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
hiis omnibus sequitur ê™ nullum vsque in terris sit peccatum preter incredulitatem Of all this that I haue sayed enseweth that there is no sinne any where vpon the earthe besides incredulitie Now lett the world iudge wheâ—her I haue reported Luther amisse or whether M. Chark be a true maÌ„ in denyeinge the matter so absolutely with suche vehemencie as he dothe affirming that Luther nether in woordes or matter hath anye such thing VVill you beleeue hym in other things which faceth a lye so openly in this But a lacke the poore man must saye somwhat for credites sake in their broken cause The second doctrine Secondlie I reported Luther to say the tenne commaundemeÌ„ts appertaine nothing to vs VVhich verie woordes bothe M. Hanmer and M. Charke doe graunt to be in Luther Marie they make long discourses vpon his meanyng whereby it is easie to putt on a colourable defence or excuse vpon any thing But lett the reader considerâ— how these woordes doe sownd in the eares of the people especiallie being ioyned with the doctrine goeing before of onelie vnbeleefe to be sinne And albeyt it be true which M. Chark sheweth out of S. Paul that we are not vnder the ceremoniall lawe of the Iewes any longer Yet this can not verifye luthers woords that the tenne commaundements appertayne nothing to vs. No nor that which M. Hanmer alleageth out of Luther as interpreting hym selfe sayeing that the teÌ„ne coÌ„mandementes appertaine to all but not for that they vvere commaunded by Moyses but for that they are vvriten in the nature of euery man For that by this means they should no more appertaine to vs than vnto gâ—ntiles into whose nature also they were writé But S. Augustin doeth proue that the ten commaundementes doe appertayne to Christians not onely more than vnto Gentiles but also more than vnto the Iewes them selues to whoÌ„ they were prescribed by Moyses And Christ saieth talkinge of this part of the law called Morall I came not to breake the lavv but to fullfill yt And S. Paul sayeth VVe doe not desâ—roye the lavv by faithe but doe establishe the lavv therby The third doctrine Thirdlie I reported of Luther that he sayd It is a false opinion to be abolished that there are fovver gospells For the gospell of Iohn is the onelie fayre true and principall gospell This report M. Hanmer graunteth wholie M. Chark graunteth the effect of the first and cheefe vvoordes but the latter concerning S. Iohns gospell he findeth not And therevpon thinketh that Luther neuer wrote any suche preface to the new testament as I cyte and therewithall inueigheth against me as citing at large and often times bookes vvhiche are not found as that de missa angulari Also as layeing downe one title for an other and the like For answere whereof other suche cauylls of our aduersaries against vs in citing of Luthers woorkes yt is to be noted that Luther wrote not all in latin but many things in duche whiche are notwithstanding alleaged by many men in latin skillfull in the duche tougueâ— After this diuerse men translated diuerse partes of Luthers woorks gaue them titles accordinge as yt seemed good to them as may appeare by the diuerse titles alleaged here by M. Chark and me of the selfe same woorke Beside this there be diuerse prints and editioÌ„s of Luthers woorks whiche doe greatlie varie VVhereupon hathe ensewed greate quarell in Germanie betwene the roughe and the softe Lutheranes about the false and corrupt edition of Luthers vvorkes And this treatise whiche M. Charke dowteth of de Missa angulari so printed and alleaged by all learned men hitherto is now come furthe except I be deceaued in the edition of wittenberge thoghe muche altered vnder this title de Missa priuata vnctione sacerdotum Mary yet Gesnerus a Caluinist maketh mention of fyue treatises de Missa priuata whiche are not to be gotten in England as I imagin and yet it were no reason to say therfore that no suche treatises were euer writen by Luther as M. Charke dothe Further more Luther hym selfe often chaunged his owne woorkes as the same Gesner testifieth that the book whiche he wrote against kyng henrye in latin was nothinge lyke that he wrote before against the same in duche Besyde this dyuerse other did alter Luthers woorkes bothe Suinglians and lutherans euen in Luthers owne tyme therby to draw hym to theyr deuises and partes And of Suinglians Luther hym selfe complaineth greuouslie against Martin Bucer And of Lutherans it appeareth not onelie by the contention aboue named abovvt the corrupt edition of Luthers vvoorkes But also by the often altering of the confession of Augusta writen by Luther and Melancthon and accounted as a Gospell amonge the Germane protestantes yea preferred before the Epistles of S. Paul as Alasco a Caluiniste dothe write but yet many tymes altered as ye may see in Andrevv fabritius which hath putt furthe all the editions from the beginning muche differing repugning one from an other by all which appeareth that heretiques doe prepare them selues starting holes for all needes But now to the matter Albeit M. Charke and M. Hanmer doe glose vpon the woordes of Luther wolde haue hym say onelie that the fower gospels were but one gospell and the lyke yet the matter is playne to hym that is not partiall that Luther speaketh in detraction of the three former gospells for whiche cause he sayeth in the place by M. Charke alleaged you may more rightlie call the epistles of Paul a gospell than those things vvhich Mathevv Marke Luke haue vvritten VVhiche signifieth some toothe against these three gospells Now for the last point touching S. Iohns Gospell it is to be seene iÌ„ the preface by me alleaged which yf you can not finde it is not my fault For that such a preface is extant that in latin yf you will not beleeue me reade but the Index of Luthers latin woorkes in Coclaeus where you shall finde it named As also in Gesnerus one of your owne religion in the Cataloge of Luthers woorks fo 504. suae bibliothecae And in that preface you shall reade not onelie so muche as I haue affirmed but also these woordes The epistles of Paul and Peter doe farre passe the three gospells of Mathevv Mark and Luke VVhich yet more proueth Luthers euell opinion of those three gospells And immediatlie it foloweth Iacobi autem epistola prae illis straminea est The epistle of Iames is of straw in respect of those of Paul and Peter which I haue added to shew the intollerable impudeÌ„cie of you your felowes in the Tower against M. Campian for that he could not presentlie shew out of your bookes where these woordes were written by Luther especiallye of M. VVhitaker who to the admiration laughter of all other natioÌ„s hathe set foorthe in latyn that Luther neuer called the Epistle of S. Iames Stramineam
