peoples saluatioÌ„ of that tyme. For God supplied it otherwyse that is by woorde of mouthe vnwritten And this maketh for vs for in suche tymes the written woord was not sufficieÌ„t without all other helpes as you affirme it is as for exaÌ„ple when onelie S. Mathewes Gospell was written and nothing els of the new testament yet graunt I that this scripture was sufficieÌ„t for that tyme. For that God supplied yt otherwyse by the woordes and speeches of his apostles So before Moyses wrote the lawe the patriarches had sufficient for theyr saluation thoughe they had ether nothinge or verie litle writen woorde And yet you can not saye that the written woorde of that tyme was sufficient of it selfe without all tradition by mouth VVerfore this answere is against your selfe as also that is whiche you frame to the secoÌ„d reason affirming that albeit dyuers partes of scripture be wanting now whiche was in S. Pauls tyme yet still it is sufficieÌ„t whiche I denye not being ioyned to the other supplies that God vseth For God supplieth by tradition and woorde of mouthe But whether in all tymes the onelie written woord that is extant be sufficient of it selfe to the whole Churche without all other helpes deliuered by tradition that is our question And of times past when the law was not written no man without impudencie can affirme that the written woorde was then sufficient And of our tyme that is after the writinge of the new testament Epiphanius sayeth Non omnia a diuina scriptura accipt possunt quapropter aliqua in scripturis aliqua in traditione sancti Apostoli tradiderunt All things necessarie can not be had from the scripture And therfore the holie Apostles left vnto vs some thinges writteÌ„ and some thinges by tradition VVhich signisieth sufficientlie what Iudgement the primatiue Church had of this matter as more at large shalbe shewed in the article foloweing whiche is also of this same argument Of teaching traditions besides the scripture Art 5. THE CENSVRE 5. You reporte the Iesuites to saye That the want of holy Scriptures must be supplyed by peeciâ—ge it out by traditions Cens fol. 220. This is coyne of the former forge all false and noe one such vvorde to be found in all their booke But yet as though they had sayed soe you fight manfullye agaynst this your ovvne sâ—ntence sayinge in manner follovvinge Contrarye to this is the lawe in Moyses Thow shalte not adde to the woordes which I speake to thee nether shalte thou take froÌ„ theÌ„ But vvhy do you breake the lavv M. Charke in reportinge the lavv you haue heere added the singuler nuÌ„ber in the Verbe and the plurall in the Noune and haue taken avvaye the numbers vvhich the lavv gyuer vsed chauÌ„ged the same at your ovvne pleasure and that for a purpose vvhich I could gesse at But let all thinges be lavvfull vnto you vvhat maketh this lavv for your pourpose By your meaning the Apostles and EuaÌ„gelistes did offend in adding any thing besides the lavve of Moyses vvhiche is absourd Nether did Moyses in this place forbiddinge to adde or take avvaye speake of his vvrytten lavve for he had not yet vvritten it but of those thinges vvhich he deliuered theÌ„ by vvorde of mouthe at that time the vvhich he vvilled them to keepe and obserue vvhollye and perfectly vvithout chaunginge it by addition or diminution or by their ovvne corrupte gloses as naughtie men are vvonte to doe And this is the true meaninge of that place and not as you vvould haue it that nothinge should be beleeued besides that vvhiche Moyses set dovvne for a litle after Moyses hym selfe commaundeth the lâ—vves to heare the Prophet vvhich God should rayse afâ—er hym as hym selfe meanynge therby Christ. THE DEFENCE Heere agayne M. Charke disburdeneth hym selfe vpon Gotuisus sayeing If the Censure of Colen hathe no suche vvordes Gotuisus fayled in vvriting their booke But gentle sir wiliam this matter is not so shyfted of You knew that Gotuisus tooke these woordes from kemnitius against whome they were proued false by Payuas before you wrote your booke as the most of his other reportes were How chaunceth it then you wolde vtter theÌ„ agayne without seeing the originall whether they were true or no Besyde this Gotuisus citeth Canisius for the same woordes where no one suche woorde is to be fownd whye looked you not in Canisius to see yt or whye had you not cited Canisius in your Margent as well as the Censure of Colen which you well knew was not to be had whye dyd you conceale Canisius I saye can you be excused from willfull dishonest dealyng in this matter No no your desperate resolution is to-too euident But saye you we holde the doctrine thoughe the Iesuites haue not the woordes VVhat doctrine M. Chark that the want of holie scripture must be peeced owt by traditioÌ„s It is false VVe speake not so vnreuereÌ„tlie of the scripture as shall better appeare by the article foloweyng VVe doe not teach that the scriptures are wanting or neede to be peeced It is your hereticall malice which deuiseth these woordes Though bothe partes of gods woord that is both written vnwritteÌ„ be necessarie vnto gods Church yet both of theÌ„ do staÌ„d in their full perfection assigned them by God nether is the one a mayme or impeachement to the other no more than is S. Lukes Gospell to that of S. Mathew or S. Pauls epistles to any of them bothe For as you may not saye that S. Mathewes Cospell is maymed for that S. Lukes is also admitted or that S. Pauls epistles are a peecing vp of the former Gospells no more can we saye that gods woorde left vs by mouthe in tradition is a â—ayme or detraction to that whiche he hath left vs in writing or that in writing to be a disanullyng of that whiche we had by tradition for that bothe are partes of gods woord of equall authoritie as shalbe shewed more largelie in the twelueth article together with certaine meanes how to knovv and discerne the same VVherfore these odious speeches against the dignitie of holie scripture doe procede onelie from the malice of you our aduersaries and of no cause or matter ministred by vs. After certaine tryflyng speeche to litle purpose M. Charke concludeth peremptorilie this article in these vvoordes To conclude it is a great iniquitie to adde traditions or your vnvvritten verities to the vvrytten vvoord of God vvherunto no man may adde because nothing is vvantynge and to hym that addeth shall the curses vvritten in the booke be added for euer cityng in the MargeÌ„t the place of the Apocalips vvhiche sayeth that vvho soeuer addeth or taketh avvaye from that booke of prophecie shall incurre the plagues vvritten in that booke But good Lorde when vvill these men leaue to abuse the scriptures learne to speake to the purpose yf vvee beleeue all that is vvritten in that booke of reuelations and other things besides reuealed vnto
