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
the church some we haue opened to vs by writinge and some agayne we haue receyued delyuered vs by tradition of the Apostles in secret bothe whiche doctrines are of equall force to pietie nether doeth any man gaynsaye this whiche hathe anye litle knowleige in the lawes of tâ—â— Churche Heere now are S. Basil and VV. Charke at an open combate abowt traditions The one sayeth it is iniquitie to admitt them The other sayeth it is ignorance to reiect them The one sayeth they are of no authoritie or credit at all The other sayeth they are of equall force and authoritie vvith the vvritten vvoord of Christ and his Apostles VVhome will you rather beleeue in this case VVith S. Basil taketh parte Eusebius sayeinge Christi discipuli ad magistri sui nutum illius praecepta partim literis partim sine literis quasi iure quodam non scripto seruanda commendarunt The disciples of Christ at theyr Maisters beck dyd commend his precepts to posteritie partlie in writing partlie without writing as it were by a certaine vnwriten lawe Marke heere that traditioÌ„ is called an vnvvriteÌ„ lavve the things delyuered therby are the precepts of Christ and that they were left vnwryten by the becke or appointment of Christ hym selfe Epiphanius is yet more earnest than Eusebius For writing against certaine heretiques named Apostolici whiche denyed traditions as our protestants doe he proueth it thus Oportet autem traditione vti Non enim omnia a diuina scriptura accipi possunt Quapropter aliqua in scripturis aliqua in traditione sancti Apostoli tradiderunt quemadmodum dicit Sanctus Paulus Sicut tradidi â—obis alibi sic doceo sic tradidi in ecclesiis we muste vse traditioÌ„ also For that all thyngs can not be had owt of Scripture For which cause the holye Apostles haue delyuered some things to vs in scriptures and some thyngs by traditions according as S. Paul sayeth euen as I haue left vnto you by tradition And in an other place This doe I teache this haue I left by traditioÌ„ in Churches Heere you see Epiphanius doeth not onelye affirme so much as we holde but also proueth it out of Scripture VVith Epiphanius ioyneth fully and earnestlye S. Chrisostome writyng vpon these woordes of S. Paul to the purpose State tenete traditiones Stand fast and holde traditions Out of which cleere woordes S. Chrisostome maketh this illation Hinc patet quod non omniae per epistolam tradiderint sed multa etiam sine literis Eadem verò fide digna sunt tam illa quám ista Itaque traditionem quoque ecclesiae fide dignam putamus Traditio est nihil quaeras amplius By these woordes of S. Paul it is euident that the Apostles delyuered not all by epistle or writing vnto vs but many things also whiche are not wrytten And yet those are as woorthie fayth as the other For whiche cause we esteeme the tradition of the Church woorthie of faythe It is a tradition seeke no more abowt it VVhat can be spoken more effectualie against VV. Charke than this Is it now greate iniquitie to receyue traditioÌ„s or no how will he auoyde this vniforme coÌ„sent of antiquitie against his fond malepeartnes condemning all traditions for iniquitie Heere you see are the verie woordes auowed as also in S. Basil alleaged before which these new maisters doe so odiouslye exaggerate to the people dailie that we matche traditioÌ„s with the written woord of God These woordes I saye are heere maintained bothe in Chrisostome and Basil affirming the vnwrytten traditions of Christ and his Apostles to be of equall force and authoritie with the written woorde of the same And yet I trowe were they not blasphemous for sayeing so as these yonge gentlemen are accustomed to call vs. And this now in generall that traditions are that is that diuers things belonging to faythe are left vs vnwriten by Christ and his Apostles Also that this sort of traditions are of equall authoritie with the wrytten woord because they are the vnwriteÌ„ or deliuered woorde But now yf any man wolde aske me what or which are these Apostolicall traditions in particular I could alleage hym testimonies owt of the auncient fathers for a great number wherof some examples haue bene gyuen in the former article But lett any man reade S. Cyprian Serm de ablut pedum Tertullian de coron miiltis and S. Ierom. Dialog cont luciferianos and he shall finde store And albeit some thing hathe bene sayd of S. Austen before yet will I adde these few examples owt of hym for endinge of this article He proueth the baptisme of infants by tradition of the Churche lib. 10â— de gen cap. 23. He proueth by the same tradition that we must not rebaptize those whiche are baptized of heretiques li. 2. de bapt c. 7. lib. 1. cap. 23. li. 4. cap. 6. He proueth by tradition the celebration of the pentecost commonlie called whit-sondaye epist. 