others haue greatlie to reioyse for that you shew your selfe in your replie a moste zealous Puritane But now after all these matters discussed M. Charke to discredit all that hitherto had bene sayde bringeth in a false reporte of Lyndan as he sayeth touching the fowle deathe of Martin Bucer in Cambrige And for proofe hereof he alleageth a sentence of M. Carre then a protestant in his epistle to M. Cheeke a protestant also contayning some commendation of the death of M Bucer But I ask you M. Charke why doe you accustome to belye men so haue you no conscience in so doyngs For shame reporte as you fynde and no otherwyse Lyndan auoucheth it not as you saye But onelie he reporteth as he had heard for his woordes are these Mâ—rcatores quidaÌ„ Coloniae non ignobiles narrant certaine woorshipfull marchantes of Colen doe report you see he auoucheth it not whie showld you him belie so falselie as you doe I haue noted now this in you diuers tymes I hope yt will doe you good against you write agayne And this of the report But for the matter yt is of small importance how soeuer yt be For as Lyndans authoritie were litle auaylable against you yf he had affirmed yt as he dothe not so M. Carrs authoritie writing at suche a time and vpon suche occasion and for suche an end and to suche a man as he dyd is not of great weight with me for the deniall Lett the matter be as it will it litle importeth vs. Yet one historiographer of our tyme doeth wryte that some of Bucers owne disciples haue reported that he dyed a Iewe denyeing Christ to be the Messias VVhat soeuer his deathe was Martin Luther writeth that he was a verie vntrue and wicked man yea more then that that he was a verie Monster And for his constancie in doctrine you haue litle cause to bragge so of hym For first of a Dominican fryar he became a Lutheran After that he bacame a Zuinglian as appeareth ep ad Norimb ep ad Essingenses And thirdlie in the Sinod Holden at Luthers house in wittenberge the yere 1536 he came backe agayne to be a Lutheran recantinge openlie bothe the article of baptisme of infants to be vnnecessarie as he had written before vppon the third chapiter of S. Mathewes gospell and also the article of the supper as he testifieth of hym selfe vpon the sixt of Iohn and 26. of Mathew VVhere he asketh pardon also of God and of the Churche for that he deceyued so manye with the heresie of Zuinglius as he calleth yt and yet notwitstanding a litle before in his epistle to them of Norimberge he affirmeth the doctrine of Zuinglius to be moste diuine and deliuered immediatlye by Christ from heauen and Luthers doctrine to be new and repugnant to the scriptures Also in his epistle ad Essingenses he calleth the Lutheranes fanatical and furiouse teachers But dyd this thyrd or fowerth recantation holde thinke you no surelie For coÌ„ming into England he bacame a Zuinglian agayne as you will not denye and in that opinion dyed as you saye but I thinke he might dye a Iewe well enough as pontacus writeth for any reason I see to the contrarie For he whiche had so many times chaunged his faythe seemeth to haue had no religion at all by lykelyhode in his harte and therfore might easilie bothe dowt and wauer not onâ—lie in pointes of the Catholique Lutherane and zuinglian religion but also of the Messias and Christ hym selfe as diuerse wryte that some of his scholars haue reported VVherfore thoughe I passed ouer this man as scarse worthie mentioninge yet haue you gayned litle by bringinge hym in as farre as I can see And therfore lett vs now returne to the Censure againe Of the Iesuites doctrine THE CENSVRE Fourthlie you vvill needes bringe the Iesuits in discredit by certaine blasphemous doctrines vvhich yovv saye they holde in a booke vvritten by common consent called Censura Coloniensis out of vvhich you haue for example sake put dovvne thirtiene blashemies in their ovvne verie vvordes as you say noting the leafe and adding the cleane contrary doctrine out of the vvoorde of God And that men should knovve that you deale playnlie and bring their verie vvordes and no sillable of your ovvne you haue put their sayeings dovvne in a differeÌ„t Romane letter But M. Chark in brotherlye charitie let me reaso the maâ—ter a litle vvith you Are you not ashamed of this falsehode dyd you not think that this your booke might be examined by some man or other in dede you haue all the printes to your selues and your searchers are so vvatchefull as nothing caÌ„ passe their hands to the discoueryng of your doeings therefore you may boâ—h saye and print vvhat you vvill And our eares may vvell burne on this syde the sea our harts revv at the shameles vntruthes vvhich vve heare see vttered there among you dayly But vve can not remedye it this that I vvrite novv I make accompt yt may asvvell perishe as diuers things of greater importance haue done heretofore But surelie me thynketh a vvyse man that had care of his soule might see the light at a litle hole descrie the coÌ„clusion by a fevv premisses If you in so short a pamphlet vtter so many so manifest so inexcusable vntruthes as I vvill novv shevv vvhich notvvithstanding you might reasonablie doubt least perhaps they might be disclosed vvhat vvill you and your felovves dare auouche in your sermoÌ„s speeches and discourses vvhich you are sure shall neuer come to examination But novv lâ—tt vs consider these vvicked blasphemies of the Iesuits vvith vvhome yf you haue dealt truelie and honestlie then let all be beleeued vvhich you speake dayly of vs. Yf you haue done othervvyse then the same malice vvhiche droue you to abuse your selfe tovvardes them may also iustelye be suspected in the rest of youre doeings and sayeings tovvards vs. THE DEFENCE Sir william in this place as a byrd taken by the legge for lyeing a fether or two pulled of his pryde by exaggeration of the â—ame beateth hym selfe greatlie to gett out and thrusteth his head in euerie hole to be gone And first he sayeth I haue reported moste intolerable slaunders of Martin Luther vpon the credit of three or fovver vvitnesses And why then might not he reporte these things of the Iesuits vpon the credit of one Gotuisus But the differeÌ„ces of these matters shall appeare after And how I haue iustifyed bothe my selfe and my Authors in my reportes about Luther the reader hathe now seene Yf M. Charke can discharge hym selfe so he shall passe blamelesse Secondlie he sayeth I haue made fovver lyes vvithout shame in one sentence For sayeth he vve haue not all the printes to our selues as may appeare by this your booke imprynted Our searchers are not so vvatchefull as nothing can passe for this your booke hathe passed VVe can not saye or prynt
this place wriggleth at the begiÌ„ning to fro to auoyde the force of this comparison betwene Ignatius and Luther sayeing That it is impertinent But the reason thereof is layed downe in the Censure And as for the fond argumentes whiche he wolde enforce out of my meaninge to proue that Ignatius might beginne a societie and Luther distayne their gospell VVhich notwitstanding he graunteth not to be sett downe expresselie in the Censure I leaue to M. Chark as poore deuises to solace his owne miseries with all in this his distresse when taking vppon hym to make a booke and his promise being past to his frendes of the same he now fyndeth nothing to fyll vpp pages except he wander out to suche Idle imaginations as neuer came in the Censurers heade to thinke vpon But at leÌ„gthe yet let vs hale hym to the matter and see what he sayeth For Ignatius he saythe I vvill passe ouer For Martin Luther before he cometh to the matters obiected he exclameth greatlie against me for alleaging Coclaeus Hosius Lyndanus and Sainctes as witnesses in my reportes beinge as he sayeth of our religion and enemies to Luther But consider I beseeche you the equitie of this complaint Yf I did alleage these mens Iudgements against Luther in matters of controuersie his exception might seme to haue some reason but seinge I alleage them onelie in matter of fact knowne to other men aswell as to them selues why should M. Chark take the matter so greuouslye by this reason no storie should be credited yf the reporter were of a contrarie religion I saye not this to Iustifie all histories For it is well knowne of the eleuen thousand lyes writen by Sleidan in fauour of