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
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
VVhich appeareth also by the scripture it selfe For act 28. where bothe the latin translation and their English hathe a secte the greek hath heresie So likewise gal 5. the same you may reade act 24.26 2. pet 2. And if in olde time there were anie differēce betwene these woordes amōg the gentiles heresie was the more generall cleane contrarie to that M. Charke imagineth For that heresie signifyeing an election of some priuate opinion was the generall name to all the particular sectes of philosophers As to the secte of Stoikes platonikes peripatikes and the like as moste learnedlie doe note S. Ierom in cap. 3. ep ad Tit. And Isodorus l. 8. etym. cap. 3. Theophilact in ca. 2. ep ad col And Tertulian l. de prescript So that this was a great ouer sight in M. Charke The second argument whiche M. Charke vseth to proue a difference betwene a sect and an heresie and so to ouerthrowe the definition is for that yf one man sayeth he cutt hym selfe of in opinion he shall not be called a sect except there be manie But he shalbe called a sectarie M. Charke as also for the same cause he shall be called not an heresie but an heretique I maruaile where your witt was when you deuised this differēce without a diuersitie But you adioyne to this two examples of scripture the one of the Corinthians sharplie rebuked of Schisme by S. Paul for that one sayd he was of Paul an other of Apollo an other of Cephas an other of Christ who notwithstanding dyd not differ in matters of faith saye you but therein by your leaue you are greatlie deceyued For albeit S. Paul doeth vse the greeke woord Shisme in that place which in his proper significatiō is but a degree to heresie as S. Augustine proueth by example of the donatists first shismatikes after heretiques yet schism in his large ample significatiō whereby it signifiethe all diuision cōprehēdeth not onelie heresie but also all error of faith whereby men are deuided in beleefe which is not alwayes heresie except it be defended against the churche with obstinacie And such schisme o◠diuisiō in beleefe was the schisme of the Corinthiás as S. Austen well noteth for that they erred in a point of faith esteming the vertue power of Baptisme not to depend onelie of Christ but of the dignitie of the Baptiser And therfore one bragged as baptized of Paul an other of Apollo an other of Cephas some folowing the trueth in deede sayd that by what minister soeuer they were baptized yet held they onelye their Iustification sanctificatiō of Christ as cōcurring equallie with all his ministers in Baptisme This is S. Augustens Catholique exposition besides this the woordes of the text doe manifestlie proue the same Is Christ deuided sayeth S. Paul that is doeth he impart hym selfe more in one mans baptisme than in an others or doeth he not equallie and whollie concurre in euerie of his ministers baptisme Agayne vvas Paul crucified for you to witt thereby to be able to sanctifie you of hym selfe by his baptisme Or vvere you baptized in the name of Paul No but in the name power and vertue of Christ who onelie sanctifieth in euerie baptisme I thank God that I haue baptized none among you but Chrispus and Caius and the house of Steuen lesse anie man might say that you vvere baptized in my name By this it appeareth plainlie that the Corinthiās were deuided in matter of faythe about baptism VVherfore as this example maketh nothing to the purpose for whiche it was brought so is it fondlie and malitiouslie applied by you against Catholiques whoe say I folovv the rule or order of lyfe of Benedict I of Augusten I of Basil I of Francis wherein there is no difference of faith at all No more to this purpose thoghe the matters be vnlyke than yf yow ministers should saye among your selues in the contrarie sense of libertie I will liue vnmaried after the order of my Lorde of Canterburie I will take a wyfe after the platforme of my Lord of London I will haue two wiues together after the fashiō of M. Archedeacon of Salesburie I will haue a wyfe and a wenche besides after the custome of some other archedeacon and preacher in England Your second example is of the phariseys vvho vvere a notorious sect saye you and yet dyd not cut of them selues by heresie from the churche VVherein agayne you ouerslipp fowlie For in that they were a notoriouse sect they held particular heresies as the passing of soules from bodie to bodie the like whereof you may read in Ioseph L. 2. de bello Iudaico cap. 7. in philastrius in his catologe of heresies vpon the woord phariseus And this is to be vnderstoode of some of the pharises For other wyse I confesse that the pharises were sometime called a sect or heresie in good parte for that they defended the immortalitie of the soule and were deuided therby from the Saduces who denyed the same act 23. And in this sense spake S. Paul when he sayd before the Iudgement seat towching his lyfe past before his conuersion I lyued a pharisey