118. c. 1. He proueth by tradition that the Apostles were baptized ep 108. He proueth by tradition the ceremonies of baptisme as delyuered by the Apostles Li. de fide oper cap. 9. He proueth by tradition of Christ his Apostles that we should receyue the blessed sacrament fasting ep 1â—8 cap. 6. He proueth by lyke tradition the exorcisme of suche as should be baptized li. 1. de nupt concup cap. 20. li. 6. contra Iulian. ca. 2. He proueth by the same tradition that we must offer vpp the sacrifice of the masse for the deade li. de cura pro mort ageÌ„da ca. 1. 4. Serm. 32. de verbis Apostoli I omitt many other suche thinges whiche aswell this learned doctor as other most holye fathers of the primatiue Churche doe auouche by onelye tradition of Christ and his Apostles without writing whiche to beleeue or credit if it be such great iniquitie and blasphemie as VV. Charke will haue vs to esteeme then were these auncient fathers in a miserable case and this new minister in a fortunate lot But yf the countenance of this new Sir doe not surpasse the credit of those olde Saints I weene it will not be hard to iudge how fond and foolishe hys raylinge speeche ys against a doctrine so vniformlie receyued in Christ his Churche as the doctrine of traditions hath bene from the beginning VVhether the Iesuites speake euill of Scripture Art 6. THE CENSVRE You reporte the Iesuites to saye The holy Scripture is a nose of waxe Cens. 117 God forgyue you for abusing so muche these learned men Marie you take the vvaye to ouermatch both learning and trueth too yf you may haue your desire He that vvill reade the place by you quoted shall finde the Iesuites vpon occasion geuen them to saye in effect thus that before the rude and ignorante people it is easie for a noughtie man to vvreste the scripture to vvhat interpretation pleaseth hym beste for the flatteringe ether of
serueth their turnes for the tyme. So Martin Luther after he had denied all testimonie of man besides hym selfe he beginneth thus aboute the number of Sacramentes Principio neganda mihi sunt septem sacramenta tantùm tria pro tempore ponenda First of all I must denye seuen sacraments and appoint three for the tyme. Marie this tyme lasted not long for in the same place he sayeth that yf he wold speake according to the vse of onelie scripture he hathe but one sacrament for vs that is baptisme But yet the confessioÌ„ of Auspurge whiche pretendeth to folow Luther in all things doeth allowe three by onelye scripture Mary Melancthon whiche professeth onelye scripture more than the rest and wolde seme to knowe Luthers meaning best of all men for that he lyued with hym holdeth fower by onelye scripture and Iohn Caluin holdeth two Agayne by onelie scripture Iohn Caluin fownd the title of heade of the church in king henry to be AntichristiaÌ„ vvhich novve our folovvers of Caluin in England doe finde by onelie scripture to be most christian Mary yet the Magdeburgians by onelie scripture do condeÌ„ne the same still In like sorte by onelie scripture the protestantes defended a greate while against Catholiques that no heretiques might be burned or put to deathe whereof large bookes were written on bothe partes But now our protestants in England hauinge burned some them selues haue fownd as they write that it is euident by scripture that they may be burned Luther by onelie scripture found that his folowers and the Sacramentaries coulde not both be saued together and therefore he condemned the one for arrant heretiques Doctor fulke findeth by the same scripture that bothe partes are good Catholiques neyther of them heretiques Finallie how many things doeth M. VVhittgift defend against T. Cartwright to be laufull by scriptureâ— as byshops deanes archedeacons officialls holy dayes and a hundred more whiche in Geneua are holden to be flatt contrarie to the same scripture So that this appellation to onelie scripture bringeth good case in manie mattâ—rs For by this a man maketh hym selfe Iudge and Censurer not onelie of all fathers doctors councels histories examples presidents customes vsages prescriptions and the like but also of the bookes of scripture and sense it selfe reseruing all interpretation vnto hym selfe But Catholiques albeit they gyue the soueraigntie to scripture in all things yet bindinge theÌ„ selues to other things beside for the better vnderstanding of the meaning of scripture as to councels auncient fathers tradition of the Apostles and primatiue churche with the lyke are restrained from this