the protestants and refuted by Bartholomeus Latomus euen by the testimonie of them whiche were present at the doinges as shall be shewed after But when there is no reason nor proofe to denie a fact reported by suche men as now I haue named whereof the moste were Germans and knew Luther well and the first of them lyued with hym and tooke vppon hym selfe to write the particular storie of his lyfe while Luther lyued to sett it furth when all Germanie coulde reprehend hym yf it had not bene true And the other being reuerend and learned byshops and had great meanes and occasions to know the truthe of the factes they write why should M. Charke take it so impatientlie and think it suche vniust dealing to alleage theyr authorities not in matters of iudgement and doctrine as I haue sayed but onelie in report of facts which they coulde not deuise of them selues without daÌ„nable wickednesse nor report to the worlde without open shame and reproofe yf the thinges had bene false But let vs examine the reportes them selues perhappes they will yealde some occasion of Iustyfieinge their reporters And first to discredit myne Authors with all M. Charke beginneth with a report of his owne and not of myne sayeinge that I left out for shame the report of Prateolus that Luther vvas begoten of a deuill But yet this is nothinge to the discredit of the other fower Authors named before yf Prateolus had reported amisse of Luther and I concealed or passed ouer the same For nether could I in that litle booke nor was it necessarie for me to recite what soeuer I found writen of Luther Secondlie M. Charke greatlie bewrayeth his falseholde in this point and iustifieth our true dealing For Prateolus foloweth not the fashion of protestantes in affirminge absolutelye what so euer they heare or can imagin against vs but rather the good conscience of a Catholique man whiche ys to lay downe things as in deede they are without adding or amplifieing the same He sayeth then that diuerse men had writen this thinge of Luther and a matrone of Lipsia in Germanye dyd affirme yt But he hym selfe neyther affirmeth nor denyeth it His woordes are these SuÌ„t qui Lutherum scribuÌ„t ex incubo natum qui eius maâ—rem balnei publici seruulam oppressitâ—sed nescio cuius sit fidei fides sit penes lipsicam illam Matronam cui mater eius fuit notissima There are that write Luther to haue bene borne of an Incubus that is of a filthie spirit abusing women in place of man whiche oppressed his mother when she was a seruant in a common bathe in Germanie but I know not of what credit it is the credit dependeth of that matrone of lypsia which reported yt and knew well his mother Here now yow see the modestie of Prateolus his report and the bolde impudencie of w Chark in sayeing that he auoucheth that whiche as yow see he auoucheth not But yet whether M. Charkes impudeÌ„cie or folye were greater I can not tell in making mention of this thing being so fowle a matter against their first prophet For what will he saye that it is false yet at least there remayneth a shamefull suspition vpon the reporte of diuerse writers and the asseueration of a Matrone which belike had it of the coÌ„fessioÌ„ of Luthers mother her selfe And the probabilitie of the thing seemeth not haue bene so great in those dayes as Erasmus beleeued yt whiche yet by M. Charkes Iudgement was no papist For in his purgation ad epistolam Lutheri non sobriani That is to Luthers dronken epistle he alludeth to the same sayeinge Mirum est impio blasphemo sermoni non addidisse de ineubonibus c. It is maruayle that Luther had not added somevvhat of Incubons or filthie spirites that abuse vvomeÌ„ to the rest of his vvicked and blasphemouse speeche But now yf M. Charke will stand vppon the deniall not so muche of the fact as of the nature of the thing it selfe as impossible that spirits can so abuse lewde women that will consent to theyr lusts I will oppose S. Augustine against hym who sayeth it vvere impudencie to denie yt and proueth it by many wayes as also Ludouicus viues doeth vppon the same place of S. Augustine VVhat then hathe M. Charke gayned by mentioning of this whiche I left out Touching the matter of the Thunder bolt though M. Charke denieth it stowtely and as Lyndans reporte onelye wolde seeke to discredit the same by obiecting certaine things against LindaÌ„ which are not true yet is it not B. Lyndan onelie that doth report it as he well knoweth but the consent of other writers besides Prateolus his woordes are these Martin Luther after the studie of lavve vvhen he had bene strycken dovvne in the feeld vvith a blovve of lightnyng and terrified by the deathe of his companion professed hym selfe an Austen fryer Heere are touched two things his stryking downe and the deathe of his companion whiche could be no ieste And albeit there appeared in his bodie no wounde of the thunder bolt as M. Chark cauyleth yet might he be stryckeÌ„ downe with the feare thereof And MelaÌ„cthon him selfe who otherwyse dissembleth moste diligentlye all matters turninge to the
vvhat vvee vvill for it muste be vvith examination and pryuilege You are not beyonde sea as you vvolde haue vs beleeue for it is novv knovven this booke vvas vvritten in England These are fovver manifest lyes this is the Iudgement of God against you Doe not you take pittie of this poore minister that stowpeth to so miserable helpes for his releefe But this doore not seruing his turne to gett ouâ— he runneth to an other You charge the magistrates learned byshopes sayeth he as yf they vvere carelesse vvhat doctrine is deliuered vnto the people Yea marie this is to the matter for yf you caÌ„ make the state to answere for your doeings you may lye by authoritie no maÌ„ with safetie shall dare to controll youâ— I haue seene a gentleman named M. Pasye whoe had a custome that when he went after his Lorde and had played some pranke with his companions in suche sorte as he feared a blow coÌ„ming towardes hym againe he wolde steppe before his maister and say beware Sir there is one that will strike you Euen so deale you ministers in your generation with vs that are of the Catholique part VVhen you haue excited vs by demaunds offers chalenges prouocations when you haue styrred vs with lyes slaunders reproches and other iniuries yf you see any litle rebuffe draweinge towards you againe you steppe with facilitie behynde the clothe of estate putting her Maiestie her Magistrates and the whole realme betwene you and vs sayeing that we offer at them and not at you we impugne them not you whereas in dede in many things there is nether woorde nor thought that toucheth them And in the matter of religion it selfe wherein they are amisse we seeke to doe them good by discryeing of your falshoode But yet you as not able to defeÌ„d any one thing youre selues drawe them alwayes as principall to euery matter though neuer so farre of from their affaires Shall I geue an exaÌ„ple besides your selfe for you doe it almost in euery leafe M. Howlet complaynethe of theese our wicked and loose times whiche is common as you know to all that lyue in theÌ„ Doctor Fulke to scrape a litle fauour from the courte and to make the other odiouse cryeth out against hym for that he had not consideration of her Maiesties singular vertues and others of high estate vnder her VVas there euer parasite that flattered so palpablie vvhen men accuse the times must they except princes by name or else be accounted traytours what Apostle what auncieÌ„t father dyd euer so but we pardone your necessitie extreme pouertie dryueth you