according to the moste certaine sect of our religion VVhere is to be noted against M. Charke againe that S. Paul in greeke vseth the woord heresie whiche in his generall signification importinge onelie a choyse of any opinion as I haue noted before might be taken in good sense euen as this woorde Tyrannie might and was taken of the olde writers though now by vse and appropriation bothe the one and the other be taken in euell part And to the ende M. Charke may confesse his ouersight in this matter I will alleage hym the woordes of one of his owne doctors M. Fulke by name who of this matter sayeth thus S Paul hym selfe openlie acknouleged that he vvas a pharisey vvhen nothing vvas vnderstoode by the name but one that beleeued the resurrection of the dead although the tearme of pharisey vvas othervvyse the name of a sect of heretiques vvhiche maintained many damnable errors from vvhiche the Apostles vvere moste free By this nowe is defended the definition of sectaries geuen by the Censure and ouerthrowne that fond new definition deuised by M. Charke and called by hym a truer definition according to the true etymologie of the vvord to witt A sect is a cōpagnie of men that differ from the rest of their religion in matter or forme of their profession Touching the true etymologie whiche he speaketh of I can not tell what he meaneth nor I think hym selfe For in greke the scripture vseth the woorde heresie for i◠as hathe bene shewed whiche can yelde no etymologie to maintaine this definition And in Latin Secta muste nedes come ether a secando or a sectando bothe whiche being referred to matters of the mynde as necessarilie they must doe include alwaye a
at one tyme where Luthers woordes are these Conâ—igiâ— me semel sub mediam noctem subitò expergesieri Ibi Sathan mâ—cuÌ„ coepit eiusmodi disputationem Audi inquit Luthere doctor perdocte ce It happened that once I awaked about mydnight sayth Luther and then Sathan began this disputation with me Harken sayeth he right learned doctor Luther And then the deuyll layeth downe fyue long argumentes against the masse adding in the ende Age prome vbi scriptum est vbi iussit aut praecepit hoc deus Goe to now shew me where is the Masse writen in scripture where hathe God commaunded yt After this Luther putteth hys owne answers to the deuyll and the deuilles replies to whiche in processe his being not able to answer finallie yeelded to banishe the masse vpon the deuils appointement And this was the honorable beginning of Luthers conuersion and of all protestancie by the expresse woordes and confession of the first beginner hym selfe But heere william Charke hathe a shyft for this fowle matter sayeing that this conference of Luther vvith the deuyll vvas no other than suche a temptation or conflict as Christ and Saint Paul had vvith Sathan that is it vvas no bodilie conference but a spirituall fight in mynde sayeth this minister O fond and blasphemous euasion Suppose it had bene onelie a spirituall temptation in mynde suche as the conflictes of Christ and S. Paul were yet the coÌ„parison is impious for nether Christ nor S. Paul dyd euer yeelde to the persuasions of the deuill as Martin Luther dyd in banishing the masse And this is the difference betwene euill and good men in this lyfe that bothe beinge assaulted with persuasions from the deuill the one yeeldeth to them and the other resistethe SecoÌ„dlie it is euideÌ„t that this coÌ„fereÌ„ce of Martin Luther was more than spirituall as appeareth by the deuilles preface wherein he calleth the fryar right learned doctor according to the veine of pryde wherwith he saw hym puffed vpp and therby redye to receyue his impressions The same appeareth also by the sound of Sathans voyce described in the place alleaged in the CeÌ„sure but especiallie for that in this place Luther confesseth some of his felowes to haue bene slayne by this confereÌ„ce For these are his woordes Et ego plane persisasus sum Emserum Oecolampadium similes â—iis actions horribilibus quassationibus subitò extinctos esse And I am plainlie persuaded that Emserus and Oecolampadius and the like were killed sodainlie with these terrible blowes and shakinges of the deuill Finallie the bushell of salt whiche Luther confessethe hym selfe to haue eaten together with this deuill proueth that he had bodilie conference with hym And that this Sathan was become now verie gentle and familiar to Luther albeit he was churlish and kylled other hys companions Towching M. Luthers dronken deathe from his deceitfull deuell as is coniectured M. Charke thinketh it lacke of discretion in me to publishe the same from so insufficient witnesses as he callethe them the coÌ„ntrarie being writen by men more indifferent as he sayeth And in the margent in counterpease of all my wittnesses he quotethe onelie Iohn Sleidan a lutheran and the protestants historiographer But what reason is there whie one Sleydan should be preferred before so many learned men and reuerend byshops that haue auowed the matter whoe lyued in Luthers time and many of them