libertie of chopping and chaunging affirming and denyeinge allowinge and misliking at theyr pleasures For albeit they hauing wittes as other men haue might drawe some problable apparaÌ„ce of scriptures to theyr owne deuises as euery heretique hitherto hathe done yet the auncient interpretation of holie fathers and receiued consent of the churche not alloweing the same it wold preuaile nothing Mary the selfe-willed heretique that reiecteth all things but scripture and therein alloweth nothing but his owne exposition may runne and range and deuise opinions at his pleasure for he is sure neuer to be conuicted thereof allowinge no man to be iudge of his interpretation but onelye hym selfe or some of hys owne opinion This we see fullfilled in all heretiques and sectaries that now lyue whome it is vnpossible so to conuince by onelye scriptures but they will alwayes haue some probable shew whereby to defend them selues and theyr owne imaginatioÌ„s M. Charke therfore chanting so muche vpon this point of onelie scriptures treadeth the pathe of his forefathers and pleadeth for a pryuilege of ease which whether we will allovve hym or no he entreth vpon it of his ovvne authoritie and dravveth scripâ—ure to euerye deuise of his owne braine so violentlie as a man may take coÌ„â—â—ssion to see yt I shall haue many examples hereafter in this ansvver but yet one vvhich is the chefe ground of this his preface I can not omitt After he had proued ovvt of Saincte Iohn that vve must trie spirites and not beleeue euerye nevv spiritt whiche is true he will nedes alleage owte of the same Apostle a full and plaine rule as he termeth it whereby to discerne and trie his oure spirites The rule is this Euery spirit vvhiche acknovvlegeth Iesus Christe to haue come in fleshe is of God and euerye spirit vvhiche dissolueth Iâ—sus is not of God but of Antichriste Here now may be sene what difference there is in exposition of the scriptures For the auncieÌ„t fathers interpreted this place as of it selfe it is most euident â—o be gyuen as a rule against the Iewes which denied Christe to haue taken fleshe Also against Ebion and Cherinthus heretiques nowe gone into the worlde as fore-runners of Antichriste dissoluing Iesus that is denieing his godheade and coÌ„sequently denyeing the sonne of God to haue come in fleshe Martin Luther interpreteth this place to be vnderstoode of M. Charke and his felowes sayeinge That spirit is not of god but of Antichriste vvhich dissolueth Christs fleshe in the sacrament But to vs Catholiques how can it be by anie deuise wrested who neyther denye Christe to haue come in fleshe nor yet do dissolue the name of Iesus by anie doctrine of ours But yet Marke how M. Charke interpreteth this place and coÌ„fesse that he hathe a singular grace in abusing scripture VVhat soeuer spirit sayeth he shall confesse Christe to haue come in fleshe as a prophet alone to teache as papistes doe not teaching traditions besides the vvritten vvoorde also as a kinge alone to rule as papistes doe not defending the popes authoritie also as a preest alone to sanctifye as papistes doe not vpholding the Masse this spirit is of God and the other of Antichriste Is it maruaile yf these men build what they list vppon scripture when they can fovvnde so many absurdities vppon one sentence thereof I wolde here aske first whether M. Chark thinketh that vve exclude Christe vvhen vve allovve prophetes to teache vnder hym kinges to raigne vnder hym preests to sanctifie vnder hym or no If he thinke we exclude Christe he is to fond to reason against sensible men knowing not what they holde But yf he thinke we allowe prophets kings and preests vnder Christe onelie and in hys name how can he call this the spirit of Antichrist doe not the scriptures allowe Prophets and teachers vnder Christe in the churche Ephes. 4. Act. 5 Also kinges and rulers thoughe puritanes wolde haue none 1. Pet. 2. Act. 2 Also may not preestes sanctifie by the woord of God 2. Timo. 4 How then are these things accompted Antichristian doe not protestants teache the same what deepe Mysteries of puritanisme are these Christe is a prophete alone a kinge alone a preest alone Againe I aske what doe the traditions of Christe and his Apostles for of those onelie
