7. Ver. 12.14 VVeake resonynge Rom. 7. Exo. 20. 2. Cor. 11. Phil. 3. Act. 22. 3 Au. li 1. de nup. coÌ„ cup. c. 23. Aâ—b ser. 27. Au. li. 2. de pecca merit c. 27. 28. Orig. in huÌ„c locum Augu li. 3. cont 2. â—p peâ—ag c. 6. Ambr. li. 1 de voc geÌ„t ca. 5. Clem. Aâ—e li. pedag c. 6. Clemens Ale exho ad gentes pag. 38. Cap. 53. Aug. li. 1. de nup. câ—cu c. 23. Li. 1. de nu coâ—cup c. 23. 25. Cap. 25. Li. 11. de peccat meriâ— remiss ca. 4. Great impudencie Rom. 7. ca. 23. li. 1. de nup. concup Hovv S. Paul called concupisceÌ„ce synne improperlye Li. 6. c. 11. Li. 5. c. 3. An example Lib. 2. cont Iulian circa finem Math. 6. Veniall mortall sinne Vide Au. li. 1. cont 2. ep pelag c. 13. li. 2. de pecc merit c. 28. Sâ—rm 6. de verb. apost lib. 1. de ciui c. 25 In expos prop. ex ep ad Rom. propâ—sitione 17. 45. 47. com ad Gal. c. 5. de pecca orig c. 39. coÌ„ 3. in psal 118 alibi Math. 5. Math. 15. Marck 7. PROS TO EPIDVMESAI AVTEN Au. li. 1. de serm domi in monte ca. 23. Iacob 1. v. 14. 15. â— Li. 1. iust 8.17 18. Li. 2. inst ap 4. In com li. reg ca. 2. Aug. li. 6. cont Iul. cap. 5. The third Article Exo. 20. Deut. 30. Li. 1. de nu concup ca. 23. Ecc. 18. Li. 2. cont Iul. circa finem Li. 2. de gra pec orig c. 40. Ep. 200. ad Asell * This kinde of speeche is called implicatio in adiecto Fyrst motions voluntarie sometimes An euideÌ„t example Deceytful auoydinge of similitudes Greatâ— surdities ConcupisceÌ„ce in vvhat place it is Gal. 5. Rom. 7 The sensatiue parteâ— of maÌ„ more corrupted than the reasonable Rom. 7. Sap. 9. Rom. 7. Vide Au. in psa 145 li. 14. de ciuit c. 19. Necessarie actions of lyfe and seÌ„se corrupted by originall synne De eccles dogm c. 38. Ge. 6. 8. Deut. 6. Matth. 22. Au. de spi. lit c. vâ— li. 1. de do Christ. c. 2. li. de nat gra 69. li. 2. de pec merit c. 6. Catholikes doe represse lustes anâ— not the protestants Protestants doctrine Catholique doctrine of lustes Exo. 20. Li. de nup. concup cap. 23. Eccle. 18. Abovvt the number and order of the commaundemeÌ„tes Deut. 5. Quaest. 71. in exod concione 1. in psa 32. The reasoÌ„s vvhy coÌ„cupiscence of the fleshe and concupiscence of temporall goods make tvvo commaundementes 1. Iohn 2. A doubt resolued 1. Ioh. 2. a Li. 3. ant ca. 6. 8. B Li. de decalog c Li. 2. cont haereses ca. 42. a Ho. 8. in Exod. B in ca. 20. Exod. c Li. 6. StroÌ„ d in ca. 26. Leuit. e in cap. 6. eph f in ca. 10. Ose. An. quâ—st 71. in exo alibi su citat VVhether Catholikes leaue ovvt the second commaundement against Idoles Hovv one generall sinne may belong to tvvo commaundemeÌ„â—es that is the consent of hart to one the exâ—ernall vvoorke to an other Exod. 20. Deut. 30. VVhether all motioÌ„s of lust may be extinguished by mortification VVhether the coÌ„maundemeÌ„tes of God be impossible or no. The lavve and commaundemeÌ„tes are not aboue vs. Aug. li. de nat gra cap. 69. Math. 11. 1. Ioh. 5. Li. de nat gr c. 69 Ser. 191. de tempore All things not expressed in scriptures Things beleeued vvhiche are not in scripture Colos. 4. A simple euasion Payu in orthodox explicat In opere ca tech. Canisii fol. 126. 160.161 162. An euideÌ„t example Luc. 10. Ioh. 14. Math. 18. 1. Tim. 3. The true state of the question Of thinges not expressed in scripture Tvvo natures tvvo vvilles in Christ. Rom 1. 34 Math. 26. Syn. 6. Act. 4. Proceeding of the holy ghost Ioh. 15.26 Ciril in ca. 15. Ioh. Athan. in symb The vnion of the vvoorde Ioh. 1. v. 14 Baptizinge of infantes Ge. 17. 12. Câ—aud de Sainctes in Apol. aduers Beza Chaunge of the Sabbothe day Apo. 1. 10. Of the knovveinge of scripture Ho. in Luc. Orig. ho. 1. in Luc. Epiph. li. 1. cont heres hebion li. 1. hae 46. Au. li. 28. cont faust cap. 2. The maner hovv God the father begat hys sonne Ioh. 1. 1. Rom. 9. 5. That Chrâ—st is the sonne of God Protestâ—Ì„ts lordes of scriptures to make theÌ„ say vvhat they lyst Against the motiues pa. 98. Lege Lutherum coÌ„tra Latomum de Incendiariis Hereticall audacitie a In prâ—em lib. de prin b ad praxeam c ep 61. ad paÌ„ d in exp simb e ep 81. ad Syr. f ser. 181. de tem g Li. 5. hist. cap. 22. Sozom. li. 7 Ierom. cont Heluid Amb. ep 81. 79. Aug. in Enchir. cap. 34. Col. 4.16 a in c. 4. ad coll b in catalog scrip in ver Paulus c li. 5. contra Marcion d in Catal. haer c. 89. e li. 1. cont haer ObiectioÌ„ 2. Tim. 3. Profitable Necesâ—arie Part of scripture loste 1. Tim. 4. a Com. in hunc locuÌ„ b ibidem c de morib Eccles. li. 1. cap. 33. Pietie meriteth in all actions 2. Tim. 3. Luâ— 21. The true state of the controuersie abovvt the sufficiencie of scripture Epiph in haer 61. Addinge to scripture Deut. â— Non addetis ad verbum c. Deut. 8. Gotuis ca. 1. antith 2. Canis in opere Cate. fol. 162. * Greate iniquitie to adde one veritie to an other or to beleeue tvvo verities together Apoc. 22. â—n exami â—oncil trid â—ag â—01 a Li. 10. de gen ad lit cap. 23. b in c. 6. ep ad Rom. c Ep. 54. ad marcellam d Her 75. e de Eccles. hier cap. 7. f de coronae milit g Li. de spi. S. cap. 27. Against Martiall pag. 170. Ibidem pa. 178. Ibidem pa. 178. Against Bristoes motiues pa. 35 Against D. Allen For prayer 303. Ibidem pa. 362. 363. A provvd question Against Br. motyues pag. 36. Li. de spi. S. cap. 27. Traditions of equall force vvith the vvriten vvoord Li. 1. demoÌ„ Euang. c. 8. Heresi 61. 1. Cor. 11. 14.15 Hom. 4. in ca. 2. ep ad Thess. 2. Thess. 2. Diuers apostolical traditions in particular S. Austens testimonie for diuers particular traditions The scripture may be vvrested to an euill sense Nu. 21. Ioh. 3. Math. 25. Psal. 18. Payâ— Andrad orth expl lib. 2. pag. 104. pag. 102. 103. Shameles dealing of M. Charke Gotuisus in Antithetis pag. 216. A ridiculous euasioÌ„ 2. Pet. 3 It is no fault of scripture that heretiques abuse it Rom. 9. In ca. 1. ep ad Gal. In verba ps 10. ecce peccat c. Iren. lib. 1. cont haer cap. 1. Naz. ad Nicob Tertull. de praescrip Lyrin contra haereses Luthers testimonie In postilla conc 2. in dom 8. post trinitatem Vide sixt sent li. 7. biblio Against purg pag. 209. Against M. CampiaÌ„ pa. 18. The Iesuits most reuerent speeche of holie scripture In prefat ad lectoreÌ„ iÌ„ li. de corruptelis verbi dei pro Io. Ba. Psal. 18. v. 7. 2. Pet. 3. The olde latin traÌ„slation Ierom. ep 102. in fine catalo Augu. ep 10. ad hieron Praefat. in Nouum tes an 1556. AMOMOS TAMAM or TAM Abouvt the traÌ„slation of immaculata An. 1549
repugneth to the lawe of God The vvhich definitioÌ„ the Censure of Colen affirmeth uot to be in all respectes perfecte but that diuerse vvordes should be added to the same as for exaÌ„ple in steade of that he sayeth Sinne is vvhat soeuer c. 2. He should haue sayd Sinne is an action for that there be diuerse things vvhiche repugne against the lavv of God as euill men euill lavves the deuills and the like vvhiche not vvithstanding are not properlie sinnes for that they are not actions 3. Secondlie he sâ—ould haue sayd not onelie Sinne is an action but Sinne is an humane or reasonable action For yf a mad man a foole or a beaste should committ an acte prohibited by gods lavve as for example kill a maÌ„ it vvere properlie no sinne 4. Thirdlie he should haue added voluntarie for yf a man should doe a naughtie acte against his vvill as the virgins vvhiche vvere rauished by violence in the primatiue Churche dyd it vvere not synne Lastlie he sâ—ould haue added 5. done vvittinglie For although Iacob lay vvith Lya vvhiche vvas not his vvyfe yet because he knevv it not but thought her to be Rachel his vvyfe he sinned not Soe that the perfect definition of sinne is not that vvhiche Monhemius dyd putt dovvne and the protestants folovve but rather that vvhiche the Iesuits together vvith S. Augustin and other learned fathers haue sett dovvne to vvitt Sinne is a humane acte voluntarilie and wittinglie commiâ—ted against the lawe of God And this to be vnderstoode of actuall sinne properlie THE DEFENCE That these wordes are guilefullie reported out of the Iesuits doctrine maye appeare by this example A learned counsailer hauing discoursed vpon the lawes of our lande and shewed that albeit all breache of publique lawes doeth tende against the Prince and coÌ„mon wealth as in dede it doeth Yet euery suche traÌ„sgression is not treason but some felonie some trespasse some no offence at all being done without malice will or knoulege wolde you not think hym a maliciouse wrangler that should come and frame this odious