to these shyfts whiche I thought good once to note to the reader that I may not trouble my selfe with them in euery place where they are vsed The third hole where at this afflicted byrde seeketh to wring out is by layeing all his lyes vpon one Goâ—visus from whome as he sayeth he tooke these reportes against the Iesuits adding notwithstanding for preuenting of after clappes that he promised not to myngle no sillables of his owne nor to delyuer the scripture in precise wordes as it lyethe but rather as he sayeth in full weight of true sense and matter And thervpon he maketh a solemne protestation of his true dealing But I will shew and proue notwithstanding this hypocrisie that admitting this libertie whiche M. Charke requireth of chopping and chaunging in his reportes yet that he is a false man and malitiouslie meant to deceyue in the same And yf I proue not this let me be taken for false my selfe And I doe moste willinglie stand to my offer made before which M. Charke taketh holde of that yf these reportes as they are here layde downe and denyed by vs can be verified eyther in woordes or true sense against the Iesuits lett all be beleued which they speake dayly against vs. And that you may take some foresight of M. Charks vntrue meanyng euen now at the begynning his falshoode appeareth first in that he citing his reports owt of an other maÌ„ against the Iesuits without seing their book as he sayeth dyd not in all the whole discourse so muche as once name or quote his author Gotvisus eyther in text or Margent the cause whereof shall appeare after And albeit he now sayeth that Gotvisus was quoted in most of his bookes yet I dare scarse beleeue hym for that I coulde neuer yet happen vpoÌ„ any that had hym quoted And yf some had it whye not all Secondlie he had seene the most of these reportes set downe by keÌ„nitius against the Iesuits from whome it seemeth that Gotuisus borowed them and refuted by Payuas a learned Portugall and conuinced of so manyfest forgerie falshoode as kemnitius to my knoulege durst neuer to defend them agayne nor anie other for hym How then coulde M. Charke without shameles false meanyng laye downe the verye same reportes againe without namyng his authour or seing the booke wheÌ„ce they were cited especially hauing besides many other Canisius a Iesuit before his eyes in England whiche teacheth the verie contrarie as after shall be shewed Thyrdlie his author Gotuisus in the moste of these reportes citeth not onelye the Censure of Colen but also the large Catechisme of Canisius for his proofe whiche was common in England to be seene and wherby M. Charke muste nedes know that Gotuisus slaundered the Iesuits most impudentlie For couering whereof M. Chark not onelie suppressed the quotation of Canisius and cited onelye the Censure of Colen whiche he knewe was not to be had in England but also supressed his cheefe Author Gotuisus hym selfe which no writer vseth in suche matters of importaÌ„ce to the end the reader might not by hym learne out the quotations of Canisius and thereby discouer the falshoode And this was the true cause of the omission of Gotuisus his name And is not this moste willfull treacherie Lastely M. Charke as not contented with this doeth help out often tymes the reportes of Gotuisus being but short and breef sentences with new falsifications of his owne or with fraudulent recitall when they seeme not of them selues to sounde absurdlie enough against the Iesuits And can this be excused froÌ„ malitiouse and false meanyng Now theÌ„ let vs see whether these things be so in deede or no. Of the nature and definition of sinne THE CENSVRE First therfore you report the Iesuits to saye It is not sinne what soeuer is against the woordâ— of God Censura Colon. leafe 44. 1. These voordes are guylefullie reported peeced and culled out for your purpose of a large discourse and yet most true in their sense The occasion vvhereof vvas this One Monhemius a Lutheran against vvhose Catechisme this Censure of Colen vvas made vvolde nedes proue Concupiscence remayning after baptisme to be a mortall sinne albeit no consent of hart vvere gyuen vnto the same for proofe therof he brought in this definition of sinne Sinne is what soeuer
a-right but yow will saye perhappes Your spirit within you telleth you soe And my spirit M. Charke telleth me the contrarie One of them must needes be a lyeing spirit and whie not yours as well as myne These are fansies gentle syr william proper to hereticall braynes to assure them selues such knowlege aboue other men Luther sayde many yeres after he was a protestant ego credo fortiter imo ausim dicere scio purgatorium esse I beleeue stowtelie yea I dare auowe that I know there is a purgatorie Yet he denied it after Martin Bucer wheÌ„ he was a Zuinglian knew as he sayd that doctrine to be deliuered from heauen but yet afterward comming backe to be a Lutheran he protested openlie that he knew it was moste false And againe returninge to be a Zuinglian he knew it was true againe and the other false and yet all this while certaine knowlege can not be false Yf a man should aske all the sectaries now lyuing they wold say the same that you doe of theyr certaine knowlege VVherefore me think you might haue spared these woordes of your certayne knovvlege whiche nether helpe your cause nor hurt ours any further than the credit reacheth of your owne bare woorde that also in your owne commendation Of concupiscence Art 2. THE CENSVRE 2. Secondlie you report the Iesuits to say ConcupisceÌ„ce remayning in the regenerate although it be against the lawe of God yet is it not sinne properlye in it selfe or of his owne nature Cens. fo 38. 1 you vvill needes helpe the Iesuits out vvithe that vvhiche maketh for your purpose VVhere fynde you in them the vvordes Although it be against the lawe of God They saye that albeit this concupiscence doe sturre or moue a man sometimes to doe things vvhiche are repugnant to the lavve of God yet yf no consent of harte be yeelded vnto it it reacheth not to the nature of a mortall sinne vvorthie of eternall daÌ„nation 2. And albeit S. Paul doe sometimes call it sinne yet meaneth he not properlie but by a figure vvhereby the name of the cause is ofâ—entimes attributed to the effect 3. as the latin speeche is called the latin tongue because speeche is the effect of the tongue So concupiscence being the effect of original sinne is called sometymes synne but not properlie but onelie figuratiuelie as also S. Paul calleth 4. Christ hym selfe Sinne because he vvas the sacrifice for sinne And all this is S. AusteÌ„s note vvhose plaine vvordes in the same place are ConcupisceÌ„ce is not sinne in the regenerate yf consent be not yeelded vnto her for the accomplishing of vâ—lawâ—â—ll woorkes The same teacheth not onelye S. Augustine in diuerse other places but also all other fathers of the primatiue church as Nazianzenus orat de S. Lauacro Pacianus orat de bap Clemens Alexandrinus li. 1. pedag c. 6 Ciprian ser. de lot pedum li. 2. ep 2. Ambr. li. 1. de vocat gentium cap. 5. Soe that all these good fathers are partakers vvith the Iesuits of this blasphemie vvhiche you ensorce vpon them But hovv doe you proue it to be blasphemiâ—â— Marie because Christ sayeth whoe soeuer shall see a woman to lust after her he hath alredie committed adulterie with her in his harte But are you so ignorant M. Charke Doe you not see that Christ by adding the vvoordes in his hart meaneth onelie of hym vvhich geueth consent of hart to his lust and concupiscence and vvolde put it in execution yf he had time and place and abilitie but this is your common alleaging of Scripture THE DEFENCE The charge of helpinge owt the Iesuits doctrine with these woordes although it be against the lavve of God he layeth vpon Gotuisus But I accept not this excuse For he might haue seene in Canisius pag 184. 