serueth their turnes for the tyme. So Martin Luther after he had denied all testimonie of man besides hym selfe he beginneth thus aboute the number of Sacramentes Principio neganda mihi sunt septem sacramenta tantùm tria pro tempore ponenda First of all I must denye seuen sacraments and appoint three for the tyme. Marie this tyme lasted not long for in the same place he sayeth that yf he wold speake according to the vse of onelie scripture he hathe but one sacrament for vs that is baptisme But yet the confessioÌ„ of Auspurge whiche pretendeth to folow Luther in all things doeth allowe three by onelye scripture Mary Melancthon whiche professeth onelye scripture more than the rest and wolde seme to knowe Luthers meaning best of all men for that he lyued with hym holdeth fower by onelye scripture and Iohn Caluin holdeth two Agayne by onelie scripture Iohn Caluin fownd the title of heade of the church in king henry to be AntichristiaÌ„ vvhich novve our folovvers of Caluin in England doe finde by onelie scripture to be most christian Mary yet the Magdeburgians by onelie scripture do condeÌ„ne the same still In like sorte by onelie scripture the protestantes defended a greate while against Catholiques that no heretiques might be burned or put to deathe whereof large bookes were written on bothe partes But now our protestants in England hauinge burned some them selues haue fownd as they write that it is euident by scripture that they may be burned Luther by onelie scripture found that his folowers and the Sacramentaries coulde not both be saued together and therefore he condemned the one for arrant heretiques Doctor fulke findeth by the same scripture that bothe partes are good Catholiques neyther of them heretiques Finallie how many things doeth M. VVhittgift defend against T. Cartwright to be laufull by scriptureâ— as byshops deanes archedeacons officialls holy dayes and a hundred more whiche in Geneua are holden to be flatt contrarie to the same scripture So that this appellation to onelie scripture bringeth good case in manie mattâ—rs For by this a man maketh hym selfe Iudge and Censurer not onelie of all fathers doctors councels histories examples presidents customes vsages prescriptions and the like but also of the bookes of scripture and sense it selfe reseruing all interpretation vnto hym selfe But Catholiques albeit they gyue the soueraigntie to scripture in all things yet bindinge theÌ„ selues to other things beside for the better vnderstanding of the meaning of scripture as to councels auncient fathers tradition of the Apostles and primatiue churche with the lyke are restrained from this libertie of chopping and chaunging affirming and denyeinge allowinge and misliking at theyr pleasures For albeit they hauing wittes as other men haue might drawe some problable apparaÌ„ce of scriptures to theyr owne deuises as euery heretique hitherto hathe done yet the auncient interpretation of holie fathers and receiued consent of the churche not alloweing the same it wold preuaile nothing Mary the selfe-willed heretique that reiecteth all things but scripture and therein alloweth nothing but his owne exposition may runne and range and deuise opinions at his pleasure for he is sure neuer to be conuicted thereof allowinge no man to be iudge of his interpretation but onelye hym selfe or some of hys owne opinion This we see fullfilled in all heretiques and sectaries that now lyue whome it is vnpossible so to conuince by onelye scriptures but they will alwayes haue some probable shew whereby to defend them selues and theyr owne imaginatioÌ„s M. Charke therfore chanting so muche vpon this point of onelie scriptures treadeth the pathe of his forefathers and pleadeth for a pryuilege of ease which whether we will allovve hym or no he entreth vpon it of his ovvne authoritie and dravveth scripâ—ure to euerye deuise of his owne braine so violentlie as a man may take coÌ„â—â—ssion to see yt I shall haue many examples hereafter in this ansvver but yet one vvhich is the chefe ground of this his preface I can not omitt After he had proued ovvt of Saincte Iohn that vve must trie spirites and not beleeue euerye nevv spiritt whiche is true he will nedes alleage owte of the same Apostle a full and plaine rule as he termeth it whereby to discerne and trie his oure spirites The rule is this Euery spirit vvhiche acknovvlegeth Iesus Christe to haue come in fleshe is of God and euerye spirit vvhiche dissolueth Iâ—sus is not of God but of Antichriste Here now may be sene what difference there is in exposition of the scriptures For the auncieÌ„t fathers interpreted this place as of it selfe it is most euident â—o be gyuen as a rule against the Iewes which denied Christe to haue taken fleshe Also against Ebion and Cherinthus heretiques nowe gone into the worlde as fore-runners of Antichriste dissoluing Iesus that is denieing his godheade and coÌ„sequently denyeing the sonne of God to haue come in fleshe Martin Luther interpreteth this place to be vnderstoode of M. Charke and his felowes sayeinge That spirit is not of god but of Antichriste vvhich dissolueth Christs fleshe in the sacrament But to vs Catholiques how can it be by anie deuise wrested who neyther denye Christe to haue come in fleshe nor yet do dissolue the name of Iesus by anie doctrine of ours But yet Marke how M. Charke interpreteth this place and coÌ„fesse that he hathe a singular grace in abusing scripture VVhat soeuer spirit sayeth he shall confesse Christe to haue come in fleshe as a prophet alone to teache as papistes doe not teaching traditions besides the vvritten vvoorde also as a kinge alone to rule as papistes doe not defending the popes authoritie also as a preest alone to sanctifye as papistes doe not vpholding the Masse this spirit is of God and the other of Antichriste Is it maruaile yf these men build what they list vppon scripture when they can fovvnde so many absurdities vppon one sentence thereof I wolde here aske first whether M. Chark thinketh that vve exclude Christe vvhen vve allovve prophetes to teache vnder hym kinges to raigne vnder hym preests to sanctifie vnder hym or no If he thinke we exclude Christe he is to fond to reason against sensible men knowing not what they holde But yf he thinke we allowe prophets kings and preests vnder Christe onelie and in hys name how can he call this the spirit of Antichrist doe not the scriptures allowe Prophets and teachers vnder Christe in the churche Ephes. 4. Act. 5 Also kinges and rulers thoughe puritanes wolde haue none 1. Pet. 2. Act. 2 Also may not preestes sanctifie by the woord of God 2. Timo. 4 How then are these things accompted Antichristian doe not protestants teache the same what deepe Mysteries of puritanisme are these Christe is a prophete alone a kinge alone a preest alone Againe I aske what doe the traditions of Christe and his Apostles for of those onelie
