innocencie yf not manslaugter how muche lesse other smaller actions are cleare from sinne when no consent of will is yeelded Against the clause of the definition which sayeth that sinne must wittinglie be committed he obiecteth that M. Howlet in his reasons of refusall doeth acknowlege a sinne of ignorance which I graunt but he speaketh of culpable ignorance whereof a man hym selfe is the cause as his example of persecuting Saul doeth shew whose ignorance although it were not so willfull as of many persecuting protestants at this daye whoe of purpose refuse to know the truthe yet as S. Bernard well noteth it could not be but culpable in hym as also hym selfe doeth confesse For that he being learned in the olde testament yf he wolde haue conferred patientlie with the Apostles he might haue seene that they taught nothing but correspondent to the aunciēt scriptures of God But we speake heere of inculpable ignorance called inuincible by the tearme of schoolemen for that it was not in the doers power to auoyd it nor he fell into it by his owne default As yf an English man being in India in seruice of the Prince should be commaunded by proclamation made in westminster hall to appeare there at a certaine daye and he as not hearyng of the same should not appeare this man is excused by inuincible ignorance And so in all other cases S. Augustin and Chrisostome proue of purpose moste learnedlie that this kynde of ignorance which in deede is onelie proper and true ignorance doeth excuse from sinne Yea God hym selfe proueth it by the example of Abimelech king of Gerare whome he excuseth from sinne for that he had taken awaye Sara Abrahams wyfe vpon ignorance in simplicitie of hart thinking her to be Abrahams sister as the text sayeth The like simplicitie of hart and inculpable ignorance was in Iacob lieing with Lia in stead of Rachell as the Censure sheweth And albeit M. Charke most impiously Ioynynge heerein with Faustus the Manachie dareth condemne the holie Patriarche in a double sinne as Faustus dyd yet S. Austen defendeth notablie this holy mans innocencie bothe against that and this heretique in his two and twentith booke against Faustus through many chapiters together as also in his booke of the Citie of God And with S. Augustin doe take parte S. Iustin the martyr l. de verit Christi religionis and Theodoret q. 84. in generat and lyranus vpon the verie same place of genesis And what one woorde can M. Charke now peepe against all this To conclude therfore though M. Charke hathe picked out certaine obiectiōs of our owne bookes made and answered by our selues against the learned definition of the Iesuits as in deed thay haue no other argumētes but suche as we lende them our selues yet hathe he as you see not infringed but establyshed that definition thereby and hathe bewrayed in hym selfe greate wantes in holdinge that sinne is no acte that no euill men doe sinne but the euill in men that sinne is not voluntarie that it is no humane or reasonable action that it requireth nether vvill nor knovvlege in the doer that fooles madde men may as properlie committ sinne as others for all these are his positions by whiche he may as well defend that beasts and vnreasonable creatures may committ sinne and be sinners which S. Augustine thinketh to be so absurd as no man of common sense will affirme the same But what doe I alleage S. Augustin whome M. Charke reiecteth heere by name about the definition of sinne Let vs returne therfore to the Censure And see what is further brought about this matter THE CENSVRE But novv hovv doeth M. Charke ouerthrovv this doctrine forsoothe thus Contrarie to this sayeth he is the woordes of God 1. Ioh. 3. the transgression of the lawe is sinne You seme to haue made a vovve M. Charke not to deale plainlie in anie one thing Can you not alleage one litle sentence vvithout falsifyeing The vvoordes of S. Iohn are these Euerie one that sinneth committeth iniquitie and sinne is iniquitie Or as you vvill perhappes seeme to enforce it out of the greeke vvoorde ANOMIA Sinne is transgression of the lawe But vvhy haue you fraudulentlie turned it backevvard you knevv vvell the force of transposition out of Sophistrie that it changeth all the meaning of the sentence For yf I say Euerie man is a liuing creature it is true but yf I turne it backevvard
God The vvhich definitioÌ„ the Censure of Colen affirmeth uot to be in all respectes perfecte but that diuerse vvordes should be added to the same as for exaÌ„ple in steade of that he sayeth Sinne is vvhat soeuer c. 2. He should haue sayd Sinne is an action for that there be diuerse things vvhiche repugne against the lavv of God as euill men euill lavves the deuills and the like vvhiche not vvithstanding are not properlie sinnes for that they are not actions 3. Secondlie he sâ—ould haue sayd not onelie Sinne is an action but Sinne is an humane or reasonable action For yf a mad man a foole or a beaste should committ an acte prohibited by gods lavve as for example kill a maÌ„ it vvere properlie no sinne 4. Thirdlie he should haue added voluntarie for yf a man should doe a naughtie acte against his vvill as the virgins vvhiche vvere rauished by violence in the primatiue Churche dyd it vvere not synne Lastlie he sâ—ould haue added 5. done vvittinglie For although Iacob lay vvith Lya vvhiche vvas not his vvyfe yet because he knevv it not but thought her to be Rachel his vvyfe he sinned not Soe that the perfect definition of sinne is not that vvhiche Monhemius dyd putt dovvne and the protestants folovve but rather that vvhiche the Iesuits together vvith S. Augustin and other learned fathers haue sett dovvne to vvitt Sinne is a humane acte voluntarilie and wittinglie commiâ—ted against the lawe of God And this to be vnderstoode of actuall sinne properlie THE DEFENCE That these wordes are guilefullie reported out of the Iesuits doctrine maye appeare by this example A learned counsailer hauing discoursed vpon the lawes of our lande and shewed that albeit all breache of publique lawes doeth tende against the Prince and coÌ„mon wealth as in dede it doeth Yet euery suche traÌ„sgression is not treason but some felonie some trespasse some no offence at all being done without malice will or knoulege wolde you not think hym a maliciouse wrangler that should come and frame this odious proposition vpon the others large discourse it is not treason vvhat so euer is against the Prince and common vvealthe For albeit these woords may be verifyed in a good sense as the Censure sayeth of M. Charkes report yet being layd downe barelie without sheweing the occasion and discourse they sownde odiouslie as though what soeuer were done against the Prince and common wealthe were no treason In like sorte deale these heretiques with the Iesuits who doe shew that albeyt euery synne doeth repugne the lawe of God yet euery thing that so repugneth is not equally synne but some veniall some mortall synne and some no synne at all yf it be without will or consent as the first motions of concupiscende are VVherevpon our aduersaries come and frame this odiouse proposition before sett downe to witt it is not synne vvhat soeuer is against the