I would you might be féede cuē for the sauing of your credit M. Charke to alege one place without corruption Doe you translate Lex domini immaculata The Lawe of the Lorde is perfecte in sense soe that it maye not be wrested to a wronge interpretation This is maruelous Immaculata signisieth in these countryes vnspotted voyde of filthe or dishonestye wherewith prophane wrytings are often times defiled But the Law of God is deuoyde of all such thinges and therefore conuerteth soules wheras other wrytinges doe often times corrupt them But that Immaculata can not be translated perfecte in sense it is euidente by this that euerye sillable and worde in God his Lawe is vnspotted but yet not perfecte in sense and much lesse so cleare as it may not be peruerted to an euil meaning wherby your fraudulente translation is discouered 7. You reporte the Iesuites to saye The readinge of the Scripture is not onely not profitable but manye wayes verye hurtefull to the Churche Fol. 21. Did you thinke M. Charke when you wrote this that anye of these bookes whose leaues you cite were to be had or séene in Englande I thinke noe or els you are at a poynte to make none accounte what you speake hereafter The Iesuites haue not this which you reporte here in their names But onely they laye doune certayne wayghtye reasons whye the readynge of Scripture is not rashelye and without verye greate consideration to to be permitted to the rude and ignorant people which vnderstande it not and therfore maye easely misconceaue the meaning therof shewing also that al heresies from the beginning haue bene founded vpon the misunderstanding of the Scripture and yet this without al faulte of the woorde of God but by the ignorance or malyce of the misconsterer As in like manner al sinnes arise by the misuse of the creatures of God which creatures notwithstandinge are good in their owne natures as the Apostle teacheth and Christ him selfe is sayde to be an occasion of ruine vnto some and yet without any faulte of his This is the Iesuites doctrine the contrarie wherof I would sée nowe how M. Charke according to his promise will proue out of the cléere woord of God Mary saythe he Christe delyuerethe a contrarie note Math. 22. Yee erre not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God whereof he would inferre that all men must read the Scriptures A stronge argumente the circumstances considered for first the men to whome Christe spake these woordes were noe ignorante people but learned Saduces which came prepared to pose Christe about the resurrection This appeareth by the subtile question which they put for the of seuen brethren which had alone wife groūded vppon the lawe of Moyses wherby they thought to ouerthrow the doctrine of resurrection But Christe hauing heard their question toulde them that they erred not vnderstanding the Scriptures touching that poynte of resurrection which Scriptures he interpreted to them presentlye out of the iij. chapter of Exodus Also he sayde they erred not vnderstanding the power of God wherby he is able to rayse againe the selfe same bodye in nomber whiche is dead though it be vnpossible as it is in all natural reason Soe that Christ spake not here to vnlearned men nor of all Scriptures nor of readinge but of vnderstanding What maketh therfore this to your purpose M. Charke forsoothe as much as if you should reason thus my Lorde Chaunceller sayd to certayne Doctors of the Arches pleading a case vnskilfully before him you erre not vnderstandinge the common lawe in this case nor the Princesse anthoritie Ergo by these woordes he meanethe that al the clownes of Englande shall fall to readinge of the common lawe albeit they vnderstand neuer a woorde therof 8. You reporte the Iesuites to saye That the rightuous mā lyueth by faith ne hath it not in Christ but by his own woorkes fol. 118. You wearye me out with your impudent lyes there is noe suche thinge what should I aunswere you and yet as though they had sayde it you bringe in a place of S. Paule against the same sayinge If rightuousnes come by our woorkes it is not now grace As thoughe noe mans woorkes coulde be rightuous in this lyfe whiche is bothe from the purpose and false For we denye not but the firste and chéefe rightuousnes wherof Saint Paule speakethe in this place that is wherby a man is called first from sinne or infidelitye to the seruice of Christe his sinnes forgeuen him and he iustified by the infusion of grace this rightuousnes I saye is onlye of Gods merrye and noe waye of our woorkes or by anye merite of the same But yet notwithstandinge after we are nowe made iuste and by the mercye of God placed once in state of grace the good woorkes which ensue of this grace may be rightuous and meritorious not of themselues or of their owne natures as you wickedly affirme vs to hould but thorough the dignitye of that grace of Christe whiche remaynethe in the doers The whiche grace beinge once loste their good