were Germanes and dyd know bothe his lyfe and his deathe especiallie seynge of all the historiographers that euer toke penne in haÌ„d Iohn Sleydan is the moste infamous for lyeing as may appeare in particular by Fontanus and Pontanus that haue discouered the same as also by Gaspar Genepaeus whoe hath done the same most substantiallie and of purpose And more than all the rest Bartholomeus latomus a singular learned man hathe set furth a book of the Eleuen thovvsand lyes of Iohn Sleidan And Gropperus one of the rarest men that euer oure age had commonlye calleth Iohn Sleidans storie das lugen buck that is the book of lyes The fame thereof coÌ„ming at a time to the eares of Charles the Emperour whiche had best cause to know how matters passed being cheefe agent therin hym selfe caused diuerse partes thereof to be redde iÌ„ his hearing and in the presence of his captains whoe hearing so infinite vntruethes reported could not contayne but often wolde interrupt the reader sayeing there the knave lieth And a litle after againe there the knave lyeth And so finalie reiecting the booke he commaunded one Gulielmus Muleâ—aeus a moste eloquent man to refute the same So that Sleidan alone is not sufficient to ouer-beare so many witnesses in this case wherein he was moste partiall that is touching Luther he beinge luthers scholar and writing purposelie bothe at his appointement and in his commendation But yet because you shall not want a sounde testimonie also in this matter I will alleage you IVSTVS IONAS Luthers deare freend and cooke as partiall towards hym as Sleydan hym selfe but onelie that being at his deathe and writinge a booke of the same by the prouidence of God he vttered this point among other For thus Pontacus writeth Martinus Lutherus quem tertium Eliam quidam ausi sunt vocare cum bene potus Hâ—laris in lecto cubuisset manè repertus est mortuus Iustus Ionas eius coquus libro de eius vita obitu refert cum Paulo ante mortem sibi Caelio aliis qui tunc aderant dixisse Orate deuÌ„ pro domino deo nostro eius euaÌ„gelio That is Martine Luther whome some dare call the thyrd Elias goeing to bed well typpled merye was found dead the next morning being the first day of Marche the yere of our Lorde 1544 and the 63. yere of his age Iustus Ionas his cooke affirmeth in a booke written of his lyfe death that he sayd to hym a litle before his deathe and to Celius and others that were present do you pray to God for our lord and God and for his gospell Heere now by Iustus Ionas his reporte Luther praied for Christ at his deathe which ether you must a-scribe to dronkennes or to sâ—me worse affection he being in his perfect wittes as the author affirmeth And this shalbe sufficient touching the deathe of doctor Martine Luther And now we come to Luthers disseâ—tion with his owne broode as the Censure sayeth that is to his deadlie warre with his owne folowers and to the discorde betwene Lutheranes Zuinglians which our English protestaÌ„ts doe beare men in hand to be all one in faith and of one churche and M. Charke heere in this place with the same foreheade as in other matters affirmeth moste confidentlie that they had alvvayes a singular care of vnitie in the gospell And citeth for proofe thereof an acte of coÌ„corde agreed vpon at Marpurge Anno 1529. But this is intolerable impudencie For Brentius hym selfe
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
Prince or people euen as a man may frame a nose of vvaxe vvhat vvay or to vvhat forme he liste And vvill you of this make them to saye that the holye Scripture is a nose of vvaxe Christ is lykened to a serpent and yet is no serpent Also to a couetous Vsurer and yet is none Nether doth the Scripture committ blasphemie in vsing such similitudes But hovv proue you M. Charke that the scripture maye not be vvrested into manye senses before the rude people as a nose of vvaxe maye be into manye formes Because it is coÌ„trarye saye you vnto the vvordes of Dauid The lawe of the Lorde is perfecte conuerting soules Suerly I vvould you might be feed euen for the sauing of your credit M. Chark to alleage one place vvithout corruptioÌ„ Doe you translate Lex domini immaculata The Lavve of the Lorde is perfecte in sense soe that it maye not be vvrested to a vvroÌ„g interpretation This is maruelous Immaculata signifieth in these countries vnspotted voyde of filthe or dishonestie vvherevvith prophane vvritinges are often times defiled But the lavv of God is deuoyde of all suche thinges and therefore conuerteth soules vvhereas other vvritinges doe often tymes corrupt them But that Immaculata can not be translated perfecte in sense it is euidente by this that euerye sillable and vvorde in Gods Lavve is vnspotted but yet not perfecte in sense muche lesse so cleare as it may not be peruerted to an euill meaninge vvherby your fraudulente translation is discouered THE DEFENCE To auoyde the reproche of belyeing and slaundering the Iesuits in this place M. Charke hath this refuge I appealle sayeth he froÌ„ your Censure to Andradius