proposition vpon the others large discourse it is not treason vvhat so euer is against the Prince and common vvealthe For albeit these woords may be verifyed in a good sense as the Censure sayeth of M. Charkes report yet being layd downe barelie without sheweing the occasion and discourse they sownde odiouslie as though what soeuer were done against the Prince and common wealthe were no treason In like sorte deale these heretiques with the Iesuits who doe shew that albeyt euery synne doeth repugne the lawe of God yet euery thing that so repugneth is not equally synne but some veniall some mortall synne and some no synne at all yf it be without will or consent as the first motions of concupiscende are VVherevpon our aduersaries come and frame this odiouse proposition before sett downe to witt it is not synne vvhat soeuer is against the vvord of God without expoundinge how and in what sense it was spoken And to lett you see M. Charks nypping and shufling in this one litle line to make it sownd more odious thaÌ„ ether kemnitius or Gotvisus froÌ„ whome he tooke it doe delyuer the same The Iesuites wordes are reported by them thus the Iesuits say they in their definition of synne do saye Peccatum est non quicquid legi dei repugnat Sed c. Synne is not what soeuer repugneth the lawe of God but c. And then foloweth the rest of the Iesuits definition towched in the Censure And thus is it reported by M. Charks Maisters But he to make it seme more absurde in ignorant mens eares layeth it downe absolutelie thus yt is not sinne vvhat soeuer is against the vvorde of God As thoughe the sentence ended there Also as though it were no parte of a definition Againe he chaungeth the place of the negation whiche in framing of propositions altereth often the sense So for peccatum est non quicquid c. he sayethe non est peccatum quiquid c. And lastely for repugneth the lavve of God he putteth It is against the vvoorde of God And all this to helpe out a litle suspition of absurde doctrine in the Iesuits whiche argueth in hym a dishonest intention thoughe for the doctrine it selfe in the Iesuits meaning I thinke the Censure hathe sufficientlie defended it and what soeuer M. Charke hath therto replied shall now be examined notinge by the waye that M. Charkes common and onelie refuge of credit to saye vve muste eyther absolutelie graunt or absolutelie deny all these propositions fathered on the Iesuites is ridiculous and moste vayne For we admitt so muche of them as ether in woorde or sense the Iesuits euer vttered and the rest eyther coyned falsified wrested or otherwise abused by you we turne home agayne with shame vpon your selues But now to the defence of the Iesuits definition of sinne against whiche M. Charke hathe dyuers impertinent obiections whiche serue to spend tyme but yet they must be answered First then to proue that sinne is no acte he obiecteth that iniustice is a sinne and yet no acte To whiche I answer that iniustice maye betaken for an acte and so properly a sinne as yf a man wolde saye yt was great iniustice to putt to deathe so innocent and learned men as M. Campian was those that dyed with hym heere iniustice signifieth an iniust acte But yf you take iniustice for an habite onelye that is onelie for a procliuitie or facilicie to an iniust acte then you must learne that aswell this as all other euell habits are called by diuines vitia non peccata vices and not sinnes For that an euell habit may be in a man without sinne except by consent to yt he bringe furth an euell acte as S Augustin proueth in the habit or procliuitie to dronkennes contracted before a mans conueâ—sition and remaining after the same it is no sinne except it bring furthe some acte of dronkennes etheâ— in consent or operation And the lyke is to be sayde of all other euyll habites or inclinations whiche may remayne in the mynde without any acte and consequâ—â—lie without sinne as experience teacheth and as S. Austen also proueth in an other place For in a good man after his conuersion there may remayne euyll habites called vitia as procliuitie to lye to steale to carnall sinne or the lyke and yet are they no sinnes except they bring furthe some acte ether of consent in harte or of operation in worke So that you see how iniustice as it is an habit that is onelye an inclination or procliuitie to doe vniustlie may be in a man withoute sinne For that it is no sinne of it selfe withoute an acte as hathe bene shewed And this point perhappes you learned not before Secondlie you obiect agaynst this first member that the synne of omission is a synne as where Hely was punished for not chastising his children and the watchemen
truelie manslaughter is vvicked and prohibited by godâ— lavve And againe manslaughter is good and commended by gods lavve for bothe these are verified in some of her braunches So in respect of diuerse braunches of concupiscence S. Augustin might saye concupiscence is synne the punishement of synne and the cause of synne But yet this is not true in euerie particular braunche of concupifcence and namelie of that braunche we now dispute of that is of concupiscence in the regenerat without consent as a man can not saye that euerye manslaughter is good nor that euerie manslaughter is euill And the cause why S. Augustin vsed this sentence against Iulian was for that Iulian dyd prayse concupiscence as a thing commendable for that it was a punishement of God sor sinne But S Augustin refuteth that sheweing that concupiscence in generall is not onelie a punishement for synne but sometimes also and in some â—eÌ„ it is sinne it selfe the cause of sinne thersore an euill thinge though no sinne without consent For so he sayeth against the same Iulian. Quantum ad nos attinet sine peccato sen per essemus donec sanaretur hoc maluÌ„ si ei nâ—nquam consentiremus ad malum sed in quibus ab illo rebellame eâ—si non lethaliter sed venialiter tamen vincimur in hiis contrahimus vnde quotidie dicamus Dimitte nobis debita nostra â— As for vs that are baptized we might be allwayes without sinne vntill that day when this euill coÌ„cupisceÌ„ce shall be healed that is in heaueÌ„ yf we wolde not consent vnto yt to euill But in these things wherein we are ouercome by this rebelliouse concupiscence veniallie at least though not mortallie by these I saye we geather matter daylie to saye forgyue vs our trespasses Heere Loe S. Augustin proueth concupiscence to be euill against the pelagian yet not to be sinne without consent against the protestant Thyrdlie that accordinge to the mesure or degree of coÌ„sent yeelded it may be ether veniall or mortall sinne against M. Charke a litle before obstinatlie denyeinge this distinction of sinnes And finallie S Augustin doeth not onelie proue this our pâ—sition purposelye in almoste infinite other places of his woorkes but also in his second booke against Iulian doeth confirme it by the vniforme consent of other fathers of the Churche as of S. Ambrose Nazianzen and others VVhat then shall we say but onelye pittie william Charke whiche fyndeth Augustin the doctor as hard against hym in all pointes as Augustin the monke The woordes of Christ alleaged by you to ouerthrow our position to witt euerie one that shall see a vvoman to lust after her hathe novv committed adulterie vvith her in his hart are truelie sayd of the Censure to be alleaged by you bothe ignorantlie against your selfe Fyrst for that the woorde hart there expressed importeth a consent without whiche nothing defileth a man as may be gathered by Christ his owne woordes in an other place sayeing that the things which defile a man doe procede froÌ„ the hart Secondlie for that the woordes import a voluntarie looking vppon vvomen to that ende to be inflamed with lust as bothe the latin muche more the greeke and Syriake textes insinuate and S. Chrisostom interpreteth hom 8. de poenitentia as S. Augustin also expoundeth them sayeinge qui viderit mulierem ad concupiscendam eam id est hoc fine hoc animo attenderit vt eam concupiscat quod est plene consentire libidini He that shall see a woman to lust after her that is shall looke vpon her to this end and with this mynde to lust after her which is in deede fullie to consent vnto the lust Now what replieth Sir william to all this surelie nothing but maketh along idle speake of praedicatum subiectum as pertinent to the matter as charing crosse to