examples of many things vvhiche bothe vve and our aduersaries also doe beleeue vvhich neuerthelesse are not sett dovvne expreslye in the Scriptures although perhaps deduced therof As the perpetuall virginitie of our ladie after her childebyrth Tvvo natures and tvvo vvilles in Christ The proceeding of the holye Ghost equallie froÌ„ the father and the Sonne vvithout generation The vnion of the vvorde vnto the nature of man and not vnto the persone That God the father begat his Sonne onelye by vnderstaÌ„ding hymselfe That infantes vvithout reason should be baptized That the common Creede vvas made by the Apostles The celebration of the SoÌ„daye in steade of the Satterdaye The celebration of Easter onelye vppon a Sondaye The fovver Gospels vvhich vve vse to betrue Gospels not fained or corrupted That our epystle to the Romanes vvas vvriten by S. Paul And the other vvhich is to be seene to the Laodicenses is fayned and not vritten by hym seyng notvvithstanding S. Paul neuer mentioneth any epistle vvritten by hym selfe to the Romanes but yet sayeth that he vvrote one to the Laodicenses All these things I saye and many more are beleeued by vs generallye and yett none of them expreslie to be found in scripture THE DEFENCE To the charge of shameles belyeing the Iesuites M. Chark answereth nothing but thus hovv soeuer Goâ—uisus reporteâ—h or misreporteth the Iesuites yf I reporte hym faythfullie it is no sâ—ame to me But it is shame to your cause good Syr whiche can not be mayntayned but with lyeing on all handes And yet must not this shame lyght onelie on Gotuisus as you wolde haue it though you neuer named hym in your other bookes but vpon your selfe principallie First for that you had read this infamous lie refuted to kemnitius of whome Gotuisus woorde for woorde hath borowed it by payuas Andradius and proued to be as it is a moste shameles slaunder of his owne and no one woorde of the Iesuites Secondlie you must needs haue seene as no dowt but you had that Gotuisus reported an open vntruthe by the fower other places of Canisius whiche he alleageth for the same as well as the Censure of Colen All which fower places any man that will reade for the booke is coÌ„monlie to be solde in England shall see that Gotuisus is a shameles felow and you a playne deceyuer in that you cited onelie the Censure of Colen whiche you knew was not to be had suppressed Canisius which is extant to confound your vntruethe These tryckes may admonish men that are not vtterlie willfull how you are to be trusted in other matters of greater importance wherin your falshoode can not be so easylie conuicted to the sight of all men as in this it is Seeke all the bookes that euer the Iesuites wrote whiche are manye and yf you fynde in any one of them any one of these three odious woordes wherwith you charge them that is imperfect mamed or lame attributed to the scriptures I will yeeld in all the rest that you affirme of them But you haue a shyft to couer your dealing heerin and that is that seing we holde that all thinges necessarie to saluation are not written in the scripture Therfore we holde in effect saye you though not in woordes that the scripture is imperfect mamed lame VVhiche reason yf yt were true yet were your dishonestie great in settinge foorthe so odious woordes of your owne fayning for the wordes of the Iesuites But mark how voyde of reasoÌ„ this argumeÌ„t of yours is If a marchaÌ„t departing into an other countrie shoulde leaue his coÌ„maundementes with hys seruantes partlie in writing partlie by woorde of mouth might the seruantes saye that he had left them a broken commaundement writen but yf he should yet add further vnto them that yf they dowted of any thing they should repayre to hys wyfe and she should fullie resolue them therin might not he iustlie account hym selfe iniuried by theÌ„ yf they notwithstanding should accuse hym for leauing them an imperfect maymed and lame commaundement No more is it any defect to scripture or gods coÌ„maundement as S. Austen proueth at large li. 1. contra Cresc c. 32. that God hathe lefte certayne things vnwriten for that we may receyue the same by tradition in the churche as that doctor proueth whiche Churche Christ hathe commended vnto vs as his espouse in earthe to be heard and obeyed by vs in all dowtes The verie same doctrine teacheth the sayd father li. de fide oper ca. 9. and also ep 66. ad Don. To the twelue particular poyntes sett downe by the Censure as not contayned expresselie in scripture and yet to be beleeued M. Charke answereth that seauen of them are in scripture the other fyue for that they are not in scripture they are not of necessitie to be beleeued But heere is first to be noted that the questioÌ„ betweene vs and the protestaÌ„tes is of expresse scripture onelie and not of any farre fett place whiche by interpretation may be applyed to a coÌ„trouersie For this contention beganne betwene vs vpoÌ„ this occasion that wheÌ„ we alleaged diuerse weightie places and reasons owt of scripture for proofe of inuocatioÌ„ of Saints prayer for the deade purgatorie and from other controuersies our aduersaries reiected them for that they dyd not playnelie and expresselie decide the matter VVherupon came this question whether all matters of beleef are playnelie and expresselie in scripture or no whâ—che they affirme and we denye And for proofe of our part we alleage all these twelue particulars and many more which are poyntes necessarilie to be beleeued and yet not expresselie in scripture For answere wherof you shall see how this man is distressed First he sayeth that seauen of them are contayned in scripture Marie he flyeth from the question of expreâ—se scripture and alleageth places a farre of wherof the question is not For the Censure graunteth that many of them myght be deduced from scripture but not so expresselie as they are to be beleued But lett vs runne ouer these seuen pointes coÌ„tayned as he sayeth manifestely in scripture The first is of two â—â—tures and two willes in Christ for which he citeth these woords Of his sonne vvhiche vvas made vnto hym of the seed of Dauid according to the fleshe Also not as I vvill but as thou vvilt But how doe theese woordes proue euidentlie the matter in question That deductions heerof may be made from scripture admitting the interpretation of the Churche vpon the places alleaged I graunt but that interpretation of the churche beinge sett asyde the bare text onelie admitted these places can not conuicte an heretique that wolde denye ether the distinct natures or distinct willes in Christ as appeareth by the councell of Constantinople where after long stryuing in vayne with the Monothelitâ—s abowt this matter owt of scripture in the end they concluded in these woordes vve beleeue this for that