playne confession He defended the Iesuitesâ— in these poyntes agaynst kemnitius vvhiche you defend agaynst me This Andradius in handlyng this article doeth not at all crye ouâ— as you doe but acknovvlegeth defendeth the matter vvithouâ— suche needles scoffes VVhat scoffes the Censure vseth or what cryeing out there is in this article the reader seeth and can Iudge of your report M. Charke But that you are the same man which you were before that is most false and shameles in your avouchementes it shall nowe appeare You saye heere of Andradius twoo things First that he playnlye confesseth and acknowlegeth the matter Secondlye that he cryeth not owt agaynst kemnitius for this report And for bothe these things you quote Andradius in the hundred fowertie page of his second booke As for the first lett anye man see the place by you quoted and yf Andradius confesse any more of the matter than is sett downe in the Censure it selfe lett hym beleeue you an other tyme vppon your woorde For the second it is to-too impudent For albeit Andradius had not altogether so much cause to take stomach against kemnitius as I haue against you for makyng a greater lye than he dyd as shalbe shewed yet lett the reader vewe ouer but the two pages whiche goe immediatlie before that whiche you cite he shall see nothing els in them but a moste earnest sharpe inuectiue against kemnitius and all other protestaÌ„ts for malitious slaundering and misreporting the â—esuites And among other things Andradius sayeth there that for a greatâ— tyme he tooke pytie of the protestaÌ„ts thiâ—king that they had erred of ignorance But nowe seeyng their malice in forging open lyes against their owne consciences that is which they must needes know and vnderstand to be lyes his affection of compassion was turned into hatred This and much more hath Andradius in that place against kemnitius for shameles lyeing And yet M. Charke sayeth that he cryeth not owt as I doe but câ—fesseth all VVhat may be sayd to such But as I sayed before Andradius had not so much cause of Choler against kemnitius as I haue against M. Charke for that he doeth not onelie report againe an open vntrueth whiche he knewe to be a lye before he repoâ—ted it but also hath corrupted and falsified that lye to make yet a greater lye VVhiche thyng that you may see I will heere laye downe the verie woordes bothe of kemnitius of Gotuisus M. Charkes author for that their woordes are the selfe same and Gotuisus tooke them syllable for syllahle from kemnitius Gotuisus woordes then are these The Iesuites saye that the holye scripture in those thyngs vvhiche it contayneth and settetb forth is as it vvere a nose of vvaxe not yeelding any certaine and immouable sentence but such as may be vvrested into any interpretation Censura Colon. fol. 117. in opere catechestico Canisij fol. 44. For this false report of kemnitius against the Iesuites Andradius falleth into the loÌ„g and vehement inuectiue wherof I spake before But what should I doe heere with VV. Charke or rather what should the reader think of hym for so great a falshoode as in this place he vseth for first he concealeth the quotatioÌ„ of Canisius fol 44 as well in his first book as also in his second replye And the cause heerof is as often hath beene noted before for that the quoting of Canisius according as he found hym quoted in his author wolde haue discouered the lye which M. Chark hoped to conceale by passing ouer Canisius and cyting onelye the Censure of Colen whiche he was sure no man coulde fynde in England And is this dealing excusable Secondlie owt of the large sentence of Gotuisus nowe repeated M. Charke tooke onelie three or fower woordes that seemed most odious and yet falsified too therby to make them more odious For wher as Gotuisus sayeth the Iesuits holde the scriptures to be as it vvere a nose of vvaxe M. Chaâ—ke writeth that the Iesuits saye the holye scripâ—ure is a nose of vvaxe and quoteth for it Censura Colen fol. 117. whiche he knewe was not to be had concealeth purposelie bothe kemnitius Gotuisus and Canisius where the forgerie was to be discouered VVhat shall a man say of this ministers falshood shall we beleeue any longer this puritane protestation of playne and simple dealing in the lord what hypocriticall deceyuing of the reader is this And thus muche for the slaunder and falshoode in reportinge But now to come to the matter it selfe the Censure graunteth that vppon certayne circumstances the Iesuites doe compare the hereticall wreâ—ting and detorting of scripture vnto the boweâ—ng of a nose of waxe into many formes Mary the circumstances of this comparison are these Fyrst that they speake not in respect of the scripture in it selfe but in respect of heretiques and other wicked men which abuse scripture Secondlye they add apud rudem populum qui iudicare non potest This abuse and wrestinge of scripture happeneth commonlie before the rude and ignorant people whiche can not iudge of the deceyt Thirdlye they adioyne vt palpentur vitia principum aut vulgi Heretiques doe it to flatter the princes or people present in theyr vices By whiche woordes