byllingsgate And in the end to quite the Lorde as he saythe moste carefullie from synne he alleageth S. Iames sayeing that God tempteth no man but euerie man is tempted dravven and allured by his ovvne concupiscence and then concupiscence vvhen it hathe conceyued bringeth furth synne But what is this against vs Doe we charge God with this sinne of coÌ„cupiscence when we denie it to be sinne at all except onelie when a man consenteth to it or rather doe you charge God withe it when you affirme it to be sinne as it is of nature without consent are we or you they that make God author of sinne is not Caluin condemned of our churche for this impretie a doeth he not holde that God is author of sinne in diuers places of his woorkes b Doeth he not condemne S. Augustin by name for holdinge the contrarie c Doeth not Peter Martyr his scholer holde the same How then talke you of quitting carefullie the Lorde from synne as though he were charged or accused therof by vs what hypocrisie what dissimulation what falshode is this in you Now the place of S. Iames as commonlie all other thinges that yow alleage maketh singularlie against your selfe Heare S. Augustins exposition argument whiche proueth our position out of the same woordes Cum dicit apostolus Iacobus vnusquisque tentatur a concupiscentia sua abstractus illectus deinde concupiscentia cum cònceperit parit peccatum profecto in hiis verbis partus a pariente discernitur Pariens enim est concupiscentia partus peccatum Sed concupiscentia non parit nisi conceperit non concipit nisi illexerit hoc est ad malum perpetrandum obtinuerit volentis assensum VVhen the apostle Iames sayeth euery one is tempted drawen awaye and Intised by his owne concupiscence afterward concupiscence when it hathe conceyued bringeth furthe sinne surelie in these woordes the childe is distinguished from the mother the mother that beareth is concupiscence the childe borne is sinne But concupiscence beareth not except she conceyue and she conceyueth not except she obtaine the consent of hym which is willing to doe euill Now goe M. Charke and acquite your selfe of grosse follie and ignorance whereof you are conuicted which wolde so carefullie quitte the Lorde of that wherewith we neuer meant to charge hym Of the first motions of concupiscence THE CENSVRE Thyrdlie you reporte the Iesuits to saye That the first motioÌ„s of lust are without hurt of sinne CeÌ„s 54. 89. It is moste true and playne as they delyuer it but you by clipping their vvoords make euerie thing to seeme a paradoxe They say the first motions of lust yf they come of naturall instinct only vvithout any cause gyuen by vs are no sinnes so long as vve geue no consenâ— of hart vnto them And the reason is because it lyeth not in vs they being naturall to prohibit them to come no more than it dothe to prohibit our pulse from beating And therfore seing no sinne can be coÌ„mitted vvithout our vvill consent of harâ— as I haue shevved before the first motions
the Iesuites All and euery the things contained in holie scripture are so vvrapped in obscurities that the best learned can gather thence no certain knovvleige This is impudent For they haue the plaine contrarie in the verye places by hym cited to witt that not all but some places are hard in scripture as is to be seene in Payuas Andrad li. 2. pag. 12. whiche woordes also M. Hanmer without shame alleageth In his eleuenth assertion he sayeth thus The Iesuites hold that there be many thinges more grieuouse and more damnable than those that repugne the lavve of God and yet the lavve condemneth them not namelie traditions mans lavves preceptes of the church But this is shamelesse also for the Iesuites doe teache the cleane contrarie to witt that what soeuer is sinnne is 〈◊〉 condemned by the lawe of God and what so euer offendeth the lawe of God yf it be donne wittingely and withe consent of harte for otherwise it offendethe not the lawe is sinne and this may be seene in the definition of sinne extant in Canisius a Iesuite And for traditions they holde that yf they be suche traditions as came from Christ and his Apostles then is the wilfull breakinge of suche traditions sinne directlye against God hym selfe But yf they be but traditions or precepts of the churche then the breache therof as also of all other our superiours commandementes are offences against men but yet consequentely also against God for that he hath commaunded men to obey theyr superiours whiche rule them and that in conscience as S. Paul proueth Rom. 13. In his fiftenthe assertion he saith The Iesuites saye that iustification is none other than the seeking or searchinge of rightuousnes or to speake philosophicallie a motion vnto rightuousnes But this is folie besides malice shewinge that he knoweth not what he speaketh him selfe For the Iesuites haue no suche woorde but do gyue a more learned description of our iustification than I thinke he can conceyue whiche is this Iustfiication is the translation of a man from that state vvherein he vvas borne the sonne of the first Adam into the state of grace and adoption of the children of God through the second Adam Iesus Christ our Sauyour Canis pag. 748. VVhat shall we now say of this man In his Nyententhe and Twentith assertions he sayeth that the Iesuites holde a tvvofolde Iustification a first and a second This is true but what more And that our vvorkes are necessarilie required for the first iustification doe merit the amplification of the second This is clearlie false and except this man be besides hym selfe I maruaile what he meaneth by this shamelesse behauyour For the Iesuits doe teache the quite contrarie to witt Iustificari nos gratis quiae nihil eorum quae iustificationem praecedunt siue fides siue opera ipsam iustificationis gratiam promeretur These are their very woordes whiche are englished thus we are iustified freelie with out woorkes for that nothinge goinge before our iustification whether it be faith or woorkes doeth merit vs the grace of our iustification VVhiche woordes allso of thes fathers doe conuince M. Hanmers other slaunder in the 21. assertion where he sayeth The Iesuites holde that the vvorks that are before iustification are meritorious VVhich is moste false for besides the place alleaged they teache the plaine contradictorie therof to witt that merit procedeth onelie of grace in them that are novv iustified Canis pag 786. So that yow see this man hathe no conscience what or how or wherein he lyeth I omitt many exaÌ„ples more of his malice as where he sayeth that Iesuites holde that the lords prayer may be sayde to saintes and that their reliques may be honoured cultu latriae vvith the honour due to God hym selfe Also where he falsyfyeth manifestlie the Councel of Trent sess 4. cap. 1. By puttinge 51 to their woordes about traditions and so peruerting the whole meaning But I will adde onelie an exaÌ„ple or two of his ignorance and then lett the reader iudge whether folye or malice be greater in this minister In his fiueth assertion agaynst the Iesuites he citeth as blasphemous this sentence of theirs Synne is so voluntarie as yf vvill vvere not it vvere no sinne VVhere as this sentence is not theirs but S. Austens and that twise repeated in two seuerall bookes of his Vsque adeò peccatum voluntarium est malum vt nullo modo sit peccatum si non sit voluntarium Agayne in his eigth assertion he citeth this sentence as blasphemous of the councell of Trent VVe accurse them that say the commaundementes of God to be impossible to a man iustifyed and in state of grace VVhere as the verie same is bothe in S. Ierome and S. Augusten whose woords are Execramur blasphemiam eorum qui dicunt impossible aliquid homini a deo esse praeceptuÌ„ Againe in his seuenth assertion he reprehendeth the councell of Trent for affirming that all sinnes are quite taken awaye by baptisme and not rased onelie where as the verie same is woord for woorde in S. Augusten Dicimus baptisma auferre crimina non radere By which is euident that this man hathe eyther redd litle or borne litle away besides certaine notes of raylinge as appearethe And therefore I thought it nedelesse to answer hym any further Now therfore will I returne to the Censure which breeflie gyueth the effect of bothe M. Hanmer and M. Charke his booke as foloweth THE CENSVRE Meredyth Hanmer ansvvereth more quietlie plainlie and more good folovv