vvord of God without expoundinge how and in what sense it was spoken And to lett you see M. Charks nypping and shufling in this one litle line to make it sownd more odious thaÌ„ ether kemnitius or Gotvisus froÌ„ whome he tooke it doe delyuer the same The Iesuites wordes are reported by them thus the Iesuits say they in their definition of synne do saye Peccatum est non quicquid legi dei repugnat Sed c. Synne is not what soeuer repugneth the lawe of God but c. And then foloweth the rest of the Iesuits definition towched in the Censure And thus is it reported by M. Charks Maisters But he to make it seme more absurde in ignorant mens eares layeth it downe absolutelie thus yt is not sinne vvhat soeuer is against the vvorde of God As thoughe the sentence ended there Also as though it were no parte of a definition Againe he chaungeth the place of the negation whiche in framing of propositions altereth often the sense So for peccatum est non quicquid c. he sayethe non est peccatum quiquid c. And lastely for repugneth the lavve of God he putteth It is against the vvoorde of God And all this to helpe out a litle suspition of absurde doctrine in the Iesuits whiche argueth in hym a dishonest intention thoughe for the doctrine it selfe in the Iesuits meaning I thinke the Censure hathe sufficientlie defended it and what soeuer M. Charke hath therto replied shall now be examined notinge by the waye that M. Charkes common and onelie refuge of credit to saye vve muste eyther absolutelie graunt or absolutelie deny all these propositions fathered on the Iesuites is ridiculous and moste vayne For we admitt so muche of them as ether in woorde or sense the Iesuits euer vttered and the rest eyther coyned falsified wrested or otherwise abused by you we turne home agayne with shame vpon your selues But now to the defence of the Iesuits definition of sinne against whiche M. Charke hathe dyuers impertinent obiections whiche serue to spend tyme but yet they must be answered First then to proue that sinne is no acte he obiecteth that iniustice is a sinne and yet no acte To whiche I answer that iniustice maye betaken for an acte and so properly a sinne as yf a man wolde saye yt was great iniustice to putt to deathe so innocent and learned men as M. Campian was those that dyed with hym heere iniustice signifieth an iniust acte But yf you take iniustice for an habite onelye that is onelie for a procliuitie or facilicie to an iniust acte then you must learne that aswell this as all other euell habits are called by diuines vitia non peccata vices and not sinnes For that an euell habit may be in a man without sinne except by consent to yt he bringe furth an euell acte as S Augustin proueth in the habit or procliuitie to dronkennes contracted before a mans conueâ—sition and remaining after the same it is no sinne except it bring furthe some acte of dronkennes etheâ— in consent or operation And the lyke is to be sayde of all other euyll habites or inclinations whiche may remayne in the mynde without any acte and consequâ—â—lie without sinne as experience teacheth and as S. Austen also proueth in an other place For in a good man after his conuersion there may remayne euyll habites called vitia as procliuitie to lye to steale to carnall sinne or the lyke and yet are they no sinnes except they bring furthe some acte ether of consent in harte or of operation in worke So that you see how iniustice as it is an habit that is onelye an inclination or procliuitie to doe vniustlie may be in a man withoute sinne For that it is no sinne of it selfe withoute an acte as hathe bene shewed And this point perhappes you learned not before Secondlie you obiect agaynst this first member that the synne of omission is a synne as where Hely was punished for not chastising his children and the watchemen
and saye Euerye liuing creature is a man it is false Soe these vvoordes as S. Iohn vttereth them are moste true Euerie sinne is iniquitie or transgression of the lawe but as you vtter them they are false to vvitt that euery iniquitie or transgression of the lawe be it neuer so litle or done vvithout eyther consent or knoulege or by a madde man or brute beast should be properlie a mortall sinne Soe that this first blashemie of the Iesuits coÌ„meth not to be so haynouse as you vvolde make it but rather to confound your ignorance vvhich vnderstand not so cleare doctrine but hudle vp matters as M. Campian telleth you also to note your vntruthe in misreporting their vvords and the scriptures against them And of this first depend the other tvvo that folovve THE DEFENCE For couering of falshoode in this place M. Charke is constrayned to vse a falshoode or two more according to the sayeing that one lye is not maintayned but by an other things aequiualent sayeth he as for example the definition and the thing defined may be conuerted one mutuallie maye be affirmed of the other as the gospell is the povver of God to saluation And the povver of God to saluation is the gospell And therefore these two woordes also siâ—ne transgression of the lavve But I denie this consequence for transgression of the lawe is not the definition of sinne as hath bene proued nor is it equall in signification with the same but reacheth further than sinne as the former discourse sheweth And thefore it is but absurdlie brought in againe heere as a thing graunted seing thereof is all the contention Secondlie let M. Charke looke leste he be deceyued wheÌ„ he sayeth the power of God to saluation is the proper definition of the gospell seing Christ hym selfe whiche notwistandinge is not the gospell but author of the gospell is called by the same woordes in an other place DVNAMIS THEOV that is The povver of god and no doubt but to saluation as M. Charke will not denie VVherfore though it import not our matter at all yet I thinke M. Charke was somewhat grosselie ouerseene in choyse of this example After this for some countenance of his fraudulent transposition he sayeth as for the transposition lett the Apostles vvoordes be marked sayeing God is a spirit Yet the vvoordes lye thus in the greeke text a spirit is God VVherfore let not transposition seeme straunge to you No more it doeth M. Charke in common speeche and in a tongue that will beare it as the latin and greek doeth But when we measure the weight of woordes or propositions and that in oure English tongue as in our matter it falleth out traÌ„spositions are frauduleÌ„t as in the verie example whiche you alleage a spirit is God if you wolde inferre therof ergo euerie spirit is God as you inferre that euery transgression of the lavve is synne you should easilie see your owne falsehood For Angels also are spirits as the scripture sayeth and yet not Goddes And heere for my learning I wolde know of you Sir in what tongue the Apostle sayeth God is a spirit different from which you say the greek hath a spirit is God surelye M. Chark you are ouer bolde in your auouchements of the scriptâ—re For not onelie the greeke but also the latin and Syriak hathe Spiritus est deus and therfore bothe fondlie and falsely doe you attribute it as peculiar onelie to the greeke But M. Charke reserueth a sure carde