vs els vvhere by God doe vve incurre this curse of S. Iohn therby S. Iohn sayeth nothing may be added or taken awaye from the perfectioÌ„ of that most excelleÌ„t mysticall booke of reuelations but dyd he meane heerby that nothing should be credited besides that vvhiche is there vvritten S. Iohn hym selfe vvrote diuerse things vvhich are not in the Apocalips yea by the iudgement of kemnitius a protestant he vvroote hys vvhole Gospell after the Apocalips And yet I thynke by this additioÌ„ of his Gospell he did not runne into the curses of that booke How theÌ„ is this place alleaged agaynst vs for beleeuyng those thynges whiche our auncetours haue delyuered vnto vs as receyued from the mouth of Christ and his Apostles how holdeth this argument no man may adde to the booke of Apocalips ergo no man may beleeue a traditioÌ„ of Christ or his Apostles May not a man aswell inferre ergo we may not beleeue the actes of the Apostles But this is their common alleaging of Scriptures It is Lamentable to see the sleight dealings of these men in matters of suche importance It is a great iniquitie sayeth Charke to add traditions or your vnvvritten verities to the vvritten vvorde of God VVhat meane you Sir by adding whoe doeth add or in what sense If God left any doctrine by tradition vnto the Churche and our auncetours haue deliuered the same vnto vs especiallie those of the primatiue Churche what shall we doe in this case shall we refuse yt It seemeth daungerous and I see no reason For the same men that delyuered vnto vs the scriptures and sayed this is gods written woorde and sayd of other forged scriptures this is not gods written woorde the same delyuered vnto vs these doctrines sayeinge this is Gods woorde vnwritten As for example S. Austen and Origen doe teache vs that baptizing of infants is to be practized in the Churche onelie by tradition of the Apostles S. Ierom and Epiphanius tell vs that the fast of the lent and other the lyke is a traditioÌ„ of the Apostles Dionisius and Tertullian saye that prayers and obâ—ation for the dead are traditions of the Apostles S. Basil teacheth that the consecration of the font before baptisme the exorcisme vppon those that are to be baptized theyr anointing with holie Chrisme and diuers lyke thinges are delyuered vnto vs by prescript of Christ and his Apostles Thus testifie these men and no man in the Churche controlled theyr testimonie at that tyme wherby it is euident that all that Churche beleeued it Nowe what shall we doe when these and many other lyke things are delyuered vs by our fore-fathers the doctors and cheefe pyllers of Christ his Churche shall we reiect and discredit them wherfore or vppon what ground these men were nearer to the Apostles tymes than we are by many hundred yeeres and therfore could better tell than we can what the Apostles left by tradition or left not Agayne they were no dishonest men and consequentlie wolde not write a lye or deceyue vs wittinglie And yf they wolde yet other men wolde haue controlled them VVhye then should it be suche iniquitie in vs to receyue and beleeue the traditions which they deliuer vs as M. Chark sayeth it is If they come from the mouthe of Christ his Apostles as thes fathers doe affirme then are they parte of Gods woorde also as well as the other whiche are written But you will saye I knowe they come not from Christ and his Apostles And how I praye you can you proue that to me whye should I beleeue you rather than these holye fathers whiche lyued so long agoe I doe not see fot example sake why I should beleeue a CHARKE or a FVLKE commyng but yesterdaye from the Grammer Schoole before a Cyprian a Tertulian a Basil a Ierome a Chrysostome an Ambrose or an Austen especiallie in a matter of fact as our case is seyng they lyued more than twelue or thyrtene hundred yeeres nearer to the deed doeing than these ministers doe and yet to this extremitie am I driuen For hearken a litle how D. Fulck handleth these men about traditions S. Cyprian is alleaged agaynst hym sayeing that the mynglyng of wyne and water in the Chalice is the tradition of Christ hym selfe Fulke but yf Cyprian had bene vell vrged he vvolde haue better considered of the matter Tertulian is alleaged sayeing that the blessing with the signe of the crosse is a tradition of the Apostles Fulke Tertulians iudgement of tradition vvithout scripture in that place is corrupt S. Basil is alleaged for the same matter affirmyng the custome of blessing with the signe of the crosse to be an Apostolicall tradition Fulke Basil is an insufficient vvarrant for so vvoorthie a matter S. Ierome is alleaged sayeing that Lent fast is the tradition of the Apostles Fulke Ierome vntruelye ascribeth that tradition to the Apostles S. Chrisostom is alleaged sayeing â—hat the Apostles decreed that iÌ„ the sacrifice of the Aultar there should be made prayer for the departed Fulke vvhere he sayeth it vvas decreed by the Apostles c he muste pardon vs for crediting hym because he can not shevv it ovvt of the Actes and vvritings of the Apostles But dyuers fathers are alleaged together beside Chrisostome for the same matter Fulke vvhoe is vvytnesse that this is the tradition of the Apostles you vvill saye Tertulian Cyprian Austen Ierome and a great many moe But I vvolde learne vvhye the Lord vvould not haue this setforth by Mathevv Marke Luke or Paul vvhy they vvere not chosen scribes heerof rather than Tertulian Cyprian Ierome Austen and other suche as you name But this is a counterfait institutioÌ„ fained traditioÌ„ And in other place beyng vrged by the lyke he discrediteth all antiquitie sayeing It is a coÌ„mon thing vvith the Aâ—ncient vvriters to defend euerie ceremonie vvhiche vvas vsed in their tyme by tradition of the Apostles Heere now are sett before me a payre of balances with fulke and Charke in one ende and Cyprian Origen Tertulian Basil Ierome Chrisostome Epiphanius and Austen in the other ende for all these fathers as you see affirme constanlie traditions of Christ and his Apostle besides the written woord Fulke and Charke denye the same They alleage particular examples Fulk opposeth hym selfe to them all But whiche in reason should I rather beleeue You shall heare some of them speake S. Basil the great was a maÌ„ I trow to be matched in credit with Charke the minister His woords are these Dogmata quae in ecclesia praedicantur quaedam habemus e doctrina scripto tradita quaedam rursus ex apostolorum traditione in mysterio id est in occulto tradita accepimus quoruÌ„ vtraque parem vim habent ad pietatem nec hiis quisquam contradicit quisquis sane vel tenuiter expertus est quae sint iura ecclesiastica Among the doctrines whiche are preached in