serua mandata yf thow wilt be saued kepe the cōmaundements and so deliuer all his gospellers from the burden thereof what differēce is there in these two speches of Christe seing they are bothe spoken to that yong man and bothe in the singular number as infinite other things of the Gospell are to other particular persones as to the Cananaea to the Adulteresse to Nichodemus to the Cēturio to Zachaeus to the blynde deafe and others which notwithstanding are common to all in that they touche eyther lyfe or doctrine The like absurd shiftes I might repeate in a hundred other points VVhat can be more plaine than the woordes of scripture videtis quoniam ex operibus iustificatur homo non ex fide tantum Doe you see how that a man is iustified by woorks and not by fayth onelie But yet it auayleth nothing VVhy so they auoyde it by interpretation S. Iames say they vnderstandeth of Iustification before men and not before God O poore deuise S. Iames hathe in the same place talking of fayth without woorkes Nunquid poterit fides saluare eum Can faythe without woorks saue him doeth S. Iames meane here of saluation before men or before God Again whē S Paul sayeth factores legis iustificabuntur the doers of the lawe shall be iustyfied whiche is the verie same thing that S. Iames in other woordes sayeth that mē shalbe iustified allso by woorks Doeth S. Paul mean before men or before God Yf you say before mē the text is against you which hath expressely apud deum before God The like euasiō they haue whē we alleage the woords of S. Paul qui matrimonio iungit virginem suam benè facit qui non iungit melius facit he that ioyneth his virgin in mariage doeth well and he that ioyneth her not doethe better VVhereof vve inferre that virginitie is more acceptable meritoriouse before God than mariage allthough mariage be holie No say our aduersaries S. Paul meaneth onelye that he doeth better before men and in respect of vvorldlie commodities but not before God But this is absurd for they graunt the former parte of the sentence he that ioyneth his virgin doeth vvel to be vnderstoode before God for that it is sayde also in other vvoordes non peccat he doeth not sinne whiche must nedes be vnderstoode in respect of God How thē can they denie the second clause and he that ioyneth her not doeth better not to be vnderstoode in respect of God also and in respect of merit and rewarde in the lyfe to come especiallie whereas Christ promiseth the same rewarde to virginitie in an other place where he sayeth there be Eunuches vvhich haue gelded them selues for the kingdome of heauen he that can take it lett hym take it You maye see now by this litle and I might shew by many mo examples howe bootelesse it is to bring scripture when we agree not vpon the interpretation VVhat then shall we bring the auncient fathers and doctors of the primatiue church for the vnderstanding of scripture shall we interpret it as they doe vnderstad it as they vnderstoode it No that our aduersaries will not agree vnto but onelie in matters indifferent owte of controuersie VVhere soeuer in matters of controuersie betwene vs and them the olde fathers doe make against them as in all points they doe there will they denie their exposition For example The consent of auncient fathers is alleaged against M. Fulke attributing superioritie to Peter vpon the woordes of Christ Thovv art Peter vpon this rocke vvill I buyld my Church but he auoydeth it verie lightlie thus It can not be denied but diuerse of the auncient fathers othervvyse godlye and learned vvere deceyued in opiniō of Peters prerogatiue S. Ambrose Ierome Chrisostom Cyrill and Theodoret are alleaged for expounding a pece of scripture against M. Fulk Ioh. 5. abowt Antichrist How doeth he shift it thus I ansvver they haue no ground of this exposition S. Ierome with all the ecclesiasticall writers are alleaged for interpreting of the woords of Daniel cap. 7. against the protestants M. Fulke I ansvver that neyther Ierome nor anie ecclesiasticall vvriter vvhome he folovveth hathe any direction out of the scripture for this interpretation S. Austen is alleaged for interpreting Dauids woordes he hathe placed his tabernacle in the Sunne of the visibilitie of the churche Fulke Austen doeth vvrongfullie interpret this place S. Ambrose Ephraim and Bede are alleaged for interpretatiō of certaine scriptures Fulke Gods vvoorde is so pitifullie vvrested by them as euery man may see the holie ghoste neuer meant any suche thing S. Chrisostome is alleaged for certaine interpretations of scripture Fulke he alleageth in dede scripture but he applieth it madlie and yet he often applieth it to the same purpose◠alas good man The consent of fathers is alleaged for interpretatiō of certaine places of scripture of the prefiguration of the crosse of Christ. Fulke The fathers do rather dallie in trifeling allegories than sovvndlie proue that the crosse vvas presigured in those places I might here make vp a greate volume yf I wolde prosecute this argumēt to shew how these new doctors doe contemne reiecte all authoritie