lyke excepting a fovvle lie or tvvo vvherof I must tell hym vvhen place serueth He offereth also liberallie for his part disputation vvho notvvithstanding is not like to be one of the disputers yf the matter should come to that passe He had gathered some notes out of Sleydan kemniâ—ius and frier Bale against the pope and in derision of the Catholique religion vvhiche he struggleth to vtter in diuerse places vvithout occasion gyuen He oppugneth feercelie and confirmeth diuerse things nether sayed nor denied nor thought of by M. Campian He frameth to hym selfe an aduersarie in the ayer and manfullie fighteth and assaulteth the same Finallie his booke sâ—meth to verie litle purpose but onelie to spreade abrode the copies of the others reasonable offer vvhiche vvas some labour before to vvrite oute to so manie handes as desired it THE DEFENCE To this no man in particular answereth anye thing M. Charke letteh it stand and M. Hanmer onelie sayeth in generall That these are vnreuerent speeches against hys personeâ— VVhiche I denie for that onelie is to be counted personall reproche whiche toucheth maners and this onelie concerneth his fashoode and folye in doctrine And for his persone God knoweth I hate it not but coulde be content to wishe hym as good a personage as he desireth so it might be without the hurt of his parishoÌ„ners But yet that I may not seeme to haue
dishonour of his Maister yet maketh he mention bothe of this feare and also of the deathe of his companion and graunteth it to haue bene one principal motiue of his entraunce into religion His wordes are these Hos terrores seu primum seu accerrime sensit eo anno cum sodalem nescio quo casu interfectum amisisset Luther felt thes terrors feares eyther first or moste sharplie that yeare wherein he lost his companion slayne I know not by what chaunce Nay Martin Luther coÌ„fesseth the matter him selfe in an epistle to his father Iohn Luther to whome he yeeldeth a reason of hys runninge owt of religion by his vnlawfull entrance thervnto Memini nimis sayeth he praesente cum iam placatus mecum loquereris ego de coelo terroribus me vocatum asserereÌ„ Neque enim libens cupiens fiebam monachus sed terrore agone mortis subitae circumuallatus voui coactum necessarium votum I doe remember too well when yow beinge pacified talked with me present I affirmed that I was called by terrours from heauen to enter into religion For I was not made a friar willinglie and of my owne desire but beinge enuironed with terrour and with the agonie of suddain deathe I made a vow vpon necessitie and enforcement Heere the matter is euident by Luther hym selfe whiche M. Charke so confidentlie denieth and cryeth out against bishope Lindan for reporting the same sayeing That he vvill not beleeue Lyndan in this no more than he vvill beleeue his reporte that the Caluinistes doe vvorship the Image of the deuyll In deede he sayeth that Caluinists doe adore theyr owne imaginations suggested by the deuyll aboue all authoritie or proofe besides as all other heretiques doe and in that sense doe honour the deuyll Againe he sayeth that in the yeere of our lorde 1572. when Caluinistes went to ouerthrow a monasterie at a towne called Leyden in flauÌ„ders they erected the signe of the deuyll in theyr publique banner whiche neuer Christians dyd before Yf M. Chark could haue refuted any of these particulars he should haue done well But by his generall reporte though he seeke to bring Lyndan in hatred yet it turnethe to his owne discredit releeueth nothing his cause in haÌ„de For the deuyll crieing out of Luthers mouthe thoughe M. Chark woolde seme to denye yt yet bringeth he not one syllable in disprofe thereof so many particulars are put downe by Coclaeus whoe liued with hym as euerye man may see that the matter was euideÌ„t And no protestant in Germanie where the matter was done as where also being Lutherans they doe esteeme Luthers honour more than Caluinistes doe neuer yet hathe bene able to reproue the same But now come we to the doctrines of libertie and carnalitie whiche the Censure affirmeth Luther to haue taught after he had once coped with a Nonne VVhiche M. Charke after his ministeriall phrase expresseth in these woordes VVhen the lorde had opened hys eyes thinkinge hym selfe no longer tyed to hys vnaduised and superstitiouse vovv he maryed in the lorde and all this vvas laufull But how soeuer you name the lorde M. Chark to couer this lasciuiouse lecherie of a renegate frier with his vowed ladie yet I haue shewed before out of the auncient fathers that this pretended mariage on bothe partes was esteemed worse than adulterie in the primatiue churche whereof he that will see more lett hym read S. Basil de monast const cap. 22.34 35. Also quest 14. fuse explicat Also S. Augustin in Psal. 78. 99. also Concill Chalced cap. 26. Also fulgentius de fide ad Pet. ca. 3. And finallie S. Leo. ep 92. ad Rusticum But now to the doctrines them selues in whiche I will be as short as I may in defence of my reportes being moste true as shall appeare by luthers owne wordes and that in those books of his and editions whiche are to be had in England publiquelie So that the aduersarie shall haue no more refuge to saye he can not finde the booke And as M. Charks vntrue dealing hathe bene indifferentlie discryed by that which went before so shall it be muche more by these doctrines of Luther And because bothe M. Hanmer and M. Charke haue taken vppon them seuerallye to answer the same I will couple them together where soeuer they haue any thing woorthe the notinge aduertising the reader by the waie that whereas Luther hathe diuerse editioÌ„s of his woorks and diuerse of them diuerslie traÌ„slated out of duche into latin he must not maruayle yf the same booke some tymes haue diuerse titles though I meane now to cyte them vnder such names as nighe as I can as they are to be sene in the editioÌ„ of wittenberge sett furthe and as I haue seene them my selfe in England by melancthon Anno 1562. The first doctrine Fyrst then I affirmed Luther to teache that there is no synne but incredulytie neyther can a man damne hym selfe do vvhat mischefe he can except he vvill refuse to beleue M. Hanmer denieth not this doctrine but defendeth it onelye addinge that I haue racked Luthers vvoordes vpon the tentors of preiudice and then sheweth at large how all synnes doe lye sooking in the roote of increduâ—itie VVhiche is some what too fine for me to vnderstand M. Chark goeth further sayeing I may plainlie pronounce that in this place you doe in vvoords and matter reporte an open vntruthe For M. Luther hathe no suche doctrine Heere is no agreemeÌ„t in the deffeÌ„ders the one grauÌ„tinge it the other so flatly denyeynge the same But who wolde think M. Charke could answer thus without blushing heare Luthers owne woordes Ita vides quà m diues sit homo Christianus siue Baptizatus qui etiam volens non potest perdere salutem suam quantiscunque peccatis nisi nolit credere Nulla enim peccata eum possunt damnare nisi sola incredulitas So thou seest how riche a Christian man is who can not leese his saluation though he wolde with neuer so great sinnes except he will not beleeue For no synnes can damne hym but onelie incredulitie Again in the same tome he sayeth Infidelitas sola turbatio est conscientiae onelie infidelitie is a trouble of conscience Is not heere now as muche as I haue sayed If nothing must trouble a mans conscience but onelie vnbeleefe then nothing is sinne but onelye vnbeleefe Again yf a man can not leese his saluation yf he wolde neuer so fayne by committing neuer so greate sinnes except he will not beleeue then may a man doe what he will so he fall not into incredulitie But yet to shame these shamelesse men a litle further and to shew the wicked licentiouse doctrine of this loose apostata heare more what he sayeth in an other place Nihil prauum facit praeter infidelitatem Nothing maketh a man euell besides infidelitie And a litle after he concludeth thus Ex