déedes are noe more rightuous or merytorious The which true doctrine of ours you will not vnderstand but alwayes of malyce report it contrarye as also you doe shamfully this place of S. Paule to make it serue your purpose For S. Paule saythe that Gods election wherby he chooseth men to be Christians is of grace onlye and not by merite of woorkes and you drawe it generallye against the rightuousnes of al good woorkes And because it would not streche soe farre you haue added vnto it of your owne these woordes If rightuousnes come by our c. which woordes are not in S. Paule 9. You reporte the Iesuites to saye Men doe surely hope that euerlastinge lyfe shall be geuen them but they doe not beleue it now hope often fayleth otherwise it were no hope Cens. 118. For confutation of which doctrine you aleage out of S. Paule Hope is the sure anchor of the soule And againe Hope maketh not ashamed In the which you shew your selfe vnlearned huddlinge vp and confoundinge faythe and hope as one thinge the whiche S. Paule 1 Cor. 13 dothe affirme to be distincte thinges The Iesuites doctrine if you vnderstoode it is true learned and cléere to wit that noe man with out a speciall reuelation from God as the Apostles had from Christ when he sayde that their names were written in the booke of lyfe maye beléeue that he in particuler shalbe saued albeit he maye well hope it And the reason of this is for that the only obiect of faythe is the woorde of God reueled vnto vs ether by writing or by tradition that is as much to saye as noe man maye beléeue or haue faythe in anye thinge excepte it be reuealed vnto him by the woorde of God Wherof it foloweth that whatsoeuer a man beléeueth must be soe certayne necessarie and infallablye true as it cannot possiblye be
God the Father begat his Sonne onlye by vnderstanding him selfe That infantes without reason should be baptised That the common Créede was made by the Apostles The celebration of the Sondaye in stead of the satterdaye The celebration of Easter onlye vppon a Sonday The foure Gospels which we vse to be the true Gospels and not fayned or corrupted That our epistle to the Romains was wryten by S. Paule and the other whiche is to be séene to the Laodycenses is fayned and not wrytten by him séeinge notwithstanding Saynt Paule neuer mentioneth any epistle wryten by him selfe to the Romanes but yet sayethe that he wrote one to the Laodicenses Al these things I say and many more are beléeued by vs generallye and yet none of them expressye to be founde in scripture But how doe you now ouerthrowe this doctrine and prooue it blasphemie M. Charke By a place of S. Paule Al the scripture is geuen by inspiration of God and is profitable to teach to confute to correcte and to instructe in iustice that the man of God maye be perfect and throughly instructed to euery good worke Wherof you inferre that the Scripture is sufficient to perfection but how wrongefullye it shal now appeare And first I let passe your ordinarie misusinge of scripture by adding fiue wordes of your owne in this litle sentence to wit the is and and throughlie which audacitie if it were in translating of Aesops fables it were follerable but in the holie Scriptures where euerie worde must be taken as from the holie Ghoste it is impious Secondlie this place maketh nothinge for your purpose which I proue by two reasons The first is because S. Paule saieth not here that the Scripture is sufficient to perfection but onelie that it is profitable Nowe you know that a thinge maie be verie profitable yea necessarie to an effecte and yet not sufficient to doe the same without all helpe As meate is profitable and necessarie to maintaine life and yet not sufficiēt without natural heat clothes and the like The second reason is for that S. Paule signifieth in this place that euerie parte or canonicall booke of Scripture is profitable to make a man perfecte but yet we can not say that euerie part or booke is sufficient for then al other bookes of scripture besids that were superfluous And that S. Paule meaneth in this place euerie seuerall canonicall booke or parte of Scripture by the wordes Omnis scriptura it is euident by that he vseth the worde Omnis and not Tota which two words how much they differ both in Gréeke and Latine all Logisioners know For omns homo signifieth euerye man And M. Charke him selfe in this verye same sentence hath translated Omne opus bonum Euerye good worke And yet deceatcfullye hath he trāslated Omnis scriptura Al the scripture As though S. Paule had mente onelye that al the Scripture put together is sufficient to perfection which sense can not stand Firste for that al the Scripture at such time as S. Paul wrote this wanted dyuers important partes as the Ghosepl of S. Iohn the Apocalips and some other which were writen after and consequentlye should haue bene superfluous if the other before had bene sufficient Secondly because we lacke at this day many parts of Scripture which of likelihoode were in S. Paules time As the booke of Nathan the Prophet with the volume of the Prophet Gad 1. Paralip vlt. The booke of Ahias Salonites and the vision of Addo the Prophet 2. Paral. 