the church some we haue opened to vs by writinge and some agayne we haue receyued delyuered vs by tradition of the Apostles in secret bothe whiche doctrines are of equall force to pietie nether doeth any man gaynsaye this whiche hathe anye litle knowleige in the lawes of tâ—â— Churche Heere now are S. Basil and VV. Charke at an open combate abowt traditions The one sayeth it is iniquitie to admitt them The other sayeth it is ignorance to reiect them The one sayeth they are of no authoritie or credit at all The other sayeth they are of equall force and authoritie vvith the vvritten vvoord of Christ and his Apostles VVhome will you rather beleeue in this case VVith S. Basil taketh parte Eusebius sayeinge Christi discipuli ad magistri sui nutum illius praecepta partim literis partim sine literis quasi iure quodam non scripto seruanda commendarunt The disciples of Christ at theyr Maisters beck dyd commend his precepts to posteritie partlie in writing partlie without writing as it were by a certaine vnwriten lawe Marke heere that traditioÌ„ is called an vnvvriteÌ„ lavve the things delyuered therby are the precepts of Christ and that they were left vnwryten by the becke or appointment of Christ hym selfe Epiphanius is yet more earnest than Eusebius For writing against certaine heretiques named Apostolici whiche denyed traditions as our protestants doe he proueth it thus Oportet autem traditione vti Non enim omnia a diuina scriptura accipi possunt Quapropter aliqua in scripturis aliqua in traditione sancti Apostoli tradiderunt quemadmodum dicit Sanctus Paulus Sicut tradidi â—obis alibi sic doceo sic tradidi in ecclesiis we muste vse traditioÌ„ also For that all thyngs can not be had owt of Scripture For which cause the holye Apostles haue delyuered some things to vs in scriptures and some thyngs by traditions according as S. Paul sayeth euen as I haue left vnto you by tradition And in an other place This doe I teache this haue I left by traditioÌ„ in Churches Heere you see Epiphanius doeth not onelye affirme so much as we holde but also proueth it out of Scripture VVith Epiphanius ioyneth fully and earnestlye S. Chrisostome writyng vpon these woordes of S. Paul to the purpose State tenete traditiones Stand fast and holde traditions Out of which cleere woordes S. Chrisostome maketh this illation Hinc patet quod non omniae per epistolam tradiderint sed multa etiam sine literis Eadem verò fide digna sunt tam illa quám ista Itaque traditionem quoque ecclesiae fide dignam putamus Traditio est nihil quaeras amplius By these woordes of S. Paul it is euident that the Apostles delyuered not all by epistle or writing vnto vs but many things also whiche are not wrytten And yet those are as woorthie fayth as the other For whiche cause we esteeme the tradition of the Church woorthie of faythe It is a tradition seeke no more abowt it VVhat can be spoken more effectualie against VV. Charke than this Is it now greate iniquitie to receyue traditioÌ„s or no how will he auoyde this vniforme coÌ„sent of antiquitie against his fond malepeartnes condemning all traditions for iniquitie Heere you see are the verie woordes auowed as also in S. Basil alleaged before which these new maisters doe so odiouslye exaggerate to the people dailie that we matche traditioÌ„s with the written woord of God These woordes I saye are heere maintained bothe in Chrisostome and Basil affirming the vnwrytten traditions of Christ and his Apostles to be of equall force and authoritie with the written woorde of the same And yet I trowe were they not blasphemous for sayeing so as these yonge gentlemen are accustomed to call vs. And this now in generall that traditions are that is that diuers things belonging to faythe are left vs vnwriten by Christ and his Apostles Also that this sort of traditions are of equall authoritie with the wrytten woord because they are the vnwriteÌ„ or deliuered woorde But now yf any man wolde aske me what or which are these Apostolicall traditions in particular I could alleage hym testimonies owt of the auncient fathers for a great number wherof some examples haue bene gyuen in the former article But lett any man reade S. Cyprian Serm de ablut pedum Tertullian de coron miiltis and S. Ierom. Dialog cont luciferianos and he shall finde store And albeit some thing hathe bene sayd of S. Austen before yet will I adde these few examples owt of hym for endinge of this article He proueth the baptisme of infants by tradition of the Churche lib. 10â— de gen cap. 23. He proueth by the same tradition that we must not rebaptize those whiche are baptized of heretiques li. 2. de bapt c. 7. lib. 1. cap. 23. li. 4. cap. 6. He proueth by tradition the celebration of the pentecost commonlie called whit-sondaye epist. 118. c. 1. He proueth by tradition that the Apostles were baptized ep 108. He proueth by tradition the ceremonies of baptisme as delyuered by the Apostles Li. de fide oper cap. 9. He proueth by tradition of Christ his Apostles that we should receyue the blessed sacrament fasting ep 1â—8 cap. 6. He proueth by lyke tradition the exorcisme of suche as should be baptized li. 1. de nupt concup cap. 20. li. 6. contra Iulian. ca. 2. He proueth by the same tradition that we must offer vpp the sacrifice of the masse for the deade li. de cura pro mort ageÌ„da ca. 1. 4. Serm. 32. de verbis Apostoli I omitt many other suche thinges whiche aswell this learned doctor as other most holye fathers of the primatiue Churche doe auouche by onelye tradition of Christ and his Apostles without writing whiche to beleeue or credit if it be such great iniquitie and blasphemie as VV. Charke will haue vs to esteeme then were these auncient fathers in a miserable case and this new minister in a fortunate lot But yf the countenance of this new Sir doe not surpasse the credit of those olde Saints I weene it will not be hard to iudge how fond and foolishe hys raylinge speeche ys against a doctrine so vniformlie receyued in Christ his Churche as the doctrine of traditions hath bene from the beginning VVhether the Iesuites speake euill of Scripture Art 6. THE CENSVRE You reporte the Iesuites to saye The holy Scripture is a nose of waxe Cens. 117 God forgyue you for abusing so muche these learned men Marie you take the vvaye to ouermatch both learning and trueth too yf you may haue your desire He that vvill reade the place by you quoted shall finde the Iesuites vpon occasion geuen them to saye in effect thus that before the rude and ignorante people it is easie for a noughtie man to vvreste the scripture to vvhat interpretation pleaseth hym beste for the flatteringe ether of