he saythe against my slaunders But whether I haue iustified my reportes or no so often named false and intolerable slaunders by M. Chark I leaue to the iudgement of my verie aduersaries them selues But whether M. Charke haue defended faiâ—hefully or no the former discoâ—rses haue declared And finallie whether the doctrine be diuine and cleare as M. Chark affirmeth I referre it to the consideration of the discrete and godlie reader For clearenesse I will not stryue for you see yt is vttered with full mouth according to his fashion from Martin Luther but surelie for diuinesse I see lytle therein except M. Chark meane black diuinitie suche as Martins familiar could teache hym whereof we shall haue presentlie more occasion to entreate Marie to call it licentiouse and carnall doctrine as the CeÌ„sure dyd me thinketh there was great reasoÌ„ For yf a Christian man can not damne him selfe with any sinne except he will refuse to beleue And yf the ten commaundementes appertaine nothing to hym Again yf to kepe virginitie resist the pleasures of the flesh be neyther commendable for that mariage is far better nor possible seing a wyfe is as necessarie as meat drinke or sleepe beside this yf when he hathe tasted one wyfe he may vpon causes lye with her sister or the next of her kynne and yf these wold be obstinate he may take the mayde in steade of the mistresse and with all this may be notwithstandinge as holie and as iust as euer was Peter or Paul or the mother of God her selfe yf all this I say be true as Martin Luther warranteth vs william Chark defendeth who can complayne of the hard waye to heaueÌ„ who can saye iustelie the gate is straite seing this good frier and his frende haue eased yt so fauorablie but now lett vs heare the rest of the Censure Other doctrines of Luther and of Caluine and Beza THE CENSVRE I Leaue other infinite beastlie 1. doctrines vvhiche he taught for the inuention vvhereof he had much conference vvith the 2. deuill hym selfe vvhom byshoppe Lindan and diuers others vvriteâ— to haue bene seene talke bodyly vvith hym by men of verie great credit And Luther hym selfe coÌ„fesseth in his vvorkes that he had often and familiar speeche vvith hym and that he vvas first moued by hym to vvrite against the Masse in the yere 1534. He also describeth his voyce sayeing that it vvas so terrible huge and dreedefull that he vvas lyke to dye diuers times after the nightes conference vvith hym And that diuers men vvere slayne by such confereÌ„ce Notvvithstanding it vvas his chaunce to escape albeit as he sayeth he dyd eate more than a bushell of salte together vvith this deuill But yet neuerthelesse he vvas deceyued in the end as all men are that deale vvith suche Marchantes 3. For Luther goeing one night drouÌ„ke to bed as Hosius vvriteth vvas founde there the next day dead slayne as it thought by this familiar deuil For he vvas a pitifull creature to looke on as Sainctes describeth all blacke vvith his tongue lyeing out as a man strangled And this vvas the end of Luther after almost thirtie yeres lyuing in all kinde of sensualitie pryde and dissention not onelie vvith the Catholique churche 4 but also vvith his ovvne broode and ofspring Carolostadius Oecolampadius Bucer and Zuinglius parents of the protestaÌ„ts religion vvhom he persecuted cursed and coÌ„demned to the very pytt of hell for damned heretiques as yet appeareth in his bookes vvriten against them VVherefore vvhether the protestants or the Iesuits may be more a shamed of their first father let the indifferent reader iudge 5. There is the lyke lyfe or vvorse vvritten of Caluin by a fenshe man that lyued vvith hym of the same religion at that time and vvas traÌ„slated into English by a countrye man of ours had bene put in prynt ere this had not my Lord of LoÌ„don by an euill chaunce gotten the copie in to his handes THE DEFENCE Mâ— Charke wolde haue men think that I vse but a Rhetoricall figure in sayeing that I passe ouer many other absurd doctrines of Martin Luther whereas in dede by his sayeing I haue cited all I can But I am sure he is not of that mynde hym selfe hauynge read some part of Luthers woorkes as appeareth by his replie wherin are to be seene so many grosse absurdities as neuer the like in any man that euer wrote VVhiche hathe happened by the speciall prouidence of God to discouer the spirit wherby this new prophet was directed For matter of licentiouse libertie the examples before recited may suffice for a taste In matter of ribauldrie I coulde alleage more of scurrilitie infinite of shamelesse falsehoodes without number But I will note onelye one or two thinges of impietie as they lye together in one treatise that you haue in England and defended by hym obstinatelie after they were condemned by the churche being in deede certaine positions whiche cut the very synowes of all vertue doe opeÌ„ the highe waye to all dissolutioÌ„ As for example when he holdeth that the verye iust man in euerye good vvorke doeth synne mortallie How doeth he discourage all men from doeinge good when he sayeth A man hathe not in his povver to do euell how doeth he encourage all lewd people â—oÌ„ wickednesse deliuering them from the fault thereof VVhen he teacheth that to fight against the Turke is to resist god hym selfe what a pathe maketh he to the Empire of infidelitie VVhen he reprehendeth the pope for defining beside scripture animam esse immortalem that the soule is immortall and calleth it porteÌ„tum sterquilinii Romani A monstre of the dunghill of Rome what ground of impietie dothe he not laye when he affirmeth and maytaineth that neyther man nor angel on earthe can lay anie one lavv vpon anie one Christian further than he vvill hym selfe VVhat foundation doeth not he ouerthrow of all Christian common wealthes For the bodilie and sensible conference whiche Martin Luther had with the deuill it is a wonder to see with what face M. Chark can denye it as he doeth and rayle at the reuerend byshopp Lyndan for reporting the same seyng the Tigurine Caluinistes as I haue shewed before do giue testimonie of it and Luther also confessethe it hym selfe in the places alleaged in the CeÌ„sure And albeit M. Charke hathe a shyft to saye that he can not fynde the booke of Luther cited de Missa angulari alleaged as he confesseth by all the learned of our age against Luther yet can not his impudeÌ„cie be couered for that he quoteth hym selfe an other booke of Luthers intituled de Missa priuata vnctione sacerdotum yf it be not the verie same somewhat altered wherein though translated by Iustus Ionas Martin Luthers owne cooke and consequâ—ntlie sawced to his maisters toothe yet might he see the principall points of this conference set downe at leastwise
whiche as well in that place as in the first booke of his retractations c. 13. he proueth moste leardnedlie that originall sinne is voluntarie in vs by the first voluntarie acte of our first father in whiche acte we all dyd sinne voluntarilie that beinge an vniuersall acte of all mankynde contained in Adam as also the Apostle confirmeth sayeing of Adam In quo omnes peccauerunt In whome all haue sinned His second obiection is of the citie of refuge appointed by God among the Israelites for them that had killed a man vnwillinglie whereof he wolde inferre that vnwilling manslaughter is a sinne But I am ashamed of M. Charke that professinge skill in scriptures doeth so ignorantlie alleage them against theyr playne meaninge and against hym selfe For that chapiter sheweth at large how these cities of refuge were appointed amonge the leuits for indifferent triall of manslaughter leaste the next of kynne to hym whiche was slayne called there the reuenger of bloode shoulde reuenge the acte vppon the kyller before the matter were tried But when the thing was now examined in the citie of refuge by sufficient witnesses as the scripture appointeth then yf it were fownd that the slaughter was committed willinglie and of hatred then the murderer was delyuered into the hands of the reuenger of bloode to be slayne for the same But of vnwillinglie and without malice liberabitur innocens de vltoris manu sayeth the text the innocent shalbe deliuered frō the hand of the reuenger But yet he shall not departe from that citie vntill the deathe of the high pryest For that as Rabby Isaac Arameus writeth the highe pryest whose cities these of refuge amonge the Leuits were had interest and dominion vppon this man by the lawe of Leuits during his lyfe for the benefit whiche he had receaued by the place of refuge To whiche also Rabbi Moyses and Rabbi Leui Ierson doe add an other reason for that yf he should haue returned presentlie amōg the kinred of the mā killed his verie sight might haue styrred thē vp to reuengement vppon hym agayne after the