they signifie the fauour of the hearers All these circumstances the Iesuits laye downe when they compare the scripture abused to a nose of waxe wrested And who is so foolishe but will coÌ„fesse that a lewd and wicked man in an ignorant audience where all men fauour his doctrine for that he flattereth them in theyr sinnes maye wrest abuse the holye scripture as men are wonte to bend a nose of wax to what plausible sense it lyketh hym best No mary sayeth M. Chark it can not be For albeit an hereretike may vvrest and peruert the scripture yet S. Peter teacheth that it shalbe to hys ovvne destruction and the scripture notvvithstanding shall remayne perfect and vndefiled As though we did holde the contrarie to this or as though we did impute the wrestinge of the scripture vnto imperfection of gods woorde not to the malice of the wrester or as though we sayd that this wresting were not destruction vnto the wrester VVho euer heard suche kinde of answering he sayeth the scripture may be wrested and peruerted and yet he will euen with these woords answer and refute vs which holde also that it may be wrested He sayethe the very same that we doe and yet will he haue men beleeue that he sayethe the contrary VVhere were your wittes sir william when yow wrote this answer But you storme greatlie agaynst the comparison sayeing shall Iesuits mayntayne this directlie or in directlie in a kâ—ngdome vvhere the gospell is preached VVhat els good syr euen in the kyngdome of you ministers to the confusion of your false named Gospell whiche is nothing els but the letter of scripture peruerted and woorse abused and wrested by yow to all errors and licentiousnes than euer waxen nose was yet bended to diuers fashions It is no fault of holye scripture that wicked men may abuse it For the more excelleÌ„t a thing is the more easie and pernicious is the abuse therof Christ was the excelleÌ„test benefit that euer God gaue vnto this worlde and yet is he called notwithstanding lapis offensionis petra Scandali the stone of offence and rock of scandal not for any fault or imperfection in hym but through the wickednes of suche as abuse that benefit So when S. Ierome dothe call the scripture alleaged corruptlie by Marcian and Basilides euangelium Diaboli the deuills Gospell yeelding this reason that the Gospell consisted not in the vvoordes of scripture but in the sense Also wheÌ„ S. Austen calleth the scripture arcum haereticorum The bowe of heretiques And Ireneus compareth it abused by heretiques to a Iewell stamped with the forme of a dogge or fox In Lykewise when Gregorie Nazianzen compareth it to a syluer skaberd with a leaden swoorde within yt Tertullian to the deceitfull ornaments of harlots Vincentius Lyrinensis to poysoned herbes couered in the apothecaries shoppe vvith fayer titles and superscriptioÌ„s on the boxes where they lye No doubt these fathers meaÌ„t not by suche comparisons to detracte any thinge from the dignitie and excellencie of holie scripture no more than the Iesuits dyd in comparing it to a nose of vvax abused and vvrested by malitious heretiques And I vvolde knovv of M. Charke for that he exaggerateth so muche the indignitie of this comparison hovv he vvill interpret hys holy man Martin Luthers ovvne vvoordes vvhiâ—he after a long discourse to proue that all heresies seeke theyr foundation in scripture are these Quare verum est sicut dicitur Scripturam sanctam esse librum haereticum hoc est eiusmodi librâ—Ì„ quo potissimùm haeretici nituntur VVherfore it is true vvhiche is sayde that the holye scripture is an hereticall booke that is suche a booke as heretiques most of all leane vnto And a litle after Haereseon liber biblia sunt The bible is a booke of heresies Oh that the Iesuites had vsed suche vvoordes hovv vvold VV. Chark and his felovves haue triumphed against them for the same And yet thoughe Martin Luthers fashion vvas to runne ouer the shooes in what soeuer he tooke in haÌ„d I thinke he meant nothing in these vvoordes against the dignitie of scripture For he addeth in the verie place alleaged Scriptura sancta haereseon liber est non sui causa sed istorum nebulonum qui eam deprauant The holie scripture is a booke of heresies not of it selfe but by the meanes of those knaues vvhiche doe peruert yt This is father Luthers swete benediction vppon sacramentaries vvherof I trowe M. Charke will not deny hym selfe to be one And thus you see that the Iesuites haue not onelie trueth and reason on their syde to vse that comparison but also haue examples in this kynde both of auncient fathers and of our aduersaries them selues VVhat intemperat malice then is this of william Charke so to raue against them for this one coÌ„parison vsed without all derogation of Scripture yf they had spoken euill of any scripture in it selfe yf they had reiected any one booke therof as protestants doe many yf they had discredited or defaced any one sentence therof as Luther dothe most odiouslie the