actions bothe of God and man and al creatures in the world by likning them to some dishonest or ridiculous thing or other whiche a lewde mans inueÌ„tion may find out as this apostata hath done But dothe he charge anye one of the Iesuites in soe manye yeares as he saythe he liued in diuers places with them with any one acte of dishonestie or disorder of lyfe which he might haue done manye if he had liued amongest your ministers soe long Or dothe he improue by learning anie one poynte of their doctrine noe not one but rather vttereth that of their good discipline and orderly life in continual meditation of heauenly thinges with subduing the appetites of their fleshe as maye shame you and your loose ministerie I will put downe his owne wordes translated by you which God enforced him to let faule to his owne confusion and to the iustrifiinge of their honestie The Iesuites sayeth he doe adde vnto their earnest meditations the great toyle of studie also c. And from the time that a man geueth him selfe to such meditations he departeth farre away from al seruice and cherishinge of the body He abandonethe the societye of the fleshe to whippinges and other voluntarye punishmentes of the body He pressethe and beatethe doune pleasure as a blot of shame and as our 18. rule doth command he acknowledgeth the image of Christ in euery one of his spiritual brethren As for riches honor and al thinges which he worlde esteemeth most excellent they contemne them and make none accompt of them These are his wordes M. Charke translated by your selfe the which me thinke contayne prayse ynough especially cominge out of the mouth of a professed enemie which would not report their lyfe to the best yet I doubte lest your enemies shall neuer be able to charge you iustiy with the lyke things Thirdly and lastely I answere to this matter that in this kinde of argument we could easely represse you with many for one of these examples in learned and profounde men of your religion which by the grace of God returne dayly to the Catholicke fayth agayne and that not vpon a fancie as this Apostata left it but vppon great reasons and inuincible proofes which after long studye and toyle they haue founde to stand with the same But for examples sake I wil here recounte onely two both of them later then the running out of this Apostata and both which are exstant in print of men that were many yeares ministers and preachers of your religion The first was called Nicolaus Xylander Borussus who yéeldeth these causes folowinge of his conuersion which I haue onelye touched in general but the Reader may sée them more at large set doune and proued by him selfe in his booke for this purpose 1. His first reason is because he hathe found that the Catholiques haue endured these 15. hundreth years in concorde of one doctrine he recounteth vp 16. distincte Sectes spronge of Luther within these 60. yeares 2. For that the Catholiques can bring their succession of Bishopes one after another from Christ his time vnto ours which the Fathers say to be an inuincible demnostration of the true Churche But the contrarye side bring none at al. 3. The infinite miracles which haue bene in the Catholyque Churche the which we must ether beleue or discredit al antiquitie which reporte them 4. The authoritie of the vniuersal visible Catholique Churche the which hath deliuered vnto vs the Scriptures them selues and haue triumphed ouer soe manye enemies and heresies which from tyme to tyme haue assalted her Whose authoritie was soe great with S. Austen that he would not haue beleued the Gospel but only vppon her authorytie 5. The great holynes of infinite meÌ„ of that Church as S. Anthonie Hilarion Basil Austen Benedict Gregorie Bernard Dominic Frauncis and the like which al were monkes and fryers and professed men of that religion and yet noe doubte are sainctes in heauen which cannot be if they liued in error 6. The reuerent spéeche of Catholique writers and the rayling balsphemous and dishonest spéeche to be found in the writinges of the other side 7. The ordinarye lyinge and fraudulent dealing