9. Many of the Parables and verses of Salomon for he wrote thrée thousande of the one and fiue thousand of the other 3. Reg. 4. Also the epistle of S. Paul to the Laodicēses Colos. 4. wherof it foloweth in M. Charks owne sēse that if al the Scripture put together is onely sufficient to perfection then our Scripture now lacking dyuers partes of the same is not sufficient And so me thinkethe M. Charke wrestethe this place against him selfe 5. You reporte the Iesuites to saye That the want of holy Scriptures must be supplyed by peecing it out by traditions Cens. fol. 220. This is coyne of the former forge all false and noe one such word to be found in al their booke But yet as though they had sayed soe you fight manfullye agaynst this your owne sentence sayinge in manner followinge Contrarye to this is the lawe in Moyses Thow shalte not adde to the wordes which I speake to thee nether shalte thou take from them But why do you breake the law M. Charke in reportinge the law you haue héere added the singuler nūber in the Verbe and the plural in the Noune and haue taken awaye the numbers which the law geuer vsed and changed the same at your owne pleasure and that for a purpose which I could gesse at But let al thinges be lawful vnto you what maketh this law for your purpose By your meaning the Apostles and Euangelistes did offend in adding any thing besids the law of Moyses which is absurd Nether did Moyses in this place forbiddinge to adde or take awaye speake of his wryten law for he had not yet writen it but of those thinges which he deliuered them by worde of mouth at that time the which he willed them to kéepe and obserue whollye and perfectly without chaunging it by additiō or diminutiō or by their owne corrupte gloses as noughtie men are wonte to doe And this is the true meaninge of that place and not as you would haue it that nothinge should be beléeued besides that which Moyses set doune for a litle after Moyses him selfe commaundeth the Iewes to heare the Prophet which God should rayse after him as himselfe mening therby Christ. 6 You reporte the Iesuites to saye The holy Scripture is a nose of waxe Cens. 117. God forgeue you for abusing so much these learned men Marie you take the waye to ouermatch both learninge and trueth too if you may haue your desire He that wil reade the place by you quoted shal finde the Iesuites vpon occasion geuen them to say in effect thus that before the rude and ignorante people it is easie for a noughtye man to wreste the scripture to what interpretation pleaseth him beste for the flatteringe ether of Prince or people euen as a man may frame a nose of waxe what way or to what forme he liste And wil you of this make them to saye that the holye Scripture is a nose of waxe Christ is lykened to a serpent and yet is no serpent Also to a couetous Vserer and yet is none Nether doth the Scripture cōmit blasphemie in vsinge such similitudes But how prooue you M. Charke that the Scripture maye not be wrested into manye senses before the rude people as a nose of waxe maye be into manye formes Because it is contrarye saye you vnto the wordes of Dauid The law of the Lorde is perfecte conuerting soules Suerly
false Which two reasons proue that albeit a man maye hope his owne saluation in particuler yet he maye not make it of his beléefe First for that he hathe noe expresse woorde of God that he in particuler shalbe saued for what Scripture saythe for examples sake that Willyam Charke shalbe saued none I thinke but onlye in generall and vppon conditions as if he beléeue as he should doe ioyning charitye with it 1 Cor. 13. If he kepe the commaundementes Math. 19. If he perseuer in honestie vnto the ende Math. 10. If he leaue his lyeinge Apocal. 21. 22. and the lyke The which thinges all noe man can tel whether he obserue or whether he shall obserue them vnto the end or noe Secondlye it is not soe certayne that anye man in particuler shall be saued but he maye be damned at the leaste wise it is not vnpossible for he maye denye his faythe if he will he maye committ adulterie murther and the lyke enormityes and soe damne him selfe As we sée Iudas and diuers other haue done which séemed good for a time and soe maye I toe if I liste and therfore my saluation in particuler beinge not infalliblye certayne can not be the obiecte of faythe and beléefe but onlye of hope Now this hope hath ioyned with it bothe confidence and doubte and that in respecte of two thinges For in respecte of the goodnes and mercy of God it is full of confidence and assurance and in this respecte S. Paule callethe hope the anchore of the soule whiche maketh not ashamed as you aleadge But in respect of Gods iustice and our sinfull frailtie hope hath also doubt and feare annexed with it For when I consider that God as he is mercifull soe is he iust Psal. 10. nay that he damneth more by his iustice then he saueth by his mercie Math. 7. 