for the end therewith to dashe all that hath bene sayd before and that is the sentence of S. Iohn afterward omnis iniquitas est peccatum all iniquitie or transgression sayeth he is sinne VVhich seemeth so plaine against me as he greatlie insulteth and triumpheth affirming that the victorie by this one senteÌ„ce is gotten but beleeue hym not good reader for he thinketh not so in his owne coÌ„science but well knoweth that this sentence maketh greatlie against hym thoughe he wolde deceyue thee with the bare sound and equiuocation of woordes For in the former sentence where is sayd sinne is iniquitie S. Iohn vseth for the woord iniquitie ANOMIA in greeke which signifieth any transgression or variance from the lawâ— be it great or litle as hath bene proued and as the nature of the greeke woord importeth in which sense it is most true that euerie iniquitie is not sinne as I haue shewed as S. Augustin proueth of verie purpose l. 2. cont Iul. pela c. 5. And alleageth also S. Ambrose in the same opinion as also Methodius apud Epiphanium her 64. quae est Origenis And S. Augustin proueth it in many other places besides shewing in our verie case how concupiscence is iniquitie in the regenerat but yet no sinne And this for the first place Now in the second place where the same Apostle sayeth euerye iniquitie is sinne he vseth not the same generall woorde ANOMIA VVhiche he vsed before but ADICIA which is a more speciall woorde and signifieth an iniustice or iniurie as the philosopher sheweth assigning it as the contrarie to Iustice and therfore no maruaile though this kinde of iniquitie be sinne as S. Iohn sayth yea great sinne also for of such onelie S. Iohn talketh in that place sayeing there is a sinne to death I doe not saye that any man should aske for that all iniquitie is synne c. whereby is euydent that the Apostle taketh not iniquitie in this place expressed by the woord ADICIA in the same sense wherein he tooke it before vsing the woord ANOMIA VVhiche M. Charke well knoweing sheweth hym selfe a willfull deceyuer in that he wolde delude his reader with the equiuocation of the latin translation which at other times he reiecteth withoute cause or reason Lastlie he chargeth me with alteration of the text of scripture for translating omnis qui facit peccatum euerie one that sinneth where I should haue translated sayth he euery one that doeth sinne This is a charge woorthie of M. Charke that will playe small game rather than sytt owt I praye you sir what difference is there in the two phrases your vvyfe spinneth and your vvyfe doeth spinne But you coÌ„fesse in deede there is litle holde in this and therefore freendlie you doe pardon me for it and doe conclude sayeing you think perhaps to serue the Lorde in your opinion and I knovv I serue the Lorde You are happie that haue so certaine knowlege of your good estate M. Charke though to vtter it in this place I doe not see what occasion you had But I praye you let me learne how you came to this knowlege Not by Aristotles demoÌ„strations I am sure which yett are the onelie means of certaine science properlie How then by fayth but you know that faith can assure nothing whiche is not reuealed by the woorde of God VVhat parte of gods woorde then teacheth vs that william Charke in particular serueth the Lorde
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
hiis omnibus sequitur ê™ nullum vsque in terris sit peccatum preter incredulitatem Of all this that I haue sayed enseweth that there is no sinne any where vpon the earthe besides incredulitie Now lett the world iudge wheâ—her I haue reported Luther amisse or whether M. Chark be a true maÌ„ in denyeinge the matter so absolutely with suche vehemencie as he dothe affirming that Luther nether in woordes or matter hath anye such thing VVill you beleeue hym in other things which faceth a lye so openly in this But a lacke the poore man must saye somwhat for credites sake in their broken cause The second doctrine Secondlie I reported Luther to say the tenne commaundemeÌ„ts appertaine nothing to vs VVhich verie woordes bothe M. Hanmer and M. Charke doe graunt to be in Luther Marie they make long discourses vpon his meanyng whereby it is easie to putt on a colourable defence or excuse vpon any thing But lett the reader considerâ— how these woordes doe sownd in the eares of the people especiallie being ioyned with the doctrine goeing before of onelie vnbeleefe to be sinne And albeyt it be true which M. Chark sheweth out of S. Paul that we are not vnder the ceremoniall lawe of the Iewes any longer Yet this can not verifye luthers woords that the tenne commaundements appertayne nothing to vs. No nor that which M. Hanmer alleageth out of Luther as interpreting hym selfe sayeing that the teÌ„ne coÌ„mandementes appertaine to all but not for that they vvere commaunded by Moyses but for that they are vvriten in the nature of euery man For that by this means they should no more appertaine to vs than vnto gâ—ntiles into whose nature also they were writé But S. Augustin doeth proue that the ten commaundementes doe appertayne to Christians not onely more than vnto Gentiles but also more than vnto the Iewes them selues to whoÌ„ they were prescribed by Moyses And Christ saieth talkinge of this part of the law called Morall I came not to breake the lavv but to fullfill yt And S. Paul sayeth VVe doe not desâ—roye the lavv by faithe but doe establishe the lavv therby The third doctrine Thirdlie I reported of Luther that he sayd It is a false opinion to be abolished that there are fovver gospells For the gospell of Iohn is the onelie fayre true and principall gospell This report M. Hanmer graunteth wholie M. Chark graunteth the effect of the first and cheefe vvoordes but the latter concerning S. Iohns gospell he findeth not And therevpon thinketh that Luther neuer wrote any suche preface to the new testament as I cyte and therewithall inueigheth against me as citing at large and often times bookes vvhiche are not found as that de missa angulari Also as layeing downe one title for an other and the like For answere whereof other suche cauylls of our aduersaries against vs in citing of Luthers woorkes yt is to be noted that Luther wrote not all in latin but many things in duche whiche are notwithstanding alleaged by many men in latin skillfull in the duche tougueâ— After this diuerse men translated diuerse partes of Luthers woorks gaue them titles accordinge as yt seemed good to them as may appeare by the diuerse titles alleaged here by M. Chark and me of the selfe same woorke Beside this there be diuerse prints and editioÌ„s of Luthers woorks whiche doe greatlie varie VVhereupon hathe ensewed greate quarell in Germanie betwene the roughe and the softe Lutheranes about the false and corrupt edition of Luthers vvorkes And this treatise whiche M. Charke dowteth of de Missa angulari so printed and alleaged by all learned men hitherto is now come furthe except I be deceaued in the edition of wittenberge thoghe muche altered vnder this title de Missa priuata vnctione sacerdotum Mary yet Gesnerus a Caluinist maketh mention of fyue treatises de Missa priuata whiche are not to be gotten in