73â— which Gotuisus citeth also for the same as well as the Ceâ—sure of Coleâ— and whiche M. Charke confesseth to haue reade that Gotuisus belyed the Iesuits in his reporte for that there is no suche thinge in the places alleaged of Canisius as by reading any man may see VVhichâ— declareth euidentlie that yow haue no playne meanyng but a secret intention to deceyue As also when you assure your reader that I denyeing concupiscence to be a mortall sinne according to the question betwene Monhemius and the Iesuits doe thereby graunt vnder-hand that it is some kinde of sinne VVhich was no more meant by me than you denyeing before Martin Luthers mariage to be sacrilege dyd meane thereby to graunt vnder-hand that it was adulterie fornication or any other lesser sinne of the fleshe The exposition of S. Pauls woordes callinge concupiscence improperlie sinne quia peccato facta est because it was wrought in vs by originall sinne as S. Augustin sayeth M. Charke reiecteth calling it a wraÌ„gling exposition though it be the exposition of the primatiue churche and so recorded by S. Augustin in many places of his woorkes as lib. 1. de nuptio concup ca. 23. li. 1. contr 2. ep pelag c. 13 lib. 1. retract c. 15. li. 2. cont Iul. c. 13. and li. 6. c. 11. All whiche M. Charke as better learned in S. Paul than Austen all the fathers of that time contemneth as easilie as yf it were the exposition of some vnlearned boye and beginneth hym selfe like a doctor to discourse a-new vpon S. Pauls meaning mary as it commonlie falleth out to suche malapert marchants he is no sooner in but he is ouer the eares in absurdities For his discourse is this S. Paul proueth sayethe he that though the lavve sturreth vs to synne yet is it no synne VVell this maketh for vs. For soe we may reason that though concupiscence doe sturre vs to sinne yet is it no sinne But what inferreth he therfore sayeth he yf the lavve vvhâ—che is holie doe come in question notvvithstanding of synne for that it prouoketh our corrupt nature to synne hovv muche more concupiscence vvhich is vncleane in it selfe This proueth nothing M. Charke but from the place a disparatis where commonlie children and distracted men take their arguments For how holdeth this yf the lawe for sturring to sinne be called in question of sinne and be no sinne then concupiscence for sturring to sinne must be called in question of sinne and be sinne in deede but he will saye perhappes the force of the argument standeth in the woordes holie vncleane in this order yf the lawe being holie be called in question of sinne what shall we saye of concupiscence which is vncleane and what more can you say M. Charke than to call it in questioÌ„ of sinne that somewhat more than the lawe is called in question which is bothe pure and holie and no wayes ether vncleane or euill or the effect of sinne as we graunt concupiscence is and yet for all this not properlie sinne without consent of hart as S. Augustin in the places alleaged proueth
Augustin hath written but one booke of this matter I wolde gyue a good thing that I were by you whyle you reade this to see whether you can blushe or no. But yet I call backe my wishe agayne For I thinke you wolde make me more a fearde than I you a shamed for that your Purseuantes are stronger than our argumentes And this is but concerning the quotation of S. Augustin for about the text it selfe M. Charks behauioure is a great deale worse and suche in verie deede as yf a man had care of his owne sowle he wolde neuer trust suche a felow more that against all honestie trueth shame and respect bothe of conscience â—redit falsifieth so learned a fathers writinges against his plaine and euident woordes and meaning For whereas S. Augustin alleaged by the Censure in many places else of his woorkes sayeth auoucheth confirmeth and proueth that Concupiscentia iam non est peccatum quando â—lli ad illicita opera non consentitur concupiscens nowe in the regenerate is not sinne when consent of mynde is not yeelded to vnlaufull woorks M. Chark answereth S. Augustins place is expounded by him selfe afterward sayeing CoÌ„cupiscence is not so for gyuen in baptisme that it is not synne but that it is not imputed as synne this seemeth plaine and Augustin appeareth contrarie to hym selfe But what is the principall woorde in this sentence that maketh moste for M. Charke The word Synne you will say for that being taken away in the former clause the sentence maketh quite against hym VVell then that woorde hathe he added of hym selfe and yet hathe corrupted the whole senteÌ„ce besides For S. Augustines woordes are these quaeritur c. si in parente baptizato potest esse concupiscentia peccatum non esse cur eadem ipsae in prole peccatum sit The question is sayth S. Augustin whie this concupiscence is sinne in the childe before it be baptized yf it be no sinne in the parent nowe baptized heere you see by the way that it is holden as a matter out of doubt that concupiscence is no sinne in the parent whiche is baptized and the reason S. Augustin yeedelth immediatlie in the answer sayeing Ad haec respondetur dimitti concupiscentiam carnis in baptismo non vt non siâ— sed vt in peccatum noÌ„ imputeâ—ur quamuis reatu suo iam soluto manet tameÌ„ c. To this is answered that the coÌ„cupiscence of the fleshe is forgeuen in baptisme not that it is not or remayneth not but that it is not imputed into sinne Yt remaneth still though the guylt be taken awaye Heere now we see that S. Augustin affirmeth onelie that concupiscence is not quite taken awaye by baptisme but yet the guilt thereof is so that it is no more imputed into the nature of a sinne The cause whie it is left he vttereth in diuers places as when he sayeth ad agonem manet non sibi ad illicita consentientibus nihil omnino nocitura Concupiscence remaneth to fight withall but yet in such sort as it can hurt vs nothing at all yf we coÌ„sent not to her vnlaufull suggestioÌ„s Secondlie we see that S. Augustin in this verie place proueth directlie our verie position that concupiscence in the baptized is not sinne also that it hath no guilt and that it doeth hurt nothing vvithout consent vvherby M. Charkes lacke of Iudgement and shame may be noted in bringing this place of all others against vs adding that hovv soeuer the Iesuits distinguish yet these sinnes the first motions of concupiscence â—vhich by the Iesuits doctrine are so called figuratiuelie except vve fynde mercie vvill fynde no figuratiue condemnation Thyrdlie vve may beholde and lament the pityfull desperate resolutioÌ„ of our aduersaries whoe seing and knoweing their owne vveaknes yet to couer their miserie dare abuse forge and falsifie playne authorities as in this place this shamelesse creature hath done in so many points For first vvhere as S. Augustin sayeth Concupiscence is forgyuen in baptisme he translateth concupiscence is not so forgyuen in baptisme Secondlie vvhere as S. Augustine saythe it is forgyuen not that it be not or remaine not he traÌ„slateth not that it is not sinne Thirdlie for imputed into synne he traÌ„slateth imputed as sinne Fowerthlie he cutteth of the woordes immediatlie goeing before where S. Augustin sayeth concupiscence in the parenâ— baptized is no synne as also the voordes immediatlie foloweing