2. Luc. 13. also that he wil take a straite accounte of euerie little sinne at the daye of iudgement Math. 12. and that there be manie secrete sinnes which maye be in me without my remembraunce Psal. 18. 1. Cor. 4. moreouer that diuers shall come confidentlie at the laste daye hopinge to be saued and yet shalbe damned Math. 7. when I doe coÌ„sider this I say adding to it mine owne noghty inclination vnto sinne my weaknes in perseueraÌ„ce of vertue I caÌ„not chose but ioyne feare with my confidence and soe the scripture teacheth me to do saying Doe you conuerse in feare duringe this time of your habitation And agayne Worke your salutioÌ„ in feare and trembling The reason wherof is put doune also in the scripture to wit Because a man knoweth not whether he be worthye of hate or loue So that we M. Charke as you sée reconcile al scriptures together and mayntayne both confidence and feare in Christian hope and you take one part onely and leaue out the other and yet you are offended with M. Campion for saying that you confound and huddle vp matters 10 You reporte the Iesuites to saye The scripture in deede neuer teachethe inuocation of Sayntes yet we must beleeue â—eceaue and hold it fol. 230. This is falslye reported too for they doe not saye The Scripture neuer teachethe inuocation of Saintes But Monhemius against whom they wrote sayed so and thereof inferred that therefore it was not to be beléeued Which consequence of argument the Iesuites deny to be good and geue examples in many thinges which are not expreslye sett doune in the scriptures and yet are to be beléeued as I haue shewed before in your fowrthe reporte And touchinge this doctrine of Inuocation of Saintes to pray for vs and with vs to our Sauiour the Catholique Churche foundeth it in the woorde of God and deduceth it by necessarie consequence out of manye and euident places of Scripture adioyning therunto the explication and determination of the auncient general Councels and the testimonies of the holye Fathers with the vniuersall practise of all Christendome from the beginning as it maye appéere to them that will reade the Catholique bookes writen of this matter And now you Sir to ouerthrow all this bringe in onlye besides your lye a metaphoricall place of the prophet Esaye Thou art our Father and Abraham hath not knowen vs and Israel hath bene ignorant of vs. Are these your playne cléere and euidente Scriptures whiche you bragge of soe muche I will answers your place to shew your weknes First if the prophet had spoken of inuocation of Saintes in this place and of their intercessioÌ„ for vs yet were not thes wordes against vs for we graunt that the Fathers of the ould Testament vntill Christes ascension were not in heaueÌ„ as our Saintes are now but in Limbo patrum expecting Christ his coming therfore could not here vs or vnderstaÌ„d our necessities as they can now in heauen therfore in this sence the wordes may be true Abraham hath not knoweÌ„ vs c. Secondly the prophet talketh of no such matter in this place but onlye bringing in Christ all bloodye after his passion resoneth with him in the name of the whole people of Israel coÌ„fessing their great sinnes froÌ„ the which Abraham Israel were not able to deliuer them but rather had reiected cast theÌ„ of for the same sinnes so knew them no longer Wherfore they were coÌ„strained to come vnto Christ as to their father and only redéemer therfore they say to him Thou art our father and Abraham hath not knowen vs c. The which kind of spéeche S. Ierome proueth out of the Gospel wher Christ saied vnto the foolish virgins that came to late I know you not that is I know you not for my seruantes I refuse reiect you I care not for you and not as M. Charke doth interpret I know not your case or your necessities for he knew it wel inough but yet would not reléeue them 11. You report y e Iesuites to say Christ neuer sayd to lay men do this in remeÌ„braÌ„ce of me fol. 302. The which as you say S. Paul doth plainly coÌ„fute 1. Co. 11 You wil neuer vnderstand y e Iesuites a right They proue in y t place y t Christ in his last supper hauing coÌ„secrated his owne body blood coÌ„maÌ„ding his Apostles which were preists to do the very same by y e words Hoc facite do this or the faÌ„e that I haue doÌ„e they proue I sai y t this authoritie of consecrating Christ his body was coÌ„mitted only to priestes not to lay men nether doth S. Paul any way impugne this For we deny not to lay men the coÌ„munion of Christe his body but the consecration of the same the which consecration to be geuen by those woords of Christ. Hoc facite Doe this all holye Fathers of the Churche from time to time haue vnderstoode namely Clemens Romanus Li. 5. coÌ„st cap. 20. Ambros. Li. 4. de sacram ca. 6. Cyprian Li. 2. Ep. 3. Chrisostome Ho. 14.