England as I imagin and yet it were no reason to say therfore that no suche treatises were euer writen by Luther as M. Charke dothe Further more Luther hym selfe often chaunged his owne woorkes as the same Gesner testifieth that the book whiche he wrote against kyng henrye in latin was nothinge lyke that he wrote before against the same in duche Besyde this dyuerse other did alter Luthers woorkes bothe Suinglians and lutherans euen in Luthers owne tyme therby to draw hym to theyr deuises and partes And of Suinglians Luther hym selfe complaineth greuouslie against Martin Bucer And of Lutherans it appeareth not onelie by the contention aboue named abovvt the corrupt edition of Luthers vvoorkes But also by the often altering of the confession of Augusta writen by Luther and Melancthon and accounted as a Gospell amonge the Germane protestantes yea preferred before the Epistles of S. Paul as Alasco a Caluiniste dothe write but yet many tymes altered as ye may see in Andrevv fabritius which hath putt furthe all the editions from the beginning muche differing repugning one from an other by all which appeareth that heretiques doe prepare them selues starting holes for all needes But now to the matter Albeit M. Charke and M. Hanmer doe glose vpon the woordes of Luther wolde haue hym say onelie that the fower gospels were but one gospell and the lyke yet the matter is playne to hym that is not partiall that Luther speaketh in detraction of the three former gospells for whiche cause he sayeth in the place by M. Charke alleaged you may more rightlie call the epistles of Paul a gospell than those things vvhich Mathevv Marke Luke haue vvritten VVhiche signifieth some toothe against these three gospells Now for the last point touching S. Iohns Gospell it is to be seene iÌ„ the preface by me alleaged which yf you can not finde it is not my fault For that such a preface is extant that in latin yf you will not beleeue me reade but the Index of Luthers latin woorkes in Coclaeus where you shall finde it named As also in Gesnerus one of your owne religion in the Cataloge of Luthers woorks fo 504. suae bibliothecae And in that preface you shall reade not onelie so muche as I haue affirmed but also these woordes The epistles of Paul and Peter doe farre passe the three gospells of Mathevv Mark and Luke VVhich yet more proueth Luthers euell opinion of those three gospells And immediatlie it foloweth Iacobi autem epistola prae illis straminea est The epistle of Iames is of straw in respect of those of Paul and Peter which I haue added to shew the intollerable impudeÌ„cie of you your felowes in the Tower against M. Campian for that he could not presentlie shew out of your bookes where these woordes were written by Luther especiallye of M. VVhitaker who to the admiration laughter of all other natioÌ„s hathe set foorthe in latyn that Luther neuer called the Epistle of S. Iames Stramineam
vvhat vvee vvill for it muste be vvith examination and pryuilege You are not beyonde sea as you vvolde haue vs beleeue for it is novv knovven this booke vvas vvritten in England These are fovver manifest lyes this is the Iudgement of God against you Doe not you take pittie of this poore minister that stowpeth to so miserable helpes for his releefe But this doore not seruing his turne to gett ouâ— he runneth to an other You charge the magistrates learned byshopes sayeth he as yf they vvere carelesse vvhat doctrine is deliuered vnto the people Yea marie this is to the matter for yf you caÌ„ make the state to answere for your doeings you may lye by authoritie no maÌ„ with safetie shall dare to controll youâ— I haue seene a gentleman named M. Pasye whoe had a custome that when he went after his Lorde and had played some pranke with his companions in suche sorte as he feared a blow coÌ„ming towardes hym againe he wolde steppe before his maister and say beware Sir there is one that will strike you Euen so deale you ministers in your generation with vs that are of the Catholique part VVhen you haue excited vs by demaunds offers chalenges prouocations when you haue styrred vs with lyes slaunders reproches and other iniuries yf you see any litle rebuffe draweinge towards you againe you steppe with facilitie behynde the clothe of estate putting her Maiestie her Magistrates and the whole realme betwene you and vs sayeing that we offer at them and not at you we impugne them not you whereas in dede in many things there is nether woorde nor thought that toucheth them And in the matter of religion it selfe wherein they are amisse we seeke to doe them good by discryeing of your falshoode But yet you as not able to defeÌ„d any one thing youre selues drawe them alwayes as principall to euery matter though neuer so farre of from their affaires Shall I geue an exaÌ„ple besides your selfe for you doe it almost in euery leafe M. Howlet complaynethe of theese our wicked and loose times whiche is common as you know to all that lyue in theÌ„ Doctor Fulke to scrape a litle fauour from the courte and to make the other odiouse cryeth out against hym for that he had not consideration of her Maiesties singular vertues and others of high estate vnder her VVas there euer parasite that flattered so palpablie vvhen men accuse the times must they except princes by name or else be accounted traytours what Apostle what auncieÌ„t father dyd euer so but we pardone your necessitie extreme pouertie dryueth you to these shyfts whiche I thought good once to note to the reader that I may not trouble my selfe with them in euery place where they are vsed The third hole where at this afflicted byrde seeketh to wring out is by layeing all his lyes vpon one Goâ—visus from whome as he sayeth he tooke these reportes against the Iesuits adding notwithstanding for preuenting of after clappes that he promised not to myngle no sillables of his owne nor to delyuer the scripture in precise wordes as it lyethe but rather as he sayeth in full weight of true sense and matter And thervpon he maketh a solemne protestation of his true dealing But I will shew and proue notwithstanding this hypocrisie that admitting this libertie whiche M. Charke requireth of chopping and chaunging in his reportes yet that he is a false man and malitiouslie meant to deceyue in the same And yf I proue not this let me be taken for false my selfe And I doe moste willinglie stand to my offer made before which M. Charke taketh holde of that yf these reportes as they are here layde downe and denyed by vs can be verified eyther in woordes or true sense against the Iesuits lett all be beleued which they speake dayly against vs. And that you may take some foresight of M. Charks vntrue meanyng euen now at the begynning his falshoode appeareth first in that he citing his reports owt of an other maÌ„ against the Iesuits without seing their book as he sayeth dyd not in all the whole discourse so muche as once name or quote his author Gotvisus eyther in text or Margent the cause whereof shall appeare after And albeit he now sayeth that Gotvisus was quoted in most of his bookes yet I dare scarse beleeue hym for that I coulde neuer yet happen vpoÌ„ any that had hym quoted And yf some had