whole epistle of S. Iames yf they should saye any booke of the scripture to be written with a profane and ambitious spirit as your D. Fulk doeth of the Machabies yf they should ieste at the Angell Raphaell in the booke of Tobie as M. VVhittaker doeth or fall to that extreme impudencie as to reuyle in open audience any holie person coÌ„mended in sacred wryte as you dyd M. Chark without shame when you called that blessed womaÌ„ of God Iudith vnchaste Iudith in your disputations with M. Campian yf the Iesuites I saye should saye or doe any of these thynges as you are driuen to doe then myght you iustlie accuse theÌ„ drawe theÌ„ into hatred for deprauing of gods woorde But seing they doe not soe but alltogether the coÌ„trarie seyng they defend gods whole woord agaynst you that offerre violence to the same seyng they maintayne the number of bookes which antiquitie hath left theÌ„ the vnwritteÌ„ traditioÌ„s that the Apostles haue delyuered them the Catholiques expositioÌ„s which auncient fathers haue assigned them seyng they nether choppe nor chaunge nor corrupt nor put owt nor coÌ„teÌ„ptuouslie reiecte anie one thing as you doe infinite for maintainyng of your ruynous and most impious cause you endeuour in vayne to discredit them by exaggerating one poore comparison or similitude whiche they vpon occasion vsed to expresse the wickednes of you heretiques that abuse scripture and not to attribute any imperfection to scripture it selfe No man in the world euer spake more reuerentlie of holye scripture than Iesuites doe And whether they seeke to execute it in lyfe as muche as our ministers of England or no let them be iudges that know bothe theyr conuersatioÌ„s I myght heere alleage infinite testimonies owt of theyr workes how with what reuerence they speak of scripture But one place onelie of Canisius
shall serue for this tyme. He hath wryten two large and learned volumes of the corruptions of gods woorde by the heretiques of our tyme where he hath these wooâ—des Est ergo verbum dei c. VVherfore the vvoorde of God is as holie scripture conteyneth the knovvleige of saluatioÌ„ the cleare lanterne and shynyng lampe it is the hydden mysterie the heauentlie Manna the pure and proued golde the learnyng of Saints the doctrine of all spirit and trueth the loking glasse the liuelye fontayne the sealed booke vvhich booke vvho soeuer doe vse vvell they are Gods scholars they are spirituall they are vvyse they are iust they onelye are made the freendes and heyres of almightie God These are Canisius a Iesuites woordes And doe these men speak baselye of scriptures as M. Chark heere accuseth them But now we come to examine the text alleaged by M. Chark agaynst the Iesuites to wytt Lex domini immaculata the law of our Lord is vnspotted or vndâ—filed which M. Charke wolde haue to signifie that the scripture is so perfect playne in sense as no wicked man may wrest or abuse the same For whiche absurd reasoninge and wrestinge of scripture he being now reproued by the Censure heare what he answereth and how he defendeth hym selfe The Censure sayeth he supposeth me to haue but one Byble and that of the olde translation onelie vvhich hathe the lavve of the Lord is vndefiled c. but the original hath the lavve of the Lord is perfect And the best translations haue so translated it your olde translation goeth alone The 70. folovv the rest Heere you see that M. Charke bryngeth diuers reasons for his defense First that he hath diuers Bybles in his house and that of diuers translations Secondlie that the original or hebrew text of this verse in the Psalme hath not immaculata that is vndefiled or vnspoted but rather perfect in that sense as he defendeth it Thirdlie that all the best translations haue it so and that our olde translation differeth from them all Fouerthlie that the septuagint or seuentie greke interpretours are also against vs here in This is all M. Charkes defense But here by the waye wolde I haue the reader to Marke how muche M. Charke getteth to hys cause Yf I should graunt hym all that he hathe here sayd surelie he should gayne onelie that the law of God is perfect And is this against any thinge that we saye or holde or is it against the signification of the woord immaculata in the olde latin translation whiche he impugneth Is not a thinge immaculate or vndefiled also called perfect euen as on the contrarie a filthie or defiled thinge is called imperfect If then we should graunt that the hebrew and greeke textes had the woord perfect in them in steed of the latin woord immaculata yet this dothe not condemne the olde translation for vsing the woord immaculata immaculate For that immaculate as hath bene shewed signifieth also perfect from spot mary not perfect in that sense wherin M. Charke talketh and for proofe wherof he alleaged this sentence to witt that because the law of the lorde is perfect therfore the scripture can not be wrested whiche is a most false and absurd illation vppon the worde perfect For S. Paules epistles are persect together withe other scriptures