and affirming that concupiscence remayneth but vvithout guilt and consequentlie can not be sinne Hathe this man anye conscience any trueth any good meaning any sparke of grace seeketh he to instruct or to deceyue to proue and defend or to couer dissemble Is this he whiche protested suche sinceritie in his dealing as before God and Angels is this the credit of a puritane protestant O how miserable are those people whiche hange their soules vpon the trust of such disseÌ„bling and deceyuing men And this for the fyrst place cited by M. Charke for his sentence of S. Augustin for he citeth two chapiters in one booke the first thereof hath as you haue seene the other hath no one woorde tendinge that waye but cleane to the contrarie For S. Augustin layeth downe proueth our position of purpose in muche more ample and vehement maner than I can against M Charke and sheweth it also by examples how the Apostle called concupiscence sinne improperlie vocatur peccatum quia peccato facta est cum iam in regeneratis non sit ipsa peccatum Si autem vocatur lingua locutio quam facit lingua manus vocatur scriptura quam facit manus Concupiscence is called sinne because it is made in vs by originall sinne whereas it selfe is not sinne now in the regenerate euen as the speeche whiche the tongue maketh is called the tongue and the writinge whiche the hand maketh is called the hand The verie same hath S. Augustin against Iulian the pelagian towching S. Pauls calling of concupiscence sinne whiche in deede properlie is no sinne except consent be yeelded thervnto as there S. Augustin proueth by the woordes of Paul hym selfe VVherfore M. Charke doeth fraudulentlie alleage his woords against the same Iulian to proue that all concupiscence is sinne For S. Augustin sayeth onelie of concupiscence in generall that it is synne and the punishement of synne and the cause of synne whiche is true of concupiscence in generall as it comprehendeth all her braunches and all estates of men for concupiscence is the punishement of sinne in all men In them that gyue consent it is the cause of sinne in them that are not baptized it is sinne it selfe whether they gyue consent or no. But yet is it not nedefull that all these points should be verified in euerye particular braunche of concupiscence as for example Manslaughter in generall comprehendeth murder chaunce medley execution by Iustice and the like and in respect of these braunches a man may say
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
reckoned some small parte onelie in the Censure VVhiâ—he notwithstanding I wolde not haue troubled M. Charke withall yf I had supposed hym so grosse therin as by examination I fynde hym A lacke poore sir william And by this you see how substantiallie he hath proued all these seuen poyntes to be expresselie in scripture If we shoulde beleeue no more in all thesâ— mysteries than is expressed in scripture our faythe wolde be verie obscure and confuse heerin Bâ—t these men are wonderfull lordes of scripture They can exclude what they will and drawe in what they please VVheÌ„ we are to proue a matter to be founded on scripture no testimonies will serue except they be so playne and euident as by no wayes they may be auoyded But when they will haue a thing in scripture euerye litle gesse at theyr pleasure is sufficient to proue yt Hearâ— D. Fulks woordes to M. Bristoe abowt certayne lykâ— matters For the diuision of parishes excommunicacion suspension publique solennizing of Mariage vvith the lavves therof and punishing of heretiques by deathe they are all manifestlie proued ovvt of the scripture This he sayeth alleaging no one place of scripture to proue it And for the fyrst fower I thynke the puritanes will hardlie graunt them to be manifestlie in scripture And the last was for a long tyme denyed by them selues to be eyther in scripture or allowable by scripture vntill now they haue burned some for religion them selues in England But theyr former bookes are extant to the contrary and all theyr companions yet in other countries where they raigne not as our protestants doe now in England are styll of opinion that no heretique ought to be putt to deathe for religion And thus he auoydeth seuen of the pointes obiected affirming them to be euidentlie in scripture For the rest sayeth he of these tvvelue pointes as they are not â—uidentlie contayned in the vvoord so a christian is not absolutelie bounde to beleeue them Beholde the last refuge of a proude hereticall spirit in breakinge where he can not otherwise gett owte Dare you M. Charke to sett men at libertie to beleeue or not to beleeue that the common crede was made by the Apostles whiche Origen Tertullian Ierom Ruffinus Ambrose Austen and all the primatiue Church doe so coÌ„stantlie affirme to be theyr doeinge Dare you to sett at libertie the obseruation of Easter daye whiche Eusebius calleth Apostolicam traditionem A tradition of the Apostles and abowt whiche was so great sturre in the primatiue churche and so many decrees made in councels against heretiques But aboue all other dare you putt at libertie the beleefe of our blessed ladies perpetuall virginitie Remember you not that Heluidius was condemned of heresie for denieing the same in the primatiue Churche Remember you not the solemne curse for this matter of so many holie Byshopes recorded and confirmed by S. Ambrose of Millan I will conclude and stoppe your mouth yf I can with these woordes of S. Austen Integra fide credendum est c. vve must beleeue vvith a sounde faith blessed Marie the mother of Christ to haue conceiued in virginitie to haue brought foorthe her sonne in virginitie and to haue remayned a virgin after her childbyrth nether must vve yeeld to the blasphemie of Heluidius Loe M. Charke S. Austen maketh it bothe a matter of faith the dowting therof to be blasphemie how will you auoyde thys For the mention which S. Paul is thought to make to the Colossians of an epistle written by hym to the Laodicenses M. Charke denyeth it and condemneth both me and S. Ieroms translation of ignorance for reporting the same for that as he sayeth the greeke text hath onelie of an epistle written by S. Paul from Laodicea and not to Laodicea But me thynketh M. Charke should not obiect ignorance so pereÌ„ptorilye to others except he were sure of his owne opinioÌ„ If I had had no other vvarrantize for my allegation but onelye the olde latin translation being of suche antiquitie as it is and the matter of no importance to our purpose yet ought I not so rigourouslie to haue bene reprehended for the same But besides this I haue two editions in greeke the one of learned Paguine in folio the other of Plantyne in octauo both whiche make playnlie for me Then haue I the iudgement of S. Ambrose and oâ— S. Ierome whiche knew the true greeke editions Also the consent of Tertullian Philastrius and Epiphanius a greeke writer whiche may be sufficient to wype away M. Charkes bytter reproche against me in this matter Of the scriptures misalleaged for the contrarye by M. Charke THE CENSVRE But hovv doe you novv ouerthrovve this doctrine and prooue it blasphemie M. Charke By a place of S. Paule All the scripture is geuen by inspiration of God and is profitable to teach to confute to correcte and to instructe in iustice that the man of God maye be perfect and throughly instructed to euery good worke VVherof you inferre that the Scripture is sufficient to perfection but hovv vvrongefullye it shall novv appeare And first I let passe your ordinarie misusinge of scripture by adding fiue vvordes of your