it whye not all Secondlie he had seene the most of these reportes set downe by keÌ„nitius against the Iesuits from whome it seemeth that Gotuisus borowed them and refuted by Payuas a learned Portugall and conuinced of so manyfest forgerie falshoode as kemnitius to my knoulege durst neuer to defend them agayne nor anie other for hym How then coulde M. Charke without shameles false meanyng laye downe the verye same reportes againe without namyng his authour or seing the booke wheÌ„ce they were cited especially hauing besides many other Canisius a Iesuit before his eyes in England whiche teacheth the verie contrarie as after shall be shewed Thyrdlie his author Gotuisus in the moste of these reportes citeth not onelye the Censure of Colen but also the large Catechisme of Canisius for his proofe whiche was common in England to be seene and wherby M. Charke muste nedes know that Gotuisus slaundered the Iesuits most impudentlie For couering whereof M. Chark not onelie suppressed the quotation of Canisius and cited onelye the Censure of Colen whiche he knewe was not to be had in England but also supressed his cheefe Author Gotuisus hym selfe which no writer vseth in suche matters of importaÌ„ce to the end the reader might not by hym learne out the quotations of Canisius and thereby discouer the falshoode And this was the true cause of the omission of Gotuisus his name And is not this moste willfull treacherie Lastely M. Charke as not contented with this doeth help out often tymes the reportes of Gotuisus being but short and breef sentences with new falsifications of his owne or with fraudulent recitall when they seeme not of them selues to sounde absurdlie enough against the Iesuits And can this be excused froÌ„ malitiouse and false meanyng Now theÌ„ let vs see whether these things be so in deede or no. Of the nature and definition of sinne THE CENSVRE First therfore you report the Iesuits to saye It is not sinne what soeuer is against the woordâ— of God Censura Colon. leafe 44. 1. These voordes are guylefullie reported peeced and culled out for your purpose of a large discourse and yet most true in their sense The occasion vvhereof vvas this One Monhemius a Lutheran against vvhose Catechisme this Censure of Colen vvas made vvolde nedes proue Concupiscence remayning after baptisme to be a mortall sinne albeit no consent of hart vvere gyuen vnto the same for proofe therof he brought in this definition of sinne Sinne is what soeuer repugneth to the lawe of
a-right but yow will saye perhappes Your spirit within you telleth you soe And my spirit M. Charke telleth me the contrarie One of them must needes be a lyeing spirit and whie not yours as well as myne These are fansies gentle syr william proper to hereticall braynes to assure them selues such knowlege aboue other men Luther sayde many yeres after he was a protestant ego credo fortiter imo ausim dicere scio purgatorium esse I beleeue stowtelie yea I dare auowe that I know there is a purgatorie Yet he denied it after Martin Bucer wheÌ„ he was a Zuinglian knew as he sayd that doctrine to be deliuered from heauen but yet afterward comming backe to be a Lutheran he protested openlie that he knew it was moste false And againe returninge to be a Zuinglian he knew it was true againe and the other false and yet all this while certaine knowlege can not be false Yf a man should aske all the sectaries now lyuing they wold say the same that you doe of theyr certaine knowlege VVherefore me think you might haue spared these woordes of your certayne knovvlege whiche nether helpe your cause nor hurt ours any further than the credit reacheth of your owne bare woorde that also in your owne commendation Of concupiscence Art 2. THE CENSVRE 2. Secondlie you report the Iesuits to say ConcupisceÌ„ce remayning in the regenerate although it be against the lawe of God yet is it not sinne properlye in it selfe or of his owne nature Cens. fo 38. 1 you vvill needes helpe the Iesuits out vvithe that vvhiche maketh for your purpose VVhere fynde you in them the vvordes Although it be against the lawe of God They saye that albeit this concupiscence doe sturre or moue a man sometimes to doe things vvhiche are repugnant to the lavve of God yet yf no consent of harte be yeelded vnto it it reacheth not to the nature of a mortall sinne vvorthie of eternall daÌ„nation 2. And albeit S. Paul doe sometimes call it sinne yet meaneth he not properlie but by a figure vvhereby the name of the cause is ofâ—entimes attributed to the effect 3. as the latin speeche is called the latin tongue because speeche is the effect of the tongue So concupiscence being the effect of original sinne is called sometymes synne but not properlie but onelie figuratiuelie as also S. Paul calleth 4. Christ hym selfe Sinne because he vvas the sacrifice for sinne And all this is S. AusteÌ„s note vvhose plaine vvordes in the same place are ConcupisceÌ„ce is not sinne in the regenerate yf consent be not yeelded vnto her for the accomplishing of vâ—lawâ—â—ll woorkes The same teacheth not onelye S. Augustine in diuerse other places but also all other fathers of the primatiue church as Nazianzenus orat de S. Lauacro Pacianus orat de bap Clemens Alexandrinus li. 1. pedag c. 6 Ciprian ser. de lot pedum li. 2. ep 2. Ambr. li. 1. de vocat gentium cap. 5. Soe that all these good fathers are partakers vvith the Iesuits of this blasphemie vvhiche you ensorce vpon them But hovv doe you proue it to be blasphemiâ—â— Marie because Christ sayeth whoe soeuer shall see a woman to lust after her he hath alredie committed adulterie with her in his harte But are you so ignorant M. Charke Doe you not see that Christ by adding the vvoordes in his hart meaneth onelie of hym vvhich geueth consent of hart to his lust and concupiscence and vvolde put it in execution yf he had time and place and abilitie but this is your common alleaging of Scripture THE DEFENCE The charge of helpinge owt the Iesuits doctrine with these woordes although it be against the lavve of God he layeth vpon Gotuisus But I accept not this excuse For he might haue seene in Canisius pag 184. 