of Protestantes neuer almost reportinge the opinions of Catholiques trulye but faininge them to say y e which they neuer say nor thinke 8. For that Protestantes estéeme al their Ancestors to be damned and doe breake their wils and ordinaunces by conuerting to prophaâ—â— vses thos reue news and liuings which they assigned to the seruice of God THE Seconde is called Sebastianus Flaschius whoe besides the reasons which the other hath geuen for I omit them which haue bene touched before he yealdethe these reasons of his conuersion 1. For that he hathe founde the Catholiques to teache quite contrarye to that which coÌ„monlye their aduersaryes doe reporte of them 2. For that he hath found by Luthers bookes that he was moued onlye of enuye to write first against the Catholyque Churche 3. For that he hath found in Luthers writings so great dishonestie and scurrilitye of spéeche as might shame anye harlote to reade which could not come froÌ„ a man inspired with the holy Ghost 4. For that the Protestantes doe reiect easily any booke or péece of Scripture which maketh against them and that which they cannot denye he hathe proued that they corrupte it and that they estéeme noe more of Councels and Fathers then of the Turkes Alcoran 5. For that he hath found by reading of ancient histories and Fathers of the primatiue Church that the most of all their newe opinions are ould heresies condemned expressely and by name in the heretikes of the primatiue Church 6. For that he hathe founde Luther to hould manye manifest contrarieties in his woorkes 7. For that Luther séemeth to haue beleued in nothing not being ashamed to saye that he had more confidence in his Katherin Bore and in his Philipe then in Christ. 8. For that he hath found them by experience to be parshall and to exaggerate euerye litle thing that they can find amisse in the liues of Catholiques althoughe amongest them selues they liue most viciouslye especiallye in the sinne of the fleshe For albeit they haue wiues of their owne yet doe they in Germanie according to Luthers doctrine vse their maydes at their pleasure and more then this the ministers vse commutation of wiues amongest them selues and a preacher of no smal account would nedes enforce this man to change wiues with him And many other such thinges whiche he proued amongest them he saythe that verye shame letted him to reporte them FINIS The effecte of M. Hanmers booke The effecte of M. Charke his booke The first part Iesuites noe Secte 1. Reg. 17. 4. Reg. 1. 4. Dan. 1. Marc. 1. The name of Iesuites In psal 132. lib. 11. hist. ca. 3. Li. 3. con lit Petil. ca. 40 Bookes written in the coÌ„mendation of monkes and fryers Luc. 9. Ioh. 12. Math. 19. The true lyfe of Iesuites M. Hanmers notorious lye Vide Iaco. Payuam li. 1. de ortho explicat Ignatius the beginner of the Iesuites Vide Iaco. Payuam li. 1. orthodo explicat Pet. Maffeum in vita Ignatij de Loyola Luther beginner of the new Ghospel Vide Ioan. Cocle. in vi Lutheri LindaÌ„ li. de fug ido ca. 8. 9. Luthers doctrine Lib. de fug idolis ca. 8. Li. de miss angul pag. 228. to 7. li. de missa priua Hoss li. 1. de heres Claudi de Sainct li. de reb eucha LindaÌ„ li. de fug id ca. 8. Luth. ep ad Argenti epist. ad Io. Har. Bucer ep ad Luth. A definition of Sinne. Gen. 29. Aug. li. 3. de lib. arb cap. 19. Transposition in alledginge of Scripture Concupisence noe synne Rom. 7. Rom. 8. Li. de Nup. conc ca. 23. 25. li. 1. con ep 2. Pelag. ca. 13. et li. 1. Re tract ca. 15. Math. 5. First motions noe synne Exo. 20. Deu. 30. Li. de nupt et concupis capit 23. Eccl. 18. All things not expressed in Scriptures Thinges beleeued whiche ar not in Scripture Colos. 4. Obiection 2. Timo. 3. Profitable Necessarye Parts of scripture loste Addinge to Scripture Deut. 4. Non addetis ad verbuÌ„ c Deut. 18. The Scripture may be wrested to an euill sence Nu. 21. Ioh. 3. Math. 25. Psal. 18. The readinge of Scripture 1. Tim. 4. Luc. 2. Math. 22. Deut. 2. Faythe and woorkes Rom. 11. Faythe and hope Heb. 6. Rom. 5. Luc. 10. Faythe grounded onlye vppon the word of God Hope hathe doubte in it Heb. 6. Rom. 5. 