triall passed But in the deathe of the high pryest the publique sorowe was so great as all men forgate theyr priuate iniuries and dyd vse commonlie to forgeue one an other all offences saye these learned Iewes And now I aske againe whie M. Charke brought in this exāple Doeth not this make cleare against hym prouinge that manslaughter vnwillinglie done is no sinne but innocencie yf not manslaugter how muche lesse other smaller actions are cleare from sinne when no consent of will is yeelded Against the clause of the definition which sayeth that sinne must wittinglie be committed he obiecteth that M. Howlet in his reasons of refusall doeth acknowlege a sinne of ignorance which I graunt but he speaketh of culpable ignorance whereof a man hym selfe is the cause as his example of persecuting Saul doeth shew whose ignorance although it were not so willfull as of many persecuting protestants at this daye whoe of purpose refuse to know the truthe yet as S. Bernard well noteth it could not be but culpable in hym as also hym selfe doeth confesse For that he being learned in the olde testament yf he wolde haue conferred patientlie with the Apostles he might haue seene that they taught nothing but correspondent to the aunciēt scriptures of God But we speake heere of inculpable ignorance called inuincible by the tearme of schoolemen for that it was not in the doers power to auoyd it nor he fell into it by his owne default As yf an English man being in India in seruice of the Prince should be commaunded by proclamation made in westminster hall to appeare there at a certaine daye and he as not hearyng of the same should not appeare this man is excused by inuincible ignorance And so in all other cases S. Augustin and Chrisostome proue of purpose moste learnedlie that this kynde of ignorance which in deede is onelie proper and true ignorance doeth excuse from sinne Yea God hym selfe proueth it by the example of Abimelech king of Gerare whome he excuseth from sinne for that he had taken awaye Sara Abrahams wyfe vpon ignorance in simplicitie of hart thinking her to be Abrahams sister as the text sayeth The like simplicitie of hart and inculpable ignorance was in Iacob lieing with Lia in stead of Rachell as the Censure sheweth And albeit M. Charke most impiously Ioynynge heerein with Faustus the Manachie dareth condemne the holie Patriarche in a double sinne as Faustus dyd yet S. Austen defendeth notablie this holy mans innocencie bothe against that and this heretique in his two and twentith booke against Faustus through many chapiters together as also in his booke of the Citie of God And with S. Augustin doe take parte S. Iustin the martyr l. de verit Christi religionis and Theodoret q. 84. in generat and lyranus vpon the verie same place of genesis And what one woorde can M. Charke now peepe against all this To conclude therfore though M. Charke hathe picked out certaine obiectiōs of our owne bookes made and answered by our selues against the learned definition of the Iesuits as in deed thay haue no other argumētes but suche as we lende them our selues yet hathe he as you see not infringed but establyshed that definition thereby and hathe bewrayed in hym selfe greate wantes in holdinge that sinne is no acte that no euill men doe sinne but the euill in men that sinne is not voluntarie that it is no humane or reasonable action that it requireth nether vvill nor knovvlege in the doer that fooles madde men may as properlie committ sinne as others for all these are his positions by whiche he may as well defend that beasts and vnreasonable creatures may committ sinne and be sinners which S. Augustine thinketh to be so absurd as no man of common sense will affirme the same But what doe I alleage S. Augustin whome M. Charke reiecteth heere by name about the definition of sinne Let vs returne therfore to the Censure And see what is further brought about this matter THE CENSVRE But novv hovv doeth M. Charke ouerthrovv this doctrine forsoothe thus Contrarie to this sayeth he is the woordes of God 1. Ioh. 3. the transgression of the lawe is sinne You seme to haue made a vovve M. Charke not to deale plainlie in anie one thing Can you not alleage one litle sentence vvithout falsifyeing The vvoordes of S. Iohn are these Euerie one that sinneth committeth iniquitie and sinne is iniquitie Or as you vvill perhappes seeme to enforce it out of the greeke vvoorde ANOMIA Sinne is transgression of the lawe But vvhy haue you fraudulentlie turned it backevvard you knevv vvell the force of transposition out of Sophistrie that it changeth all the meaning of the sentence For yf I say Euerie man is a liuing creature it is true but yf I turne it backevvard
and saye Euerye liuing creature is a man it is false Soe these vvoordes as S. Iohn vttereth them are moste true Euerie sinne is iniquitie or transgression of the lawe but as you vtter them they are false to vvitt that euery iniquitie or transgression of the lawe be it neuer so litle or done vvithout eyther consent or knoulege or by a madde man or brute beast should be properlie a mortall sinne Soe that this first blashemie of the Iesuits coÌ„meth not to be so haynouse as you vvolde make it but rather to confound your ignorance vvhich vnderstand not so cleare doctrine but hudle vp matters as M. Campian telleth you also to note your vntruthe in misreporting their vvords and the scriptures against them And of this first depend the other tvvo that folovve THE DEFENCE For couering of falshoode in this place M. Charke is constrayned to vse a falshoode or two more according to the sayeing that one lye is not maintayned but by an other things aequiualent sayeth he as for example the definition and the thing defined may be conuerted one mutuallie maye be affirmed of the other as the gospell is the povver of God to saluation And the povver of God to saluation is the gospell And therefore these two woordes also siâ—ne transgression of the lavve But I denie this consequence for transgression of the lawe is not the definition of sinne as hath bene proued nor is it equall in signification with the same but reacheth further than sinne as the former discourse sheweth And thefore it is but absurdlie brought in againe heere as a thing graunted seing thereof is all the contention Secondlie let M. Charke looke leste he be deceyued wheÌ„ he sayeth the power of God to saluation is the proper definition of the gospell seing Christ hym selfe whiche notwistandinge is not the gospell but author of the gospell is called by the same woordes in an other place DVNAMIS THEOV that is The povver of god and no doubt but to saluation as M. Charke will not denie VVherfore though it import not our matter at all yet I thinke M. Charke was somewhat grosselie ouerseene in choyse of this example After this for some countenance of his fraudulent transposition he sayeth as for the transposition lett the Apostles vvoordes be marked sayeing God is a spirit Yet the vvoordes lye thus in the greeke text a spirit is God VVherfore let not transposition seeme straunge to you No more it doeth M. Charke in common speeche and in a tongue that will beare it as the latin and greek doeth But when we measure the weight of woordes or propositions and that in oure English tongue as in our matter it falleth out traÌ„spositions are frauduleÌ„t as in the verie example whiche you alleage a spirit is God if you wolde inferre therof ergo euerie spirit is God as you inferre that euery transgression of the lavve is synne you should easilie see your owne falsehood For Angels also are spirits as the scripture sayeth and yet not Goddes And heere for my learning I wolde know of you Sir in what tongue the Apostle sayeth God is a spirit different from which you say the greek hath a spirit is God surelye M. Chark you are ouer bolde in your auouchements of the scriptâ—re For not onelie the greeke but also the latin and Syriak hathe Spiritus est deus and therfore bothe fondlie and falsely doe you attribute it as peculiar onelie to the greeke But M. Charke reserueth a sure carde for the end therewith to dashe all that hath bene sayd before and that is the sentence of S. Iohn afterward omnis iniquitas est peccatum all iniquitie or transgression sayeth he is sinne VVhich seemeth so plaine against me as he greatlie insulteth and triumpheth affirming that the victorie by this one senteÌ„ce is