antiquitie witt learning sanctitie of oure forefathers of all men in effect that euer liued beside them selues yea of their owne new doctors and maisters also when they come to be cōtrarie to anie new deuise or later fansie of theirs This is euidēt in Luther reiected by his ofspring about the reall presence number of sacraments images bookes of the Bible order of seruice and the like Also in Caluine reiected about the head of the churche in England and about all the gouernmēt thereof in Geneua And I coulde alleage here diuerse examples where he and Beza bothe are reiected by name in diuerse points bothe of puritanes and protestants in England when they differ from them but that this preface wold growe to be too long VVherefore I maye perhaps yf this booke come not otherwyse to be too greate adde a short table or appendix in the end to shew by examples the vnconstant dealings of our aduersaries herein and that in verie dede when all is done and sayd that may be and all excuses made that can be deuised the verye conclusion is that onelye that must be taken for truthe whiche pleaseth them last of all to agree vppon and theyr bare woordes must be the proofe thereof For those bookes onelie be scripture in the bible whiche they appoint in those bookes that onelie is the true sense whiche they gyue out the fathers erred in all things where they differ from them the new doctors as Luther Caluin and the rest sawe so much onelie of the truthe as they agree with them and no further This is the sayeing of our aduersaries this is the saying of all the other sectaries of our time this hathe bene the
sayeinge of all heretiques from the beginninge and this muste needes be the sayeinge of all heretiques for the time to come For except they take this waye it is vnpossible to stand or encrease against the Church And by this way a man may beginne what heresie he will to morow next and defend it against all the learning witt and trueth of Christendome Adioyne now to this that our aduersaries notwithstanding all request sute offer or humble petition that we caâ— make will come to no publique disputation or other indifferent and lawfull iudgement but doe persecute imprison torment and slaughter them which offer the same and then lett the reader iudge whether they desire offer iust triall or no â— M. Charke affirmeth Now for our partes as I haue sayd we offer vnto them all the best surest and easiest means that possiblie can be deuised or that euer were vsed in Gods Church for triall of trueth or discouering of heresie For as for the bookes of scripture seing we must receyue them vpoÌ„ the credit and authoritie of the auncient Church we are coÌ„tent to accept for canonicall and allow those none other which antiquitie in Christendome hathe agreed vpon Next for the contents of scripture yf our aduersaries will stand vpon expresse and plaine woords hereof we are content to agree therevnto and we must needes be farre superiours therein For what one expresse plaine text haue they in any one point or article against vs which we doe not acknowleige literallie as they doe as the woordes doe lie but we haue against them infinit whiche they can not admit without gloses and fond interpretations of their owne For example sake we haue it expreslie sayd to Peteâ— that signifieth a rocke vpon this rocke vvill I buyld my churche Math. 16. they haue no where the contrarie in plaine scripture VVe haue expresselie touching the Apostles he that is great among you let hym be made as the yonger Luc. 22. they haue no where there is none greater than other among you VVe haue expresselie this is my bodie Math. 26. you haue no where this is the signe of my bodie VVe haue expresselie the bread that I vvill gyue you is my fleshe Io. 6. they haue no where it is but the sygne of my fleshe VVe haue expresselie a man is iustified by vvoorkes and not hy faith onelie Iacob 2. they haue no where a man is iustified by fayth alone No nor that he is iustified by faith without workes talking of works that folow faith vvhereof onelie our coÌ„trouersie is VVe haue expresseselye vvhose sinnes ye forgyue are forgyuen vvhose sinnes ye retayne they are retayned Ioh. 20. They haue no where that preestes can not forgyue or retayne sinnes in earthe VVe haue expresselie The doers of the lavv shalbe iustified Rom. 2. They haue no where that the law required at ChristiaÌ„s hands is impossible or that the doing therof iustifieth not Christians VVe haue expresselie Vovv yee and render your vovves Psal. 75. they haue no where vow ye not or yf yow haue vowed breake your vowes VVe haue expresselie kepe the traditions vvhiche ye haue learned eyther by vvoorde or epistle 1. thess 2. They haue no where the Apostles left no traditions to the church vnwritteÌ„ VVe haue expresselie yf thovv vvilt enter into lyfe kepe the commaundements and when he sayd he dyd that allredie yf thovv vvilt be perfect goe and sell all thovv haste and gyue to the poore and folovv me They haue no where that eyther the commaundementes can not be kept or that we are not bound vnto them or that there is no degree of lyfe one perfecter than an other VVe haue expresselye vvoorke your ovvne saluation vvith feare and trembling Philip. 