Tom. 7. vvittemb page 380. * A Lutheran exhortation O pleasant Martin Gen. 1. Currucam cuÌ„ ossibus Iohn 1. Socrat. li. 5. hist. ca. 10. Examples of shifting scriptures and doctours Psal. 75. Against the rocke pag. 153. Math. 19. Against the rock pag. 154. Iacob 2. D. Fulke loco citato Rom. 2. 1. Cor. 7. Math. 19. Hovv protestantes deny all fathers Math 16. Against the rocke pag. 242. Against the roke pag. 291. Ibidem Psal. 14. Against the fortresse pa. 52. Against purg pag. 262. Against purg pag. 237. Against the crosse pag. 146. Hovv protestantes reiect the interpretatioÌ„ of their ovvne vvriters LVTHER CALVINE The final conclusion of protetestants for triall The varietie of triall that Catholiques doe offer 1 Books of scripture 2 Expresse-vvoordes Supremacie HEGOVMENOS Real presence Iustification AbsolutioÌ„ Vovves Traditions Commaundementes VVorkes Penaunce Prayer for the deade Sacrifice for the dead Voluntarie corporall afflictions Almes Prayer of sainctes 3 Necessarie collections vpon scrippture 4 Councells 5 Doctors of the olde Churche Li. 1. contra Iulian. c. 2. Socr. li. 5. hist. ca. 10. Li. 2. contra here 6 The Catholique Churcheâ— Cont. ep fundam cap. 4. In hys booke against the profane innouaâ—ioÌ„s of all heresies in the beginninge Vniuersalitie Antiquitie Consent 7 Succession of Popes Contr. ep fundam cap. 4. Iohn 21. Li. 2. cont Donatist Li. 3. cont haer cap. 3. 8 Infectionâ— vvith olde heresies 1. Tim. 3. Marke this gentle reader Tvvo conditions Iniurious dealinge of our aduersaries Protestantes doe holde olde heresies Aug. li. de he ad quod vult haere 53. Epipha haer 75. Against Brystoes motiues pa. 15. Li. cont vigilantium Against the motiues pa. 54. 9 The manners of olde heretiques Lib. 2. cont lit Petil. cap. 51. De vnitare ecclesiae cap. 12. Li. 3. contr lit peti c. 4. Lib. 2. ca. 9. contr epi. parm ep 169. ad Euseb. Li. 1. cont maximinuÌ„ Lib. 6. cont Donat. Victor depersecutione vandalica Orat. 1. 2. in Iulianum THE PREFACE Intituled a conference betvvene M. D. fulk and the papists iÌ„ vvesoiche castell The maner of protestaÌ„tes disputations of M. HANMER Intituled an ansvvere to a Iesuites chalenge In 2. thes 2 2. Thes. 2. Intituled the Iesuites Banner A fovvle lye Diego Payuas Andradius de orthodoxis explicationibus In opere catechistico pag. 350. Moste false The description of our iustification Gal. 4. Tit. 3. Canis in opâ—re Câ—te pag. 764. Assert 26. 27. Assert 2. The vnlearned â—olye of Meredith Hanmer Li. de vera reli c. 14. lib. 1. â—etr c. 13. sess 6. c. 18 Ierom. in expos simb ad Dam. Augu. ser. 191. de temporeâ— Sess. 5. Li. 1. cont 2. ep pelag c. 13. The effect of M. Hanmers booke Cap. 1. In iniâ—io Fol. 2. Fo. 5. 26 ImpertineÌ„t matters folovved by M. HaÌ„mer The effect of M. Charks booke The order diuisioÌ„ of this booke 1 Nickenames against Iesuites Mat. 12. Luc. 6. Act. 6. Rom. 8. Athan. in vita S. Anthonii Eremitae THE PROTESTANTS Rayling scurrilitie in vritinge Hanmers sâ—urrilitie Against purgatorie pag. 241. D. Fulks tallent in rayling In his reteÌ„tiue against the motyues In his ansvver to the booke of purgatorie prayer for the dead Intituled AN OVERTHROVVE of StapletoÌ„s forâ—resse of faythe Intituled A REIOYNDER to Martials replye Iohn Caluin his spirite in raylinge Against Stapletons fortresse pag. 75. Luthers prerogatiue in rayling Rom. 8. Lib. cont regem An. To. 2. vvitt teÌ„b fo 331. Fol. 333. O impure spirit of a prophet Fol. 334. Fol. 335. Fol. 337. Fol. 338. Hovv intollerable is this in a renegate fryar Fol. 339. See the pride of an apostata against three famouse vniuersities Fol. 442. Fol. 345. Fol. 333. Fol. 337. Luthers speeche against Caluinistes and of Caluinistes against him Tigurini tract 3. coÌ„t supremam Lutheri confessâ—onem * Ergo luther had deuills vvhiche after Charke denyeth Et nunc semper in saecula saeculâ—rum In sathana siâ—tum supersathanasiatum persathanasiatuÌ„ Pag. 61. Iesuytes no Secte 1. 2. 4. Reg. 1. 4. Reg. 2. Dan. 1. Marc. 1. 3 The description of sactaries 4 The name of Iesuits 1 OF ELIAS and vvhether he be a paterne of monkes Ep. 13. ad paulinum ep 4. ad rusticum Elyas Elyzeus monkâ— of the old testament Ge. 2. 3. 4. 2 OF S. IOHN Baptist vvhether he vvere a president to monkes Cap. 6. Plin. li. 5. c 17. nat hist. Ioseph li. 2. ca. 7. de bello Iudaico Cap. 6. S. Ihon a monke of the nevve testament 3 THOVCHINGE the true definition of a sectarie The difference betvvyxt heresie and a sect The signification of heresie more generall then of a secte A fond argument 1. Cor. 1. Schisme Ad quod vult hae 69. Heresie Error Tract 5. in Ioh. The erroneous schisme of the Corinthians 1. Cor. 1. The exposition of S. Pauls vvoords 1. Cor. 1. An exaÌ„ple Heresies of the pharises HOVV THE PHARISES vvere a sect in tvvo senses A sect or heresie may sometimes be taken in good parte Act. 26. Tyrannis Against Bristovvs Motiues pag. 14. M. Charks definition of a sect Great absurâ—â—â—â—â—â— M. Charcks fond ouersight Act. 26. Gal 5. 2. Pet. 2. VVhether the Iesuites be a sect by M. Charks definition Nath. 28. Mark 16. Math. 10. Coloss. 3. Gal. 5. 6. Rom. 12. Chastizing of oure bodies Mat. 3. Marc. 1. Heb. 11. Ca. 10. li. 3. Ep. 22. ad Eustoch * But you vvill saye S. Ierom. vvas no protestant In ca. 16. li. 3. Reg. An offer of coolinge physicke to the ministers of England In LondoÌ„ In Banberie Charks belyeing of the Iesuites Gab. prateol in haer de flagellantib Ger. tract cont flagel The heresies of vvhippers Pratcolus vbi supra Alphon. lib. 3. cont haeresee 4 THE NAME of Iesuites ImpudeÌ„cie Turianus in apologetico cap. 1. 5. Fond exclaming for nothinge An euideÌ„t example * Intituled Gentle girckes for Iesuites to be-come true Israelytes Monks and friars In psa 132 Li 11. hist. cap. 3. Li. 3. cont li. Petil. ca. 40. Books vvriten in the commeÌ„dation of moÌ„kes and fryars Luc. 9. Ioh 11. Mat. 19. 1 Of the vvorde religious D. Tho. secunda secuÌ„dae q. 18. art 1. Marc. 10. 1. Cor. 7. Câ—EROS Orig. ho. 7. in Iere. Hier. in 12 Ierem. 2 Of Good euel religious Against Sâ—â—pleton pag. 96. VVHETHER THE State of our monks Noâ—â—es be the same as vvas in the primatiue church 1. Cor. 4. Hereticall consequences Charks bolde slaunderinge of all religious peopâ—e TOVCHING RELIGIOVS VOVVES De mor. eccl cap. 31 de opere monachâ— c. 14. 15. Cogginge foystinge In Psal. 75. circa fineÌ„ Questione vel regula 14. fusius explicaâ—a Ep. 6. ad Theodorum lapsum Heb. 13. Nonnes In psa 83. Lib. cont Iouinian Li. 1. ep 11. Li. de vir cap. 29. Li. ad vir lap cap. 5. De bono vâ— duitatis c. 9â— Ibid. ca. 8. Against