gotten but beleeue hym not good reader for he thinketh not so in his owne coÌ„science but well knoweth that this sentence maketh greatlie against hym thoughe he wolde deceyue thee with the bare sound and equiuocation of woordes For in the former sentence where is sayd sinne is iniquitie S. Iohn vseth for the woord iniquitie ANOMIA in greeke which signifieth any transgression or variance from the lawâ— be it great or litle as hath bene proued and as the nature of the greeke woord importeth in which sense it is most true that euerie iniquitie is not sinne as I haue shewed as S. Augustin proueth of verie purpose l. 2. cont Iul. pela c. 5. And alleageth also S. Ambrose in the same opinion as also Methodius apud Epiphanium her 64. quae est Origenis And S. Augustin proueth it in many other places besides shewing in our verie case how concupiscence is iniquitie in the regenerat but yet no sinne And this for the first place Now in the second place where the same Apostle sayeth euerye iniquitie is sinne he vseth not the same generall woorde ANOMIA VVhiche he vsed before but ADICIA which is a more speciall woorde and signifieth an iniustice or iniurie as the philosopher sheweth assigning it as the contrarie to Iustice and therfore no maruaile though this kinde of iniquitie be sinne as S. Iohn sayth yea great sinne also for of such onelie S. Iohn talketh in that place sayeing there is a sinne to death I doe not saye that any man should aske for that all iniquitie is synne c. whereby is euydent that the Apostle taketh not iniquitie in this place expressed by the woord ADICIA in the same sense wherein he tooke it before vsing the woord ANOMIA VVhiche M. Charke well knoweing sheweth hym selfe a willfull deceyuer in that he wolde delude his reader with the equiuocation of the latin translation which at other times he reiecteth withoute cause or reason Lastlie he chargeth me with alteration of the text of scripture for translating omnis qui facit peccatum euerie one that sinneth where I should haue translated sayth he euery one that doeth sinne This is a charge woorthie of M. Charke that will playe small game rather than sytt owt I praye you sir what difference is there in the two phrases your vvyfe spinneth and your vvyfe doeth spinne But you coÌ„fesse in deede there is litle holde in this and therefore freendlie you doe pardon me for it and doe conclude sayeing you think perhaps to serue the Lorde in your opinion and I knovv I serue the Lorde You are happie that haue so certaine knowlege of your good estate M. Charke though to vtter it in this place I doe not see what occasion you had But I praye you let me learne how you came to this knowlege Not by Aristotles demoÌ„strations I am sure which yett are the onelie means of certaine science properlie How then by fayth but you know that faith can assure nothing whiche is not reuealed by the woorde of God VVhat parte of gods woorde then teacheth vs that william Charke in particular serueth the Lorde
he placeth concupiscence of the fleshe wherof we talke in the reasonable parte of the mynde and not in the sensityue parte which is as much as yf a man should appoint seeyng to be in the nose smellyng to be in the eyes For the motioÌ„s of coÌ„cupisceÌ„ce are nothing els but the rebellioÌ„s of our seÌ„sitiue partes against the parte wherein reason is and how then are not they in the parte sensityue are they not called the concupiscence of the fleshe Dothe not S. Paul saye the fleshe coueteth or hathe concupiscence agaynst the spirit Dothe not he saye playnlie I feele an other lavve in my members repugnyng to the lavve of my mynde Is not heere concupiscence placed in the members and reason in the mynde what intollerable ignoraÌ„ce is this in a preacher yea in a conquerour of learned M. Campian eauen vnto Tyborne But his second absurditie is yet greater than this in affirmyng that the sensuall parte of man is not so muche corrupted by originall synne as is the reasonable part whiche is cleane false and the contradictorie therof is true For albeit all partes be corrupted yet the sâ—â—sible parte more by reason of the rebellyon of the sensityue parte against the reasonable whiche I haue named before and euerie man by experience dothe fynde more temptation in his sensitiue partes to witt in his senses imagination and other like partes and members of his bodie than he dothe in his reasonable partes to wytt in his iudgement and wyll especiallie good men who fynde greate rebellyon often tymes in their sensuall partes thoughe their iudgement be ryght and their wyll most holye and firme S. Paul felt this when he sayd O vnhappie man that I am vvho shall delyuer me from the bodie of this deathe And agayne I my selfe doe serue the lavve of God in my mynde but in my fleshe I serue the lavâ—e of synne signifyinge therby the violent rebellion of the fleshe In whiche sense also it is sayd by the wyse man the bodye that is corrupted aggreueth the mynde And S. Paul sayethe I doe not that uuhiche I vvolde but that vvhiche I hate By all which is shewed that the inferiour parte of man called the sensatyue parte is more corrupted by the fall of Adam than the reasonable for that by the force of concupiscence placed principallie in it it maketh warre and offerreth violence to the other So that heerin also M. Charke was fowlie ouerseene His third absurditie is ioyned with flatt pelagianisme where he sayeth that the necessarie actions of lyfe and sense remayne novv in man as they vvere before hys fall Heerof S. Austen shalbe witnesse whose woordes are these Yf any man shall affirme that by the offence of preuarication in Adam the vuhole man that is man bothe in bodie and sovvle is not chaunged into vvorse c he is deceyued vvith the errour of pelagians and is contrarie to the scriptures The lyke teacheth Prosper lib. 1. de vocat gent. ca. 7. Into these errours and heresies falleth M. Charke whiles leauing the sure doctrine of the Catholique Churche he deuiseth owt newe wayes after the fashion of all heretiques wherby to excuse naturall actions from sinne VVe excuse them from sinne and doe saye the cause to be for that they are not voluntarie whiche is one principall point required aswell in sinne as in vertue as hathe beene shewed M. Charke deuiseth he can not tell what him selfe in this pointe but onelie that he wolde not saye willinglie as we doe thoughe he haue nothing to saye besides But yet against this poynte of voluntarie he obiecteth once more originall sinne whiche as he sayeth is not voluntarie But it hathe bene answered before shewed how it is voluntarie not onelie in men of discretion but also in infantes SecoÌ„dlie he alleageth owt of Genesis that the cogitation of mans hart is euill euer more To whiche I answere that it inclineth to euill by reason of concupiscence left in vs but yet is not that inclination synne without consent as hathe bene proued before Thirdlie he obiecteth the commaundemeÌ„t thovv shalt loue thy God vvith all thy hart vvith all thy sovvle and vvith all thy strength By whiche commaundement he imagineth the first motions of concupiscence to be also forbydden and consequentlie to be sinnes whiche is false For as S. Austen well writeth in dyuers places thoughe we be sturred by this commaundement to all perfection that we can in this lyfe yet no more is inioyned vs therby vnder payne of synne and damnation but onlie that we doe not yeeld consent to sinne as hathe bene shewed before in the Censure and is now presentlie to be examined more at large in explication of the tenthe commaundement whiche contayneth the verye same meaninge that this commaundement dothe Vpon all this that goeth before VV. Chark maketh this conclusion agaynst vs. Therfore to saye vve must not or can not pull in the raynes of our first lustes c is in deede to teache a beastlie libertie and to laye open the vvaye to all vncleannesse vvithout controllement Heere now is shewed the ordinarie practise of all lyeing heretikes and speciallie of protestantes whose fashion is to charge the Catholique Church with odious conclusions deduced of false principles deuised by them selues For which parte doeth enlarge or pull in the raynes of our lustes the protestant or the Catholique doctrine surelie yf to pull in or enlarge the raynes of our lustes be to gyue them scope or to represse the motions as all men I thinke will confesse then