2. They haue no where eyther that a man can woorke nothinge towards his owne saluation beinge holpen with the grace of God or that a man should make it of his beleefe that he shalbe saued without all doubt or feare VVe haue expresselie doe ye the vvoorthie fruits of penaunce Luc. 3. They haue no where that faithe onelie is sufficient with out all satisfactioÌ„ and all other woorkes of penaunce on our parts VVe haue expresselie that euerye man shalbe saued according to his vvoorks Apoc. 20. They haue no where that men shalbe Iudged onelie according to their faith VVe haue expresselie that there remaineth a retribution stipend and paye to euerie good vvoorke in heauen Marc. 9. 1. Cor. 3. Apo. 22. Psal. 118. They haue no where that good woorkes done in Christ doe merit nothinge VVe haue expresselie it is a holie cogitatioÌ„ to praye for the deade 2. Machab 12. They haue no where it is superstition or vnlawfull to doe the same VVe haue an expresse example of a holy man that offered sacrifice for the dead 2. Machab. 12. They haue no example of any good man that euer reprehended it VVe haue expresselie that the affliction whiche Daniel vsed vppon his bodie was acceptable in the sight of God Dan. 10. They haue no where that suche voluntarie corporall afflictions are in vaine VVe haue expresselie that an Angel dyd preseÌ„t Tobias good woorkes and almes deedes before God Tob. 12. They haue no were that Angels can not or doe not the same VVe reade expresselie that Ieremias the pâ—het after he was deade praied for the people of Iâ—rael 2. Mach. 15. they haue no where the contrarye to this I leaue manie thinges more that I might repeate But this is enoughe for example sake to proue that albeit our aduersaries doe vaunt of scripture yet when it cometh to expresse woordes they haue no text against vs in lieu of so manie as I haue here repeated against them nor can they shew that we are driuen to denie anie one booke of the Bible nor to glose vppon the plaine woordes of anye one plaine place of scripture as they are enforced to doe But now yf they will not stand onelie to plaine and expresse woordes of scripture but also as in dede they must to necessarie collections made and inferred of scripture then muste we referre onr selues to the auncient primatiue church for this meaning of Gods woord For it is like they knew it best for that they lyued nearer to the writers thereof than we doe whoe could well declare vnto them what was the meaning of the same And then our aduersaries well know how the auncieÌ„t fathers do ground purgatorie prayer to saints sacrifice of the Aultar vse of the crosse and other like points of our religion besides tradition vpon the authoritie of scriptures also expounded accordinge to their meaning albeit oure aduersaries denie the same to be well expounded If our aduersaries will yet goe further for the triall of our Spirits we are well content and we refuse none that euer antiquitie vsed for the triall of a Catholique and hereticall spirit The olde heretiques
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
we talke when we compare them with scripture impeache the teaching of Christe and his Apostles what doeth the spirituall authoritie of the pope vnder Christe diminishe the kinglie power and authoritie of Christe how doeth the preesthode of mē as from Christe or the sacrifice of the Aultar instituted by Christe disgrace Christs presthoode or his sufficiēt sacrifice ones for all offered on the crosse There is noted in the Margent the epistle to the Hebrewes where it is saied that that sacrifice on the crosse was ones offered for euer for oure redēptiō VVhiche we bothe graunt and teache in that manner as then it was done but yet that impeacheth nothing this dayly sacrifice of ours whiche must be in the churche vntill the end of the woorde as Daniel prophecyed and that in euerie place amongest the Gentiles that is in all the worlde is Malachie fore-tolde being called by Sainct Cirill and other fathers incruentum sacrificium the vnbloodie sacrifice which being one and the selfe same with that which was offered once vpon