1. Pet. 1. Phil. 2. Eccle. 9. Inuocation of Saintes Esa. 63. Ieron in ca. 63. Esa. Math. 25. Hoc facite Traditions Two kinde of traditions 2. Thes. 2. Marc. 7. Three kyndes of Rabbinical expositions of the Law Worshippe of Creatures 2. Cor. 6. Act. 5. 7. Exod. 25. Num. 21. Ioh. 3. Psal. 45. Phil. 2. Aug. li. 3. de Trin. cap. 9 10. M. Charke his lacke of modestye M. Charke his zeale Lyinge for the game Newes from Rome printed by 10. Charlewoode Ed. Whyte The 2. parte M. Charke his conclusion Religion standeth with temporall obedience Rom. 13. Tit. 3. 1. Pet. 2. Vide Apolo duas Iusâ—ni mart A bad argument Wiclif li. 4. Trial. ca. 3. Concil CoÌ„ sessi 8. Luther in Bulla LeoÌ„ 10. Caluin li. 3. inst cap. 19. li. 4. cap. 10. The third part Distinctions Epi. Iudae Arist. in Elench Libertye of pen. Proofes in disputation Councels Fathers and stories Theod. li. 1. hist. ca. 8. Syno Constan Damas. here 99. Philosophie Note this reason Flying onely to Scripture condemned as heretical The 4. Parte Aug. ep 137 ad ple. Hip. Psal. 68. Luc. 16. The Iesuites lyfe by the enemies confession Great labour Deuine meditations Chastising the fleshe Perfect charitye Contempte of riches and honour Causae motiuae N. Xilandri iÌ„pres sae Ingolsta dij 1579. IreÌ„ li. 3. ca. 3. Optat. li. 2. coÌ„tr Donat Aug. ep 165. Professio Catholica M. Seb. Flas chij impres Colo. 1580. Li. de capâ— Bab. eth 〈◊〉 Pap. Li. coÌ„t Pap. et in sermo conuiualib Vide Sand. de visib moÌ„ cap. 57. Fabius de aÌ„tilogijs Lut Serm. conuiu et tit de prophet et tit de oper Dei Ser. de matrimo
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
in ep 1. ad cor Isodorus Li. diu offic cap. 18. Damascenus Li. de ortho fid cap. 14. with others Nether importeth it anie thinge though the woorde facere dothe not signifie to consecrate of his owne nature for the facte of Christe going before draweth it to that signification as if a man should singe and afterwarde say to the standers by Hoc facite Doe the same héere facere should signifie to singe though not of his owne nature 12. You reporte the Iesuites to say Traditions are of equal authority with the woorde of God we must beleue thē though they be manifestlye against the Scripture Cens. fol. 230. You drawe towards an end M. Chark therfore you wil make a soūd lie for a parting blow You haue here added of your owne We must beleue them thoughe they be manifestlye against the Scripture The Iesuites say no such woord but they affirme the former parte of your wordes although not soe generally confusedly as you report For they say not that all traditions are of equal authoritye with the woord of God but only such as are certaynlye descended from Christ his Apostles and were deliuered by thē to be obserued as parte of the woorde of God For there are two kinds of traditions or doctrines receaued onlye by woord of mouthe the one called Ecclesiastical because they were begone and left vs only by the Church and thes ar of no greater authoritie then the writinges and other decrées of the Churche are The other are called Apostolicall or deuine left vnto vs by Christ the Apostles and thes are of no lesse authority then if they had ben writen by thē or then are the other things which they wrot For if a maister should leaue vnto his seruantes one thing in writing and an other thing by woord of mouthe they are of equal authoritie as all men wil graūt Thes traditions therfor if they be certainly knowen to come frō Christ his Apostles the Iesuites say they are of equal authority with y e written word not al traditiōs as you malitiously reporte And now that Christ his Apostles left vnto the Church diuers doctrines by word of mouth only not writen it is proued by inuincible argumētes as by the testimonies of the Councels Fathers stories of the Primatiue church by many places of scripture as namly by that S. Paule saithe to the Thessalonians Brethern stande fast and hould the traditions which you haue lerned ether by word of mouth or by our epistle Also it is proued by doctrines which we haue and hould the Church hath so done frō the