ovvne in this litle sentence to vvit the is and and throughâ—lie vvhich audacitie if it vvere in translating of Aesops fables it vvere tollerable but in the holie Scriptures vvhere euerie vvorde must be taken as from the holie Ghoste it is impious Secondlie this place maketh nothinge for your purpose vvhich I proue by tvvo reasons The first is because S. Paule saieth not here that the Scripture is sufficient to perfection but onelie that it is profitable Novv you knovv that a thinge maie be verie profitable yea necâ—ssarie to an effecte and yet not sufficieÌ„t to doe the same vvithout all helpe As meate is profitable and necessarie to maintaine lyfe and yet not sufficient vvithout naturall heate clothes and the like The second reason is for that S. Paule signifieth in this place that euerie parte or canonicall booke of Scripture is profitable to make a man perfecte but yet vve can not say that euerie part or booke is sufficient for then all other bookes of scripture besides that vvere superfluous And that S. Paule meaneth in this place euerie seuerall canonicall booke or parte of Scripture by the vvordes Omnis scriptura it is euident by that he vseth the vvorde Omnis and not Tota vvich tvvo vvords hovv much they differ both in Greeke and Latine all Logisioners knovv For omins homo signifieth euerie man And M. Charke him selfe in this verie same sentence hath translated Omne oâ—us bonum Euerye good worke And yet deceatefullye hath he traÌ„â—lated Omnis scriptura All the scripture As though S. Paule had meante onelie that all the Scripture put together is sufficient to perfection vvhich sense can not stand First for that all the Scripture at such
time as S. Paul vvrote this vvanted diuers important partes as the Ghospel of S. Iohn the Apocalips and some other vvhich vvere vvriteÌ„ after coÌ„sequeÌ„â—lie should haue bene superfluous yf the other before had bene â—ufficient Secondly because vve lacke at this daye many parts of scripture vvhich of likelyhoode vvere in S. Paules time As the booke of Nathan the Prophetâ— vvith the volume of the Prophet Gad. 1. Paralip vlt. The booke of Ahias salonites and the vision of Addo the Prophet 2. Paral 9. Many of the Parables and verses of Salomon for he vvrote three thousande of the one and fiue thousand of the other 3. Reg. 4. Also the epistle of S. Paul to the Laodicenses Colos. 4. vvhereof it folovveth in M. Charkes ovvne seÌ„se that if all the scripture put together is onely sufficient to perfection then our scripture novv lacking dyuers partes of the same is not sufficient And so me thinkethe M. Charke vvrestethe this place againste hym selfe THE DEFENCE After a long apologie in defence of loose translatyng of scripture wherin M. Charke will perforce retaine opinion of honest dealing he coÌ„meth to refute the first reason about profitable and sufficient sayethe that sometimes profitable may stand for sufficient As where the Apostle sayeth to Timothie Exercise thy selfe to godâ—ynes For bodilye exercise is profitable but to a litle but godlynes is profitable â—o all thyngs hauyng promisse bothe of this lyfe of the lifâ— to come Heer sayeth M. Chark it can not be denyed but by profiâ—able is mente suffâ—cieÌ„t VVhich suppose were true yet were it but a slender argumeÌ„t of one particular to inferre an other But in myne opinioÌ„ M. Charke is vtterlie deceyued in this matter For as S. Ambrose S. Ierome S. Austen doe expound this place S. Paules meanyng is to putt an antithesis or differeÌ„ce betwene corporall exercise pietie sayeing that the one is but litle profitable but the other that is godlynes hath her promysse of rewarde in all actions taken ether for this lyfe or for the lyfe to come Out of all I say she reapeth coÌ„moditie and is profitable For in all actions whiche are taken in hand for charitie and loue of God whiche is true pietie therin is merit and rewarde whether the actions be about matters of this lyfe or of the lyfe to come And whoe wolde say heere that profitable signifieth sufficient His second reason he frameth in these woordes vpon the place of S. Paul before alleaged that vvhiche is profitable to all the partes that may be required to perfectioÌ„ can not be but sufficient for the perfection of the vvhole but that the scripture is profitable in suche maner the Apostle doeth fullie declare in rehearsing all the particular partes vvhiche are necessarie as to confute to correct and instruct in iustice ergo the scripture is sufficient God help you M. Charke I assure you you are a simple one to take controuersies in hand VVhat boye in Cambrige wold euer haue reasoned thus If you had sayed that whiche is sufficient to all the partes in particular is sufficient to the whole you had sayed somewhat But how foloweth it that what soeuer is profitable to all particular partes should be sufficient to all haue you not Learned that there is causa sine qua non whiche is not one he profitable but also necessarie to all partes wherof it is such a cause and yet is not sufficient alone ether to the partes or to the whole As for example the heade is profitable yea necessarie to all the actions of this lyfe as to sing weepe dispute and the lyke for without a heade none can be done and yet is not the head sufficient alone to performe these actions as we see by experience For that euery one whiche hath a heade is not able to doe these thinges Hys thyrd reason and argument is taken from the woordes of S. Paul immediatlie goeinge before in the place now alleaged to Timothie whiche are these for that thou hast learned the holye scripâ—ures from thy infancie vvhiche can instruct thee to saluation throughe the faythe vvhich is in Iesus Christ. Loe sayeth M. Charke heer the scriptures are sayed to be sufficient to saluation But I denye this For the Apostle sayeth they can instruct Timothie and shew him the waye to saluation and can bryng hym also to it yf he will folow them But doeth it folowe heerby that they are sufficient for the whole churche and in such sort as all doctrine by tradition is superfluous Euerie epistle of S. Paul instructeth a maÌ„ to saluation wolde also bryng any man to heauen that shoulde folow the same exactlie But is therfore euerie epistle of S. Paul sufficieÌ„t for the whole Church wherof onelie our question is and are all other supeâ—fluous Againe it is to be noted that S. Paul speaketh heere principallie of the olde testament For he speaketh of the scriptures which Timothie beyng nowe a byshope had learned from his infancie whiche was before the newe testament was wryten And will M. Charke saye that the olde testament is sufficient to Christian men such as Timothie now was for their saluation without any other write You see this man lyke the hare in the nett the more he struggleth the more he encombreth and intangleth hym selfe To my two reasons in the Censure to proue that S. Paul in the place alleaged spoke not onelye of all the whole scripture together but also of euery particular booke therof whiche notwitstandinge can not be sayed to be sufficient of it selfe without other he answereth in effect nothinge but for excuse of his fraudulent translating Omnis scriptura all scripture where as he translated omne opus bonum euerie good vvoorke euen in the same sentâ—nce he alleageth a place or two owt of the scripture where this woord omnis signifieth all aswell as euerie one VVhiche I denye not but some times it may be especiallie in greek but yet that there is ordinarilie a difference betwene these two propositions omnis homoâ—est corpus and totus homo est corpus I â—row your logicians of Cambrige wherof you talke will affirme with me And yf there be ordinarilie such a differeÌ„ce and your selfe obseruing the same in the former parte of the same sentence why you showld alter your translation in the second part therof I can not imagine except you mente fraude But now to my two reasons In the first I saye that S. Paul coulde not meane to Timothie of all the scriptures together which we now vse For that all was not then written as the Gospell of S. Iohn and some other partes To this he answereth that there was enough written then for the sufficient saluation of men of that tyme and that the other partes added afterwarde were not superfluous But this is from the purpose For I graunt that in all tymes when there was least writen vvord yet was there sufficient for the