commaundement against grauen Idoles where as they leaue it not owt but doe include it in the first commaundement and that for the same reasons whiche moued S. Austen to doe the same as hath bene sayde These earnest odious slaunderous accusations whiche our aduersaries in theyr owne coÌ„sciences doe know to be meere false doe argue nothing for them but onelie great malice in theyr hartes singular lacke of modestie and great shame in theyr behauyour and extreeme pouertie and necessitie in theyr cause M. Charkes second charge that I make the seuerall breaches of tvvo diuers commaundementes but one synne is also false For I make them two distinct synnes though they haue one generall name gyuen them by Christ that is I make the breache of the nyenth commaundement after our account whiche is thou shalt not couer thy neyghbours vvyfe to be mentall adulterie yf it goe no further but onelie to coÌ„sent of mynde And the breache of the sixt coÌ„maundemeÌ„t thou shalt not commit adulterie I make to be the sinne of actuall adulterie when it breaketh owt to the woorke it selfe which two sinnes thoughe they agree in the name of aldulterie yet are they distinct sinnes often tymes and one seperated from the other and coÌ„sequentely may be prohibited by distinst commaundementesâ— And so in lyke wyse I make actuall theft to belong to the seuenth commaundement and mentall theft vnto the tenth This is my meanyng M. Charke whiche you myght haue vnderstoode yf you wolde and consequentlie haue forborne so malitiouse falshode in misreporting the same There remayneth onelie to be examined abowt this article the reason touched by the Censure and fownded on the scripture for the coÌ„firmation of S. Austens Catholique exposition of the commaundement thou shalt not couet VVhiche lawe sayeth the Censure forbyddeth onelye consent of hart to the motions of lust and not the verye first motions them selues which are not in our power consequentlie not comprehended vnder that prohibition of the lawe as the scripture signifieth when it sayeth this commaundement vvhiche I gyue thee this daye is not aboue thee To this M. Charke answereth first that our first motions are not altogether ovvt of our povver For that the guyft of contineÌ„cie dothe more and more subdue them VVhiche is true if wee vnderstand of yeelding consent vnto them But yf we vnderstand of vtter suppressing and extinguishinge of all first motions of lust and concupiscence as M. Charke must needes meane our question beinge onelie therof then must we know that albeit good meÌ„ doe cutt of by mortification infinite occasions and causes of motions and temptations whiche wicked men haue yet can they neuer during this lyfe so subdue all motions them selues of theyr concupiscence but that they will ryse often against theyr willes as S. Paul complayneth of hym selfe in many places and all other Saints after hym haue experienced in their fleshe whoe notwithstanding had the gyft diligence of mortifieing theyr fleshe asmuche I weene as our ministers of England haue whoe talke of continencie mortification eche one hauinge hys yoke mate redye for hys turne as those good felowes doe of fastynge whiche sitt at a full table according to the prouerbe To the place of Moyses he hathe no other shyft but to saye that the translation is false and corrupt for that Moyses meant onelye the lavve is not hydden from vs and not that it is not aboue our povver as yt is euidentlye declared saythe he by the playne text by explication therof in the Epistle to the Romans This sayeth M. Charke mary he proueth yt nether by the woordes of the text nor by S. Pauls application But yf I be not deceyued S. Ierome whose traÌ„slatioÌ„ this is esteemed to be or els before himâ— corrected by him knew as well what the Hebrew woords of Moyses imported in the text also how S. Paul applyed theÌ„ as williaÌ„ Chark dothe S. Pauls application of that parte of this senteÌ„ce which he towcheth maketh wholie for vs as after shalbe shewed The Hebrew woord of the text is NIPHLET coÌ„ming of the verb PHALA which as I denie not but it signifieth to be hidden so signifieth it also to be maruailous to be hard difficult As appeareth psa 139. 2. Sam. 1. where the same woord is vsed The same signifieth the Chaldie woorde Mâ—PHARESA coÌ„ming of the verbe PHARAS that besides the significations signifieth also to seperate The greke woord HYPERONGOS signifieth as all men knowe exceeding immesurable greate passing all meane c Howe then doe not these three woordes vsed in the three auncieÌ„t tongues hauinge a negation putt before them as they haue in the text expresse so muche as S. Ierom hathe expressed by sayeing the lavve is not aboue thee Doe not all these woordes putt together importe that the lawe is not more hard or difficult than thy abilitie may reache to perfourme or that it is not seperated from our power that it is not exceedinge our strengthe wolde any horse but bayard haue beene so bolde with S. IeroÌ„ and withe all the primatiue churche whiche vsed this our common latine translation to deface them all I saye vppon so lyght occasion VVolde any impudencie haue durst it besides the pryde of an heretique If S. Ierom will not satisfie you take S. Austen who haÌ„dleth bothe the woordes alleaged of Moyses and also the application vsed by S. Paul of parte of the sentence and proueth owt of bothe the verie same conclusion that we doe to wytt that the lawe is not aboue our abilitie to kepe it and for confirmation therof he addeth many other textes of scripture as my yoke is svvete and my burden is lyght also his commaundementes are not heauye and the lyke concluding in these woordes vve must beleeue moste firmelye that God being iust and good could not commaunde impossible things vnto man And in an other place VVe doe detest the blasphemie of those men vvhiche affirme God to haue commaunded any impossible thing vnto maÌ„ The verie same woords of detestation vseth S. Ierome in the explication of the creede vnto Damasus byshope of Rome And the same proueth S. Chrisostome at large in hys first booke of impunction of the hart and S. Basil his breefe rules the 176. interrogation Of defacing of scripture Artic. 4. THE CENSVRE You report the Iesuites to saye The holie scripture is a doctrine vnperfect maymed lame not coÌ„taynyng all things necessarie to saith and saluatioÌ„ Cen. fol. 220. you are too shameles M. Charke in setting forth these for the Iesuites vvoordes Lett anye man reade the place and he shall finde noe such thing but rather in contrarie maner the holie scripture vvith reuerent vvordes most highlye commended Notvvithstanding they reprehend in that place Monhemius for sayeing that nothing is to be receyued or beleued but that vvhiche is expreslie found in the Scripture For reproofe of vvhich heresie they gyue