and yet S. Peter sayeth that many men dyd wrest and depraue them But now lett vs consider the seuerall fower pointes of M. Charkes former answer whiche as yow see if wee should graunt vnto him without contradiction yet had he gayned nothing therby But lett vs examine them Touching the first whiche he answereth that is abowt the varietie of Bybles and translations which he hath at home I will not stand or coÌ„tend with M. Chark Let hym haue as many as he please the matter is howe well he vnderstandeth or reporteth those Bybles and not how many he hath The second poynt is false that the hebrew text disagreeth from the olde latin translation as shalbe shewed after The thyrd is fond that all the best translations doe differe from the olde translation heerin For what best or better or other good latin translation hath he than the olde whiche was in vse in gods Churche aboue thirtene hundred yeeres past as may be seene by the citations of the fathers whiche lyued then whiche was afterwarde also ouervewed corrected by S. Ierom which was also so hyghlye coÌ„mended by S. Augustin what other better translation I saye hath william Charke than this auncient which he so contemneth except he will name some latter of our tyme as of Erasmus Luther or the like whiche Beza hym selfe notwithstandinge affirmeth to be nothing lyke the olde traÌ„slatioÌ„ for exactnes The fowerth poynt which he addeth is a shameles lye that the septuagint in greeke doe dissent from the woorde immaculata in the latin For their woorde is AMOMOS which their owne lexicon will expound vnto them to be immaculate innocent irreprehensible To returne therfore in a woorde or two to the originall text the hebrew woorde is TAMAM or TAM which the septuagint doe interpret as you haue heard AMOMOS that is irreprehensible and the auncient latin translation immaculata immaculate And what refuge then can M. Charke fynde heere I doe not denye but that it signifieth also perfect for that what soeuer is irreprehensible and without spott may also be called perfect as hath bene shewed But how doeth this proue that it signifieth to be perfect in sense in suche sorte as it may not be wrested or peruerted In the 118. Psalme where our auncient translation hath beati immaculati in via your owne englysh bible hath translated it M. Charke blessed are those that be vndefyled in the vvaye and the Hebrew and greeke woordes are TAM AMOMOS as in the other text How then doe you rayle at our olde auncient translation for that wherein your new englishe byble doth the verye same the lyke you may see in infinite other places as leuit 3. v. 1. 6. Also Num. 6. v. 14. VVhere sacrifices are appointed to be immaculate according to the auncient tranflation And your englishe byble translateth it so too sayeinge they must be without blemishe where the hebrew and greeke woordes are TAM and AMOMOS as before By whiche is seene that M. Charke careth not whether he runneth what he forgeth or whome he reprehendeth so he maye seeme allwayes to saye somewhat And of all other shyftes this is the last and the easiest and of most credit and least able to be spyed of his reader as he thinketh to inueighe against the olde latin translation when he is pressed vnauoydablye with any place of scripture alleaged For this shyft besides the present couering of the difficultie yeeldeth also some opinion of Learning to his Maister gyuinge men to vnderstand that he is skillfull in the learned tongues whereas God knoweth the refuge is vsed for bare
miserie as it alwayes appeareth when it coÌ„methe to examination And this shall suffice for this sixt article HEERE the Authour vvas interrupted by a VVritte de remouendo so as he could not for this present passe on any further as more at large is shewed at the beginning in an epistle to M. Charke A BREEFE TABLE OF THE PRINCIPALL matters contayned in the defence of the Censure THe foly and badd dealyng of Hanmer pag. 3.4.5.6 How to discerne a cleane spirit from an vncleane page 11 12.13â— The ordinarie fashion of heretiques in raylyng as appeareth by Fulke Chark Hanmer page 11.13.14.15 33.34.35.36.38.158.159 And as appeareth by Caluin page 15. And by Luthers raylyng speache against kyng Henry the eight page 15.16 17. And against Caluinistes page 17.18 VVhat a secte and sectarie is and hovv it may differe or agree with heresie page 19.21.22.26 The Iesuites are no sect page 19. The pharises a secte page â—4 Charkes absurde ouersyght in definynge a secte page 25. Religious men odius to heretiques pag. 30.31.32.33 The religious vocation consisteth in three vowes pa. 38 The monkes of olde tyme made vowes page 36. The religious state of these tymes and of the primatiue churche all one insubstance page 38. Elias Helizeus and S. Iohn Baptist paternes of religious men page 19.20.21 S. Augustin a religious man page 38. Austeritie of life and voluntarie pouertie practized by auncient fathers and by Christ hym selfe page 27.39 Mariage of votaries is worse than adulterie page 37. 