73â— which Gotuisus citeth also for the same as well as the Ceâ—sure of Coleâ— and whiche M. Charke confesseth to haue reade that Gotuisus belyed the Iesuits in his reporte for that there is no suche thinge in the places alleaged of Canisius as by reading any man may see VVhichâ— declareth euidentlie that yow haue no playne meanyng but a secret intention to deceyue As also when you assure your reader that I denyeing concupiscence to be a mortall sinne according to the question betwene Monhemius and the Iesuits doe thereby graunt vnder-hand that it is some kinde of sinne VVhich was no more meant by me than you denyeing before Martin Luthers mariage to be sacrilege dyd meane thereby to graunt vnder-hand that it was adulterie fornication or any other lesser sinne of the fleshe The exposition of S. Pauls woordes callinge concupiscence improperlie sinne quia peccato facta est because it was wrought in vs by originall sinne as S. Augustin sayeth M. Charke reiecteth calling it a wraÌ„gling exposition though it be the exposition of the primatiue churche and so recorded by S. Augustin in many places of his woorkes as lib. 1. de nuptio concup ca. 23. li. 1. contr 2. ep pelag c. 13 lib. 1. retract c. 15. li. 2. cont Iul. c. 13. and li. 6. c. 11. All whiche M. Charke as better learned in S. Paul than Austen all the fathers of that time contemneth as easilie as yf it were the exposition of some vnlearned boye and beginneth hym selfe like a doctor to discourse a-new vpon S. Pauls meaning mary as it commonlie falleth out to suche malapert marchants he is no sooner in but he is ouer the eares in absurdities For his discourse is this S. Paul proueth sayethe he that though the lavve sturreth vs to synne yet is it no synne VVell this maketh for vs. For soe we may reason that though concupiscence doe sturre vs to sinne yet is it no sinne But what inferreth he therfore sayeth he yf the lavve vvhâ—che is holie doe come in question notvvithstanding of synne for that it prouoketh our corrupt nature to synne hovv muche more concupiscence vvhich is vncleane in it selfe This proueth nothing M. Charke but from the place a disparatis where commonlie children and distracted men take their arguments For how holdeth this yf the lawe for sturring to sinne be called in question of sinne and be no sinne then concupiscence for sturring to sinne must be called in question of sinne and be sinne in deede but he will saye perhappes the force of the argument standeth in the woordes holie vncleane in this order yf the lawe being holie be called in question of sinne what shall we saye of concupiscence which is vncleane and what more can you say M. Charke than to call it in questioÌ„ of sinne that somewhat more than the lawe is called in question which is bothe pure and holie and no wayes ether vncleane or euill or the effect of sinne as we graunt concupiscence is and yet for all this not properlie sinne without consent of hart as S. Augustin in the places alleaged proueth
And this now of consequent supposinge the Antecedent were true as it is moste false For who will graunt those absurd impious propositions The lavve sturreth vs to sinne the lavve prouoketh our corrupt nature to sinne S. Paul sayeth I had not knowne sinne but by the lawe but he neuer sayeth that the lawe sturred hym vpp to sinne but onelie that it discouereth sinne vnto hym euen as the looking glasse discouereth the spotte in a-mans face and maketh vs to see it whiche we did not before but yet procureth not that spotte And S. Paul gyueth an example sayeing I had not knovvne concupiscence yf the lavve had not sayd thovv shalt not couet In whiche woordes that he meaneth of voluntarie coÌ„cupiscence that is whereto ether consent or delectation is yeelded S. Augustin besides the places alleaged testifieth li. 1. de nup. concup c. 29. li. de spiritu litera cap. vlt. li. 19. con Faustum c. 7. cont 2. ep petil li. 3. c. 7. And it is moste woorthie of laughter which M. Charke for filling vp a page discourseth of S. Pauls estate sayeing Paule coÌ„pareth his staâ—e before his knovvlege of the tenth coÌ„maundemeÌ„t vvith his state aftervvard He knevv other synnes before by the light of nature but he knevv not coÌ„cupisceÌ„ce till he knevv the teÌ„th coÌ„maundemeÌ„t I praye you Sir what was S. Pauls state before his knowlege of the tenth commaundement was not S. Paul borne a Iewe brought vp from his youth in the law at the feet of Gamaliel how then coulde he be ignoraÌ„t in â—he tenth coÌ„maundemeÌ„t and yet be hable to discerne other sinnes by the light of naturall reason doe you thincke vppon your woordes before you send them to the print S. Augustins example of the latin tongue M. Chark reiecteth for that the tongue is not suche a cause of the speche as originall sinne is of concupiscence But what a reason is this to reproue so learned a man as S. Augustin was for vvhoe knovveth not as I haue shewed before that comparisoÌ„s or similitudes are not of necessitie to holde in euerye pointe but in that onelie wherein they are compared Though then the tongue be onelie the instrumeÌ„tall cause of speeche originall sinne the formall cause of concupiscence yet is it sufficieÌ„t to shevve that effects may take vppon them oftentimes the name of their causes and consequentlie asvvell concupiscence the name of sinne as the tongue the name of speeche Nether is it necessarie as M. Chark reasoneth that euery effect of originall synne should be synne in the regenerate For that all our penalties as hungar thirst sicknesse the like are effectes of originall sinne in vs but yet not sinnes in them selues as nether coÌ„cupiscence in the baptized vvhose guylt is vtterlie taken avvay by baptisme as S. Ambrose and S. Augustin doe proue To like effect is alleaged by the Censure the exaÌ„ple of Christ called sinne in the scripture not for that Christ and concupiscence are like effectes of sinne as M. Charke quareleth but to shevve that a thinge may be called sinne by the scripture figuratiuelie and yet be no sinne properlie albeit yf vve consider Christ as he vvas hostia pro peccato a sacrifice for our sinne in vvhich seÌ„se onelie S. Paul calleth him sinne No maÌ„ can denie but Christ so considered vvas a certayne effect of our sinnes also that is Christ crucified or the crucifieinge of Christ vvas a certayne effect of our sinnes for that our sinne vvas the cause of that deathe and sacrifice And vvhere you controll my quotation of the â— to the Romanes as though there vvere no suche thing in that place doe you reade but the third verse and confesse your ouersight And yf you will not beleeue the text reade Origen and S. Augustin and they will tell you the cause whie he is called sinne by S. Paul in that place But nowe for the auncient fathers alleaged in the Censure as partakers of the Iesuits blasphemie I maruaille M. Charke vouchesafeth to examine them sâ—ing in other places he contemneth vtterlie their authorities calling them my breade zovvle of fathers Mary here belike he hathe gotten some sleyght to shyft them of or at leastwise some part of theÌ„ For as for S. CypriaÌ„ and Pacian he passeth ouer without sayeing any woord vnto them To S. Ambrose and Clemens AlexaÌ„drinus he answereth that they haue no suche thynges in the places alleaged whiche is somewhat worse than passing ouer for it is a flatt vntruethe seing in those places as the reader may see by conference they proue all sinne to be taken awaye in the regenerate by baptisme and the sowle left pure cleane as the light it selfe whiche can not stande yf concupiscence remayning be a fowle sinne as M. Charke affirmeth but he addeth that Clemens in an other place hathe some what against vs to witt that hy conâ—npiscence onelie a man coÌ„mitteth adulterie whiche is true yf a man gyue consent therunto as appeareth by Christ Math. 5. But the first motions onelie without any consent or delectation in them I maruaile M. Charke is not ashamed to call adulterie seing Clemens in the same place exhorteth the gentiles to resist these motions of concupiscence and not to yeelde vnto them and so to auoyde adulterie whiche he wolde not haue done yf these very first motions theÌ„ selues which are inauoydable were adulterie without yeelding any