consider I pray you whoâ— doe this ether VV. Chark and hys felowes or we They teache that these first motions of lust are naturall and doe present them selues vnto vs without our wyll and when they doe so come we can not lett their effect but that they woorke sinne in vs whether we consent or not consent So that by this doctrine protestantes doe not onelie lett owt the raynes but doe qwyte take awaye bothe raynes and brydle owt of our handes For yf lustes come without our will and woorke sinne in vs without our consent what raynes are there left in our handes to pull in Yf they be sinne in me whether I consent or not consent shall I stryue agaynst a thyng that is impossible whoe will not rather execute his lustes with pleasure than resist them with payne yf whether he consent or not they are sinne So that in deede this is that libertine doctrine of protestantes which looseth the raynes and layeth open the waye to all vncleannesse as bothe by experience nowe appeareth in the worlde and by reason is euident And our contrarie doctrine is that whiche pulleth in the raynes of lust and layeth the foundation of all vertue among Christians yf it be executed accordinglie To witt the doctrine vvherby vve teache that albeit these first motions be naturall and doe present them selues vnto vs many tymes without all
fault of ours yet allwayes by the help of gods grace that neuer wanteth it standeth in vs to admitt or reiect them to gyue consent or to resist to their motions And yf we consent they are sinnes but yf we consent not but vanquishe them they are cause of merit and rewarde in heauen though the motions them selues be infirmities and spottes left in vs by originall sinne And this maketh men to stryue and resist them and to keepe their myndes cleare from consent and finallie to stand stronglie in the spirituall battaill betwene the fleshe tempting and the spirit resisting wherin the protestant fighteth not at all for that he hath no hope of victorieâ— And yet gentle reader coÌ„sider their impudencie in chargyng vs with that beastlie libertie which they teache onelie them selues There foloweth now the tenth commaundement thou shalt not couet alleaged by M. Charke for condemnyng of the first motions of lust VVhiche commaundement the Censure expoundeth owt of S. Austen and by an other place of scripture which is the best manner of exposition that may be that it is meant onelie of consent to wytt that we must not gyue coÌ„sent to our lustes of concupiscence nor folow them So that this tenth coÌ„maundemeÌ„t by S. Austens expositioÌ„ maketh nothing against the first motions whiche are without consent but onelye against the lustes wherto we yeeld assent To this Syr VVilliam replyeth nothing but onelie sayeth Austens opinion appeareth by the places alleaged before VVhich is true for it appeareth that S. Austen is moste euident and flatt against M. Charke and more earnest than I can be And that M. Chark hath no shewe owt of hym for one syllable on his syde but onelie a place forged by hym selfe as hath bene declared Next to this it pleaseth M. Charke to put downe fower manifest lyes for helpyng hym selfe owt with some shew of matter sayeing As the papistes make of the tenth commaundement tvvo commaundementes so this felovve maketh of tvvo seuerall breaches of tvvo diuers commaundementes but one synne Bothe these I saye are slaunders For first the Catholiques make but one coÌ„maundement of the tenth coÌ„maundement But the question is which is properlie and distinctlie the tenth commaundement For the protestaÌ„tes for mayntaynyng of a cauill against the Catholiques will haue these two braunches thou shalt not couet thy neyghbours vvyfe And thou shalt not couet thy neyghbours hovvse fyeld c. to be but one onelye coÌ„maundement that is the tenth And coÌ„sequentlie they will haue these two other braunches thou shalt not haue straunge gods before me And thou shalt not make vnto thy selâ—e any grauen Idole c. to be two distinct coÌ„maundementes But S. Austen contendeth in dyuers places that these latter two braunches make but one onelie commaundement that is the first commaundemeÌ„t and that the second clause therof prohibiting the makyng of Idoles is but an explication of the first clause that prohibiteth false goddes And therfore that these other two brauÌ„ches of coueting our neyghbours vvyfe And of coueting his goods doe make two distinct coÌ„maundemeÌ„tes to witt the nyenthe and tenthe the nyenth prohibiting all internall consent of hart to carnall sinne the externall complishement and woorke wherof is prohibited by the sixt commaundement after this account whiche is thovv shalt not committ adulâ—erie And the tenth prohibiting all internall consent of hart vnto couetousnes the externall accomplishement wherof is prohibited by the seuenth commaundement whiche is thovv shalt not steale So that by this account of S. Austen and other learned men foloweing his opinion these two braunches thovv shalt not couet thy neighbours vvyfe and thovv shalt not couet thy neighbours hovvse or field c. doe make two distinct commaundemeÌ„tes answering to the sixth and seuenth as hathe beene sayde And the reason of this opinion is first for that those two braunches thovv shalt not haue straunge goddes before me and thovv shalt not make vnto thee any grauen thing or likenes to adore it c contayne in deed but one thyng and therfore can not make two distinct commaundementes as the protestantes teache but one onelie commaundement And consequentlie these latter two must needes make two sundrie commaundemeÌ„tes or elles there could not be teÌ„ne Secondlie for that the septuagint or 70. interpreters doe recite them distinctlie as two commaundementes in their greke translation repeating the verbe twyse as I before haue alleaged them Thyrdlie because it was most couenient that the two generall internall consents vnto the two lustes of Carnalitie and Couetousnes called by S. Iohn and distinguished by the names of Concupiscence of the flesâ—e and concupiscence of the eyes should be expresselye particularlie forbydden by two distinct commaundementes For that in these two fountaynes of poyson doe lye the greatest and most daungerous baytes of synne in this lyfe If you aske why the woorkes forbidden in the other commaundementes had not for lyke reason also theyr internall concupisceÌ„ces of lustes forbydden by distinct and seuerall commaundementes it is answered that the internall temptations against the other commaundementes are nether so frequent nor so daungerous as these are and consequentely they are sufficientlye prohibited by the woordes sett downe in these commaundementes them selues that prohibet the woorks partlie also their prohibitioÌ„ may be vnderstoode by the prohibition of these two internall concupiscences or lustes for whiche causes is problable that S. Iohn made mention of these two concupiscences onely and not of any other as in his sentence beâ—ore alleaged apearethe And now albeit these reasons and the lyke dyd moue S. Austen in his time and many learned men sence to deuyde the tenne commaundemeÌ„ts in this order yet is not the matter a matter of faythe nor so defined by the churche as a man may not folowe an other opinion yf yt seeme more reasonable vnto hym For the auncient fathers had alwayes dyuers opinions abowt the diuision of the decaloge or tenne commaundementes without any difference of beleefe For the Hebrewes as Iosephus and Philo with whome also agreeth Irenaeus doe appoynt owt fyue commaundementes to the first table concerninge the honour of God fyue to the second table concerninge the loue of our neyghbour But the Greekes as Origen Procopius Clemens Alexandrinus Hesychius with whome agree also S. Ambrose S. Ierome doe assigne fower to the fyrst table and six to the second table But S. Austen and the most part of the latines foloweing hym doe appoint onelie three preceptes to the first table and seuen to the second And yet all doe agree vppon tenne commaundementes By all which may be seene the shameles dealing of M. Chark heere in charging Catholiques to make two commaundementes of the tenthe commaundement and muche more the malitious calumniation bothe of hym and all hys felowes in affirming euerye where in all theyr bookes and sermons to the people that Catholiques leaue owt the second
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