beginning which doctrines notwithstanding are not writen but receaued by worde of mouth from Christ and the Apostles as baptisme of infantes celebration of the sondaye the nomber of the bookes of Scripture the fast of lent and the like wherof I haue geuen more examples before in your fourth reporte Now this being soe how vainly doe you bring in M. Charke against this the sayng of Christ touching the superstitious scribes and Pharases In vaine doe they worshipe me teaching doctrines that are but the traditions of men In your owne conscience I aske you is this anything pertaining to our purpose or contrarie to the Catholiques doctrine which I haue set doūe if it be not why doe you soe shamlesly deceaue the people with such impertinēt stuffe But this is your onlye refuge and herein lyethe the whole mayntenance of your cause to reporte vs still amisse and to refute vs with that whiche nothing pertayneth to the matter As in this place whiche you haue héere brought in let the reader marke how manye differences there be betwixt it and our purpose First Christ in this place reprehendeth the teaching of doctrins that are but of men and we talke of doctrines deliuered vs by Christ and his Apostles Secondly Christe reprehendeth not al obseruation of traditiōs of men but the noughtie obseruation of them by estéeming them more then the worde of God and by breaking the worde of God for the obseruinge of them which we also doe condemne Thirdlye those traditions of the Pharases which Christ reprehendeth were certayne idle and foolishe external ceremonies as the washing of cuppes and the lyke and dyuers of them were directe contrarye to the worde of God as certaine corrupt expositiōs of the law as Christ noteth there And these were of thrée kindes The one left by Rabbi Akiuam the other by Rabbi Iuda the thyrde by the sonnes of Asomoneus which interpretations all were called Deuteroseis that is secondarye expositions after Moyses of which peruerse expositions came al their errours of the Talmud But now what is this to the holye Traditions of Christ and his Apostles or of the Primatiue Church 13. Lastly you report the Iesuites to say We must worshippe the image of Christ with lyke honour that we doe the holy bookes of the Ghospel fol. 66. Agaynst which you bring in S. Paul askinge What agreemente is there betweene the temple of God and Idoles I answere much more agréement then there is betwéene the matter we talke of and this place of S. Paule For he talketh of drawinge the yoke with infidels and our question is whether the worshippe done to the image of Christ and to the Byble be al one or no But you by callinge the image of our Sauiour an Idole shew your selfe impious and you are accursed for it by the seuēth general Councel And by putting such great difference betwéene the worship of Christes Image and his books of the Ghospel you proue your vnderstanding to be very litle For if you graunt any kinde of worshippe to the one how can you deny the same to the other séeinge that both are creatures and as the Image was made by the Karuer so the letter of the Byble by the Printer and the hononr done to the one and the other is not to them selues but onely to God whose Image and word they are But if you denye al kinde of honour to them both in that they are creatures for we assigne no diuyne honour vnto them Thē first your place of S. Paul of difference is nothing to the purpose Secondlye what wil you saye to the worshipppe done vnto the Arke vnto the Cherubins vnto the serpent of brasse Why doth Dauid say Doe you adore the stoole of his feete Why are we commaunded to bowe our knée at the sounde of the name of Iesus which is but a creature representing Christ to the eare as his image doth to the eye S. Austen geueth this reason for it Because the honour done to these thinges doth redounde vnto him who is signified by them But you are so wilful M. Chark as you wil not vnderstād y e difference betwéene an image and an idole nor betwéene the honours done vnto a creature and to the creator but malitiously you wil stil confound the same in our names