consent vnto them To Gregorie Nazianzen alleaged in orat de S. Iauacro he answereth that Nazianzen neuer vvrote any such oratioÌ„ as I dreame of But if he dreamed not yet I thinke at least he was halfe a sleepe wheÌ„ he wrote this ether vnderstoode not the books name being writteÌ„ somewhat short whiche were too badde in so greate â— diuine or else neuer sawe NazianzeÌ„s woorkes which were worse or else not able to answere the place wold shyft it of with suche a sleyght which were worst of all That which he hathe for shyfting of S. Austen I vnderstande not his woordes are these lett the reader skanne them you vvere deceyued sayeth he in citing Augustin tvvyse as hauyng vvriten but one booke de nuptiis concupiscentia Heere yf he meane that S. Austen hathe written but one booke de nupt concup and that I was deceyued in citing hym twyse as hauing written two bookes then is S. Austen hym selfe against hym whoe sayeth in his second booke of Retractations that he had written two bookes de nuptiis concupiscentia But yf M. Chark meane that I thynke S. Austen to haue wrytten but one booke de nupt concup and so doe erre in citing hym he is deceyued For I cite hym thus in the Censure li. 1. de nupt concup whiche signifieth the first booke and no man citeth a first booke which thynketh not that there is a secoÌ„d Vherfore this fond charge eyther tasteth of ignorance or of greate desire to quarrell VVill you stand to it that S.
miserie as it alwayes appeareth when it coÌ„methe to examination And this shall suffice for this sixt article HEERE the Authour vvas interrupted by a VVritte de remouendo so as he could not for this present passe on any further as more at large is shewed at the beginning in an epistle to M. Charke A BREEFE TABLE OF THE PRINCIPALL matters contayned in the defence of the Censure THe foly and badd dealyng of Hanmer pag. 3.4.5.6 How to discerne a cleane spirit from an vncleane page 11 12.13â— The ordinarie fashion of heretiques in raylyng as appeareth by Fulke Chark Hanmer page 11.13.14.15 33.34.35.36.38.158.159 And as appeareth by Caluin page 15. And by Luthers raylyng speache against kyng Henry the eight page 15.16 17. And against Caluinistes page 17.18 VVhat a secte and sectarie is and hovv it may differe or agree with heresie page 19.21.22.26 The Iesuites are no sect page 19. The pharises a secte page â—4 Charkes absurde ouersyght in definynge a secte page 25. Religious men odius to heretiques pag. 30.31.32.33 The religious vocation consisteth in three vowes pa. 38 The monkes of olde tyme made vowes page 36. The religious state of these tymes and of the primatiue churche all one insubstance page 38. Elias Helizeus and S. Iohn Baptist paternes of religious men page 19.20.21 S. Augustin a religious man page 38. Austeritie of life and voluntarie pouertie practized by auncient fathers and by Christ hym selfe page 27.39 Mariage of votaries is worse than adulterie page 37. 43 44â—50 Luther for feare entered into Religion page 49. His horrible doctrine and impietie page 45. 51. and so forthe to the 66. page Hys bodilie conference with the deuill page 68.69 Hys dronken deathe page 66.70.71 The dissention of protestantes 74.75.76.77.92.93 Iohn Caluin his falling into heresie pag. 78. His burning in the shoulder for Sodomye page 78. His ambition and vainglorie page 81.82 His maner in raysing of the deade page 82. His casting owt of a deuyll page 83. His lasciuious lyfe and dayntynes page 84. Hys horrible siknes and deathe page 89. Beza his wicked disposition Simonie and lasciuiousnes pag 86â—87 88.89 The six reformers of religion what kynde of men they were page 90.91.92 Bucer his inconstancie and deathe 92.93 M. Chark caÌ„ not be certaine of his good estate pag. 112. Luthers absurd doctrine that a woman is as necessarye for man as meate drynke and sleepe page 63. The definition of synne pag 101. c. to 109. page Not onelie incredulitie is sinne against Luthers doctrine pag 51. Synne is a reasonable action pag. 104. Synne is voluntarie page 105. Madde men and vnreasonable creatures can not sinne pag 108. Concupiscence is not properlie a sinne in the regenerate pag 116.117 c. M. Charks maruailous impudencie in translating S. Austen page 121. It is the opinion not of Catholiques but of Caluin that God is the author of euill page 124. The first motions how they are no synne pag. 125. 126. The true diuision of the tenne commaundementes pag. 132.133 Traditions of equall force with the written woord pag. 159 160. Tradition is called an vnwritten law page 160. Fulks impudencie in discrediting 8. auncient fathers and all antiquitie page 158. 159. The sufficiencie of scripture page 149. M. Charks three fond reasons concerning the sufficiencie of scripture page 151.152 How hereticall wrestinge of scripture is compared to a Nose of waxe page 66. The faultes correcte thus Pag. 10. lin 25. for embreued Reade imbrued Pag. 11. lin 9. for oder Reade order Pag. 12. in the margent for Act. 6. Reade Act. 8. Pag. 16. in the margent for Fol. 442. Reade Fol. 342. Pag. 17. lin 13. for Angelicam Reade Anglicam Pag. 18. lin 16. for Caluinistes vvhoe say theyr maisters doe call Reade Caluinistâ— vvho are theyr maisters doe call Pag. 29. lin 26. for your Reade you Pag. 29. lin vlt. for men Reade man Pag. 32. lin 15. for Nounes Reade Nonnes Pag. 33. in the margent Reade Pag. 96. 98. Pag. 40. lin 36. for Loyalas Reade Loyolas Pag. 47. lin 19. for Praeolus Reade Prateolus Pag. 61. in the margent for ingenius Reade ingenuus Pag. 64. in the margent Reade concil const act 4. can 2. conci Nic. 2. act 1. can 2. Pag. 69. lin vlt. for actibus Reade ictibus Pag. 74. in the margeÌ„t for pag. 17. 19. Reade 17. 18. Pag. 9â— lin 6. for Burtin Reade Bursin Pag. 102. in the margent for cap. 14. Reade lib. 14. Pag. 103. in the margent for de vnct Reade de virt Pag. 138. lin 2. for Niphlet Reade Niphleth Pag. 143. lin 38. for yeares Reade dayes See this handled at large aftervvard in the defence pag. 56. 57. See of this after pag. 120. Vide postea Arâ— â— See aftervvarde in the defence pag. 2. 1. Iohn 4. VVhiche parte more desirethe triall of spirites VVho doe offer best meanes of tryall Onely scripture Li. 2. de nu concup ca. 31. li. 3. cont don cap. 15. Three causes of appealinge onelie to scripture De captiui Babilon in initio Cap. de Sacram In aeditio vlt. loc coÌ„ In institut Com. in Amos. Vide Ench. Eck. Luth cont latom de incendiariis D. Fulk against Bris. mot pa. 98 Artic. 28. cont louaÌ„ toÌ„ 2. vvitteÌ„b â—o 503. AgaiÌ„st Br. mot pa. 82. In his defence of his ansvvere to the admoninition The advaÌ„tage that heretiques haue by onely scripâ—ure 1. Iohn 4. 1. Iohn 4. Diuersitâ—e of inteâ—pretations Tom. 7. vvittemb Fol. 414. M. Charks grace iÌ„ interpretinge scriptures Theyr mysteries are the ouerthrovv of all gouernors as M. VVhiâ—g proueth against M. Cartvâ— Tovvâ—hâ—ng the masse Heb. 7. 9. Dan. 12. Malac. 1. In declarâ— Anath 11. Auâ— 20. coÌ„ faust c. 21. Naz. oraâ— 1. in IuliaÌ„ Hom. 17. In ca 8 ep ad Hebr. Ep. 23. ad Bonif. The aduersarie admitteth no triall Math. 19. 1. Cor. 7. Lib. de votis Monast. in initio Of S. Iohn Baptist. Lu. 1. 3. Math. 3. Marc. 1. Cent. 5 c. 6. pag. 711. a Sarcer in ca. 1. Lu. mag Cent. 1 li. 1. ca. 20. (b) Mariorat in ca. 3. Math. Cytraeits in ca. 3. Math. COSMIOS EVPORISTOS c Ma. Câ—Ì„ 1. l. 1. c. 4. et 6 In cap. 1. Math. In cap. 1. Marc. Mat. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. a Lib. 4. de sacram c. 5 b Catach 4 c Li. 4. in Io. cap. 13. In Ancorano Ho. 83. in Math. 60. ad pop Antioch Hom. 24. in epist. ad Cor. In confess breui tom 2. germ fol. 257. Claud de San. l. 1. rep 1. de Euch. The letter beginneth thus Charissimis in Christo ami cis Christianis Argentinae This vvas an honest man in the meane space vvhiche laboured to peruert this sacrament thereby to hurt the pope Luthers latin vvoords are ex capi â—e vertiginoso confictis Epis. a. I0 harâ—agium Tipographum ArgentinenseÌ„ cuius etiam mentionem vide apud Biblioth Gesneri fo 501. * Mat. 26. *