Apostolical and Euāgelical traditiō the doctrine of fathers haue taught it The second point is the proceeding of the holy ghost from the father the sonne equallie For this M. Charke quoteth vvhen the holye ghost shall come vvhiche I vvill send you from my father the spirit of trueth vvhiche proceedeth from the father But this proueth not expresselie that the holie ghost proceedeth equallie from the father and the sonne together but rather seemeth to inclyne to the heresie of the Greekes that it proceedeth onelie from the father And therfore the heretiques which denyed this equallye buylded their heresie especiallie vpon this place as S. Cyrill noteth Agayne this place telleth not whether it proceedeth by generation or without generation from the father and yet we must beleeue it to be without generation The third poynt is the vnion of the vvoorde vnto the nature of man not vnto the persone For which M. Chark citeth And the vvorde vvas made fleshe But what is this to the point thys proueth that the woorde tooke our fleshe but whether he tooke the nature of man onelye or the persone onelye or bothe together it expresseth not And heere is to be noted by the waye M. Charks lacke of iudgemēt not onelie in the matter but euen in the verie termes of diuinitie For he reprehendinge my woords as vnsounde in that he vnderstoode thē not he chaungeth thē thus That the vvoorde dyd take the nature of man to be one persone and not the persone VVhiche are bothe fond and erroneous For the woorde tooke not the nature of man to be one persone seeing the woorde was one persone before he tooke that nature of man vnto it selfe Nether could the nature of mā be that one persone as M. Charke semeth to weene for so should nature persone be cōfounded in Christ. But I thinke M. Chark neuer studied yet these matters and therfore he myght haue bene lesse malepert in reprehendinge yf he wolde The fowerth doctrine is of baptizinge of infantes For which M Charke quoteth these woordes of Genesis The infant of eight years olde shalbe circumcised in mankynde This hathe nothyng expresselye as yow see for baptisme And yf we had nothing but this lawe for our warrant in baptizing of infantes how chaunceth it that wee baptize infantes before or after the eight daye also why baptize we infantes of woman kynde also whiche were not circumcysed in the lawe Beza was strycken quyte dumme in the disputation of poysie in fraunce withe this demaunde as the byshope Claudius de Saynctes reporteth whoe was present VVherfore I had rather folow S. Austen who contendeth and proueth that baptizinge of infantes is onelye a tradition of the Apostles and not left vs by anye written scripture li. 10. c. 23. super Gen. ad lit And the same teacheth Origen ho. 8. in leuit The fyueth doctrine whiche M. Charke auoweth to be in scripture is the chaunge of the Sabboth daye into Sundaye For which he citeth these woords owt of the reuelations I vvas in spirit in our Lordes daye But heere is no mention of Sundaye or Saturdaye muche lesse of celebratiō of ether of them leaste of all of the chaunge of the Sabbothe appointed by God into any other daye Is not this chaunge then of the Sabboth daye appointed by the law substantiallie proued from this place of scriprure trow yowe The sixt poynt is abowt the fower Gospels and epistle to the Romanes whiche he sayeth to be proued scripture owt of scriptute But yet he quoteth no place of scripture where they are proued to be scripture but onely sayeth they are proued ovvt of the vuoords by the inscription there expressing the names of the vvryters therof But what a mockerie is this is the bare names of the Apostles sufficient to proue that they were written in deed by the Apostles whoe can proue owt of scripture that these names were not counterfayted The fayned epistle to the Laodicenses hathe it not the name of S. Paul in it and begynneth it not with the verie same style as his other epistles doe and yet is it reiected as counterfaite and that onelye by tradition The fayned gospell of S. Bartholomew had it not his name in it and yet was it not reiected The fayned Gospell of S. Thomas had it not his name and yet Origen sayeth he reiected it onelie for that the tradition of the churche receyued it not The three counterfait Gospells among the hebrewes had they not as holy titles as the rest and yet they were reiected by tradition of the churche as Epiphanius sheweth VVhen Faustus the Manachie denyed the Gospell of S. Mathew sayeth not S. Austen Mathaei euangelium prolatū aduersus faustum Manachaeum per traditionem The Gospell of Mathew was alleaged against Faustus the Manachie by traditiō VVhat can be more euident than all this to proue our opinion of the necessitie of tradition and to confound the fond madnes of this poore minister that will haue the bare titles of bookes sufficient to proue their authoritie and so certainlie as the true scripture it selfe once knowen is to be beleeued The seuenth doctrine whiche he holdeth to be expresselie in scripture is that God the father begatt his sonne onelie by vnderstanding hym selfe Marye he citeth no place fort it but reprehending the darkenes of the woordes which notwithstanding are most playne and vsuall to those whiche haue studyed any thing i◠diuinitie he flyeth to an other matter sayeing vve beleeue by testimonie of the vvoorde that Iesus Christ is the onelie begotten sonne of the father And for this he quoteth a place or two of scripture whiche needed not For we holde this to be expresselie in scripture more than in fortye places But the question is of the manner howe this generation may be whiche though it appertaine not to the simple to trouble them selues with all yet the Church must defend it agaynst aduersaryes whoe will obiect as often they haue done hovve can God beyng a spirit begett a sonne and yet the sonne not to be after his father in tyme or nature but equall vvith hym in them bothe vvhat mean you saye they to holde that the holye ghost proceedeth from the father that the sonne proceedeth not but is begotten vvhye is it heresie to saye that the sonne proceedet◠from the father or that the holye ghost is begotten vvhat difference is there betvveene theese speeches hovv doeth the father begett and the lyke All these are poyntes of diuinitie to be discussed And though M. Charke seemeth ignorāt in them all not to vnderstand so much as the verie termes them selues moste playnlie sett downe yet Catholique diuines kuowe what the Churche hath determined heerin against heretiques and infideles And albeit these thynges be not expresselye sett downe in scripture yet are they no lesse to be beleeued thā the other mysteries of the Trlnitie VVherof I