vs els vvhere by God doe vve incurre this curse of S. Iohn therby S. Iohn sayeth nothing may be added or taken awaye from the perfectioÌ„ of that most excelleÌ„t mysticall booke of reuelations but dyd he meane heerby that nothing should be credited besides that vvhiche is there vvritten S. Iohn hym selfe vvrote diuerse things vvhich are not in the Apocalips yea by the iudgement of kemnitius a protestant he vvroote hys vvhole Gospell after the Apocalips And yet I thynke by this additioÌ„ of his Gospell he did not runne into the curses of that booke How theÌ„ is this place alleaged agaynst vs for beleeuyng those thynges whiche our auncetours haue delyuered vnto vs as receyued from the mouth of Christ and his Apostles how holdeth this argument no man may adde to the booke of Apocalips ergo no man may beleeue a traditioÌ„ of Christ or his Apostles May not a man aswell inferre ergo we may not beleeue the actes of the Apostles But this is their common alleaging of Scriptures It is Lamentable to see the sleight dealings of these men in matters of suche importance It is a great iniquitie sayeth Charke to add traditions or your vnvvritten verities to the vvritten vvorde of God VVhat meane you Sir by adding whoe doeth add or in what sense If God left any doctrine by tradition vnto the Churche and our auncetours haue deliuered the same vnto vs especiallie those of the primatiue Churche what shall we doe in this case shall we refuse yt It seemeth daungerous and I see no reason For the same men that delyuered vnto vs the scriptures and sayed this is gods written woorde and sayd of other forged scriptures this is not gods written woorde the same delyuered vnto vs these doctrines sayeinge this is Gods woorde vnwritten As for example S. Austen and Origen doe teache vs that baptizing of infants is to be practized in the Churche onelie by tradition of the Apostles S. Ierom and Epiphanius tell vs that the fast of the lent and other the lyke is a traditioÌ„ of the Apostles Dionisius and Tertullian saye that prayers and obâ—ation for the dead are traditions of the Apostles S. Basil teacheth that the consecration of the font before baptisme the exorcisme vppon those that are to be baptized theyr anointing with holie Chrisme and diuers lyke thinges are delyuered vnto vs by prescript of Christ and his Apostles Thus testifie these men and no man in the Churche controlled theyr testimonie at that tyme wherby it is euident that all that Churche beleeued it Nowe what shall we doe when these and many other lyke things are delyuered vs by our fore-fathers the doctors and cheefe pyllers of Christ his Churche shall we reiect and discredit them wherfore or vppon what ground these men were nearer to the Apostles tymes than we are by many hundred yeeres and therfore could better tell than we can what the Apostles left by tradition or left not Agayne they were no dishonest men and consequentlie wolde not write a lye or deceyue vs wittinglie And yf they wolde yet other men wolde haue controlled them VVhye then should it be suche iniquitie in vs to receyue and beleeue the traditions which they deliuer vs as M. Chark sayeth it is If they come from the mouthe of Christ his Apostles as thes fathers doe affirme then are they parte of Gods woorde also as well as the other whiche are written But you will saye I knowe they come not from Christ and his Apostles And how I praye you can you proue that to me whye should I beleeue you rather than these holye fathers whiche lyued so long agoe I doe not see fot example sake why I should beleeue a CHARKE or a FVLKE commyng but yesterdaye from the Grammer Schoole before a Cyprian a Tertulian a Basil a Ierome a Chrysostome an Ambrose or an Austen especiallie in a matter of fact as our case is seyng they lyued more than twelue or thyrtene hundred yeeres nearer to the deed doeing than these ministers doe and yet to this extremitie am I driuen For hearken a litle how D. Fulck handleth these men about traditions S. Cyprian is alleaged agaynst hym sayeing that the mynglyng of wyne and water in the Chalice is the tradition of Christ hym selfe Fulke but yf Cyprian had bene vell vrged he vvolde haue better considered of the matter Tertulian is alleaged sayeing that the blessing with the signe of the crosse is a tradition of the Apostles Fulke Tertulians iudgement of tradition vvithout scripture in that place is corrupt S. Basil is alleaged for the same matter affirmyng the custome of blessing with the signe of the crosse to be an Apostolicall tradition Fulke Basil is an insufficient vvarrant for so vvoorthie a matter S. Ierome is alleaged sayeing that Lent fast is the tradition of the Apostles Fulke Ierome vntruelye ascribeth that tradition to the Apostles S. Chrisostom is alleaged sayeing â—hat the Apostles decreed that iÌ„ the sacrifice of the Aultar there should be made prayer for the departed Fulke vvhere he sayeth it vvas decreed by the Apostles c he muste pardon vs for crediting hym because he can not shevv it ovvt of the Actes and vvritings of the Apostles But dyuers fathers are alleaged together beside Chrisostome for the same matter Fulke vvhoe is vvytnesse that this is the tradition of the Apostles you vvill saye Tertulian Cyprian Austen Ierome and a great many moe But I vvolde learne vvhye the Lord vvould not haue this setforth by Mathevv Marke Luke or Paul vvhy they vvere not chosen scribes heerof rather than Tertulian Cyprian Ierome Austen and other suche as you name But this is a counterfait institutioÌ„ fained traditioÌ„ And in other place beyng vrged by the lyke he discrediteth all antiquitie sayeing It is a coÌ„mon thing vvith the Aâ—ncient vvriters to defend euerie ceremonie vvhiche vvas vsed in their tyme by tradition of the Apostles Heere now are sett before me a payre of balances with fulke and Charke in one ende and Cyprian Origen Tertulian Basil Ierome Chrisostome Epiphanius and Austen in the other ende for all these fathers as you see affirme constanlie traditions of Christ and his Apostle besides the written woord Fulke and Charke denye the same They alleage particular examples Fulk opposeth hym selfe to them all But whiche in reason should I rather beleeue You shall heare some of them speake S. Basil the great was a maÌ„ I trow to be matched in credit with Charke the minister His woords are these Dogmata quae in ecclesia praedicantur quaedam habemus e doctrina scripto tradita quaedam rursus ex apostolorum traditione in mysterio id est in occulto tradita accepimus quoruÌ„ vtraque parem vim habent ad pietatem nec hiis quisquam contradicit quisquis sane vel tenuiter expertus est quae sint iura ecclesiastica Among the doctrines whiche are preached in
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