7. Ver. 12.14 VVeake resonynge Rom. 7. Exo. 20. 2. Cor. 11. Phil. 3. Act. 22. 3 Au. li 1. de nup. coÌ„ cup. c. 23. Aâ—b ser. 27. Au. li. 2. de pecca merit c. 27. 28. Orig. in huÌ„c locum Augu li. 3. cont 2. â—p peâ—ag c. 6. Ambr. li. 1 de voc geÌ„t ca. 5. Clem. Aâ—e li. pedag c. 6. Clemens Ale exho ad gentes pag. 38. Cap. 53. Aug. li. 1. de nup. câ—cu c. 23. Li. 1. de nu coâ—cup c. 23. 25. Cap. 25. Li. 11. de peccat meriâ— remiss ca. 4. Great impudencie Rom. 7. ca. 23. li. 1. de nup. concup Hovv S. Paul called concupisceÌ„ce synne improperlye Li. 6. c. 11. Li. 5. c. 3. An example Lib. 2. cont Iulian circa finem Math. 6. Veniall mortall sinne Vide Au. li. 1. cont 2. ep pelag c. 13. li. 2. de pecc merit c. 28. Sâ—rm 6. de verb. apost lib. 1. de ciui c. 25 In expos prop. ex ep ad Rom. propâ—sitione 17. 45. 47. com ad Gal. c. 5. de pecca orig c. 39. coÌ„ 3. in psal 118 alibi Math. 5. Math. 15. Marck 7. PROS TO EPIDVMESAI AVTEN Au. li. 1. de serm domi in monte ca. 23. Iacob 1. v. 14. 15. â— Li. 1. iust 8.17 18. Li. 2. inst ap 4. In com li. reg ca. 2. Aug. li. 6. cont Iul. cap. 5. The third Article Exo. 20. Deut. 30. Li. 1. de nu concup ca. 23. Ecc. 18. Li. 2. cont Iul. circa finem Li. 2. de gra pec orig c. 40. Ep. 200. ad Asell * This kinde of speeche is called implicatio in adiecto Fyrst motions voluntarie sometimes An euideÌ„t example Deceytful auoydinge of similitudes Greatâ— surdities ConcupisceÌ„ce in vvhat place it is Gal. 5. Rom. 7 The sensatiue parteâ— of maÌ„ more corrupted than the reasonable Rom. 7. Sap. 9. Rom. 7. Vide Au. in psa 145 li. 14. de ciuit c. 19. Necessarie actions of lyfe and seÌ„se corrupted by originall synne De eccles dogm c. 38. Ge. 6. 8. Deut. 6. Matth. 22. Au. de spi. lit c. vâ— li. 1. de do Christ. c. 2. li. de nat gra 69. li. 2. de pec merit c. 6. Catholikes doe represse lustes anâ— not the protestants Protestants doctrine Catholique doctrine of lustes Exo. 20. Li. de nup. concup cap. 23. Eccle. 18. Abovvt the number and order of the commaundemeÌ„tes Deut. 5. Quaest. 71. in exod concione 1. in psa 32. The reasoÌ„s vvhy coÌ„cupiscence of the fleshe and concupiscence of temporall goods make tvvo commaundementes 1. Iohn 2. A doubt resolued 1. Ioh. 2. a Li. 3. ant ca. 6. 8. B Li. de decalog c Li. 2. cont haereses ca. 42. a Ho. 8. in Exod. B in ca. 20. Exod. c Li. 6. StroÌ„ d in ca. 26. Leuit. e in cap. 6. eph f in ca. 10. Ose. An. quâ—st 71. in exo alibi su citat VVhether Catholikes leaue ovvt the second commaundement against Idoles Hovv one generall sinne may belong to tvvo commaundemeÌ„â—es that is the consent of hart to one the exâ—ernall vvoorke to an other Exod. 20. Deut. 30. VVhether all motioÌ„s of lust may be extinguished by mortification VVhether the coÌ„maundemeÌ„tes of God be impossible or no. The lavve and commaundemeÌ„tes are not aboue vs. Aug. li. de nat gra cap. 69. Math. 11. 1. Ioh. 5. Li. de nat gr c. 69 Ser. 191. de tempore All things not expressed in scriptures Things beleeued vvhiche are not in scripture Colos. 4. A simple euasion Payu in orthodox explicat In opere ca tech. Canisii fol. 126. 160.161 162. An euideÌ„t example Luc. 10. Ioh. 14. Math. 18. 1. Tim. 3. The true state of the question Of thinges not expressed in scripture Tvvo natures tvvo vvilles in Christ. Rom 1. 34 Math. 26. Syn. 6. Act. 4. Proceeding of the holy ghost Ioh. 15.26 Ciril in ca. 15. Ioh. Athan. in symb The vnion of the vvoorde Ioh. 1. v. 14 Baptizinge of infantes Ge. 17. 12. Câ—aud de Sainctes in Apol. aduers Beza Chaunge of the Sabbothe day Apo. 1. 10. Of the knovveinge of scripture Ho. in Luc. Orig. ho. 1. in Luc. Epiph. li. 1. cont heres hebion li. 1. hae 46. Au. li. 28. cont faust cap. 2. The maner hovv God the father begat hys sonne Ioh. 1. 1. Rom. 9. 5. That Chrâ—st is the sonne of God Protestâ—Ì„ts lordes of scriptures to make theÌ„ say vvhat they lyst Against the motiues pa. 98. Lege Lutherum coÌ„tra Latomum de Incendiariis Hereticall audacitie a In prâ—em lib. de prin b ad praxeam c ep 61. ad paÌ„ d in exp simb e ep 81. ad Syr. f ser. 181. de tem g Li. 5. hist. cap. 22. Sozom. li. 7 Ierom. cont Heluid Amb. ep 81. 79. Aug. in Enchir. cap. 34. Col. 4.16 a in c. 4. ad coll b in catalog scrip in ver Paulus c li. 5. contra Marcion d in Catal. haer c. 89. e li. 1. cont haer ObiectioÌ„ 2. Tim. 3. Profitable Necesâ—arie Part of scripture loste 1. Tim. 4. a Com. in hunc locuÌ„ b ibidem c de morib Eccles. li. 1. cap. 33. Pietie meriteth in all actions 2. Tim. 3. Luâ— 21. The true state of the controuersie abovvt the sufficiencie of scripture Epiph in haer 61. Addinge to scripture Deut. â— Non addetis ad verbum c. Deut. 8. Gotuis ca. 1. antith 2. Canis in opere Cate. fol. 162. * Greate iniquitie to adde one veritie to an other or to beleeue tvvo verities together Apoc. 22. â—n exami â—oncil trid â—ag â—01 a Li. 10. de gen ad lit cap. 23. b in c. 6. ep ad Rom. c Ep. 54. ad marcellam d Her 75. e de Eccles. hier cap. 7. f de coronae milit g Li. de spi. S. cap. 27. Against Martiall pag. 170. Ibidem pa. 178. Ibidem pa. 178. Against Bristoes motiues pa. 35 Against D. Allen For prayer 303. Ibidem pa. 362. 363. A provvd question Against Br. motyues pag. 36. Li. de spi. S. cap. 27. Traditions of equall force vvith the vvriten vvoord Li. 1. demoÌ„ Euang. c. 8. Heresi 61. 1. Cor. 11. 14.15 Hom. 4. in ca. 2. ep ad Thess. 2. Thess. 2. Diuers apostolical traditions in particular S. Austens testimonie for diuers particular traditions The scripture may be vvrested to an euill sense Nu. 21. Ioh. 3. Math. 25. Psal. 18. Payâ— Andrad orth expl lib. 2. pag. 104. pag. 102. 103. Shameles dealing of M. Charke Gotuisus in Antithetis pag. 216. A ridiculous euasioÌ„ 2. Pet. 3 It is no fault of scripture that heretiques abuse it Rom. 9. In ca. 1. ep ad Gal. In verba ps 10. ecce peccat c. Iren. lib. 1. cont haer cap. 1. Naz. ad Nicob Tertull. de praescrip Lyrin contra haereses Luthers testimonie In postilla conc 2. in dom 8. post trinitatem Vide sixt sent li. 7. biblio Against purg pag. 209. Against M. CampiaÌ„ pa. 18. The Iesuits most reuerent speeche of holie scripture In prefat ad lectoreÌ„ iÌ„ li. de corruptelis verbi dei pro Io. Ba. Psal. 18. v. 7. 2. Pet. 3. The olde latin traÌ„slation Ierom. ep 102. in fine catalo Augu. ep 10. ad hieron Praefat. in Nouum tes an 1556. AMOMOS TAMAM or TAM Abouvt the traÌ„slation of immaculata An. 1549