43 44â—50 Luther for feare entered into Religion page 49. His horrible doctrine and impietie page 45. 51. and so forthe to the 66. page Hys bodilie conference with the deuill page 68.69 Hys dronken deathe page 66.70.71 The dissention of protestantes 74.75.76.77.92.93 Iohn Caluin his falling into heresie pag. 78. His burning in the shoulder for Sodomye page 78. His ambition and vainglorie page 81.82 His maner in raysing of the deade page 82. His casting owt of a deuyll page 83. His lasciuious lyfe and dayntynes page 84. Hys horrible siknes and deathe page 89. Beza his wicked disposition Simonie and lasciuiousnes pag 86â—87 88.89 The six reformers of religion what kynde of men they were page 90.91.92 Bucer his inconstancie and deathe 92.93 M. Chark caÌ„ not be certaine of his good estate pag. 112. Luthers absurd doctrine that a woman is as necessarye for man as meate drynke and sleepe page 63. The definition of synne pag 101. c. to 109. page Not onelie incredulitie is sinne against Luthers doctrine pag 51. Synne is a reasonable action pag. 104. Synne is voluntarie page 105. Madde men and vnreasonable creatures can not sinne pag 108. Concupiscence is not properlie a sinne in the regenerate pag 116.117 c. M. Charks maruailous impudencie in translating S. Austen page 121. It is the opinion not of Catholiques but of Caluin that God is the author of euill page 124. The first motions how they are no synne pag. 125. 126. The true diuision of the tenne commaundementes pag. 132.133 Traditions of equall force with the written woord pag. 159 160. Tradition is called an vnwritten law page 160. Fulks impudencie in discrediting 8. auncient fathers and all antiquitie page 158. 159. The sufficiencie of scripture page 149. M. Charks three fond reasons concerning the sufficiencie of scripture page 151.152 How hereticall wrestinge of scripture is compared to a Nose of waxe page 66. The faultes correcte thus Pag. 10. lin 25. for embreued Reade imbrued Pag. 11. lin 9. for oder Reade order Pag. 12. in the margent for Act. 6. Reade Act. 8. Pag. 16. in the margent for Fol. 442. Reade Fol. 342. Pag. 17. lin 13. for Angelicam Reade Anglicam Pag. 18. lin 16. for Caluinistes vvhoe say theyr maisters doe call Reade Caluinistâ— vvho are theyr maisters doe call Pag. 29. lin 26. for your Reade you Pag. 29. lin vlt. for men Reade man Pag. 32. lin 15. for Nounes Reade Nonnes Pag. 33. in the margent Reade Pag. 96. 98. Pag. 40. lin 36. for Loyalas Reade Loyolas Pag. 47. lin 19. for Praeolus Reade Prateolus Pag. 61. in the margent for ingenius Reade ingenuus Pag. 64. in the margent Reade concil const act 4. can 2. conci Nic. 2. act 1. can 2. Pag. 69. lin vlt. for actibus Reade ictibus Pag. 74. in the margeÌ„t for pag. 17. 19. Reade 17. 18. Pag. 9â— lin 6. for Burtin Reade Bursin Pag. 102. in the margent for cap. 14. Reade lib. 14. Pag. 103. in the margent for de vnct Reade de virt Pag. 138. lin 2. for Niphlet Reade Niphleth Pag. 143. lin 38. for yeares Reade dayes See this handled at large aftervvard in the defence pag. 56. 57. See of this after pag. 120. Vide postea Arâ— â— See aftervvarde in the defence pag. 2. 1. Iohn 4. VVhiche parte more desirethe triall of spirites VVho doe offer best meanes of tryall Onely scripture Li. 2. de nu concup ca. 31. li. 3. cont don cap. 15. Three causes of appealinge onelie to scripture De captiui Babilon in initio Cap. de Sacram In aeditio vlt. loc coÌ„ In institut Com. in Amos. Vide Ench. Eck. Luth cont latom de incendiariis D. Fulk against Bris. mot pa. 98 Artic. 28. cont louaÌ„ toÌ„ 2. vvitteÌ„b â—o 503. AgaiÌ„st Br. mot pa. 82. In his defence of his ansvvere to the admoninition The advaÌ„tage that heretiques haue by onely scripâ—ure 1. Iohn 4. 1. Iohn 4. Diuersitâ—e of inteâ—pretations Tom. 7. vvittemb Fol. 414. M. Charks grace iÌ„ interpretinge scriptures Theyr mysteries are the ouerthrovv of all gouernors as M. VVhiâ—g proueth against M. Cartvâ— Tovvâ—hâ—ng the masse Heb. 7. 9. Dan. 12. Malac. 1. In declarâ— Anath 11. Auâ— 20. coÌ„ faust c. 21. Naz. oraâ— 1. in IuliaÌ„ Hom. 17. In ca 8 ep ad Hebr. Ep. 23. ad Bonif. The aduersarie admitteth no triall Math. 19. 1. Cor. 7. Lib. de votis Monast. in initio Of S. Iohn Baptist. Lu. 1. 3. Math. 3. Marc. 1. Cent. 5 c. 6. pag. 711. a Sarcer in ca. 1. Lu. mag Cent. 1 li. 1. ca. 20. (b) Mariorat in ca. 3. Math. Cytraeits in ca. 3. Math. COSMIOS EVPORISTOS c Ma. Câ—Ì„ 1. l. 1. c. 4. et 6 In cap. 1. Math. In cap. 1. Marc. Mat. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. a Lib. 4. de sacram c. 5 b Catach 4 c Li. 4. in Io. cap. 13. In Ancorano Ho. 83. in Math. 60. ad pop Antioch Hom. 24. in epist. ad Cor. In confess breui tom 2. germ fol. 257. Claud de San. l. 1. rep 1. de Euch. The letter beginneth thus Charissimis in Christo ami cis Christianis Argentinae This vvas an honest man in the meane space vvhiche laboured to peruert this sacrament thereby to hurt the pope Luthers latin vvoords are ex capi â—e vertiginoso confictis Epis. a. I0 harâ—agium Tipographum ArgentinenseÌ„ cuius etiam mentionem vide apud Biblioth Gesneri fo 501. * Mat. 26. *