the crosse is appointed by Christe to be offred dayly in remembrance and thanks geuing for that bloodie sacrifice as Sainct Chrisostom doeth proue at large vpō the epistle to the hebrewes whom other his like yf M. Chark his felowes wolde not disdaine to reade beleeue they wold be a shamed to cauill and blaspheme gods mysteries as they doe But for a large and full answere of this common obiection of theirs owte of the epistle to the hebrewes towching Christe once bloodilie offered for all I referre the reader amōges many other to certayne particular auncient and learned fathers of the primatiue churche whoe doe handle this obiection and answere it of purpose The one is Theodoret byshop of Cyrus whoe handleth this question vvhie Christians doe novv vse to sacrifice in the nevv testament seing the olde lavv vvith all sacrifices vvere abolished by the one sacrifice of Christe The other is S. Augustin whoe proposeth this dowbt hovv vve sacrifice Christe euery daye vpon the Aultar seing he is sayd to be sacrificed once for all vpon the crosse And then he answereth it bothe fullie and largelie in that sense as I haue sayd before So that this obiection was a cómon thing in the primatiue churche and commōlie answered by euery writer which M. Chark his felowes do make so much a doe abowt now crieing owt that we denie the vertue of Christes passion the effects of his offices and the like See the same answered also by Eusebius li. 1. demonst euang cap. 6. and 10. And by Theophilact in cap. 5. ad hebr And so hauing answered now the substance of all that which M. Chark hathe in his preface I might here make an end but that I haue promised to shew how we offer hym and his felows moste reasonnable meanes of triall and that they in deede admitt none at all For what is it to name scripture in woordes when all thee controuersie is about the sense thereof wherein they admit no Iudge but them selues yf we bring scripture neuer so playne yet will they shift it of with some impartinent interpretation And what remedie or further triall haue we then I will gyue an example or two for instruction of the reader in their procedings The most of the auncient fathers wrote books in prayse of virginitie aboue wedlocke vsed to proue it by the sayeing of Christe There be Eunuches vvhiche haue gelded them selues for the kingdome of heauen he that can take it let hym take it Also by the woordes of S. Paul he that ioynethe his virgine in mariage dothe vvell and hee that ioynethe her not dothe better VVhiche woordes being alleaged against Martyn Luther whoe preferred mariage yea though it were of a vowed Nunne before virgnitie he answered it thus that Christ by his woordes terrified men from virginitie and continence and S. Paul by this speche dyd diswade them from the same Now what could be replied in this case trow you An other exāple may be towching S. Iohn Baptist of whome the scripture sayth first concerning his place of liuinge that he vvas in the vvildernesse vntill the day of his appearing to Israel Secōdlie touching his apparell Iohn vvas appareled vvith the heares of Camels Thyrdlie touching his diet his meate vvas locustes and vvilde honie Of whiche three things the olde fathers of the primatiue Church dyd gather a great and singular austeritie of S. Iohns lyfe and doe affirme with all that Eremits and Monkes and other religious people did take their paterne of straite lyuing from hym For whiche cause S. Chrisostome dothe often call S. Iohn Baptist Monachum principem vitae monastice a monke and prince of Monasticall lyfe whiche protestants being not able to abyde doe rage maruailouslie against S. Chrisostome condemning hym of rashenes and falsehode for vsinge those termes wherefore they fall to interpret the alleaged woordes of scripture farre otherwise sayeinge that by the desert wherein he liued vntill he began to preache is vnderstoode nothing els but his priuate lyfe at home in his fathers ovvne hovvse And for his apparell say they of Camels heare it was not straunge apparell but vsual to Mountain men that is vndulata◠sayeth another VVater chamblet hansome and decent albeit somvvhat plentifull in that countrie And lastlie touchinge his dyet of locusts and wilde hony it was no hard fare say they for the locustes were creuises cast awaye by the fishers of Iordan as vncleane by the lawe but eaten of Iohn by the libertie of the Gospell And the wilde hony was no vnpleasant thing as the fathers doe imagin but it was say Cossius and Strigelius that pleasant Manna whiche Apothecaires vse to kepe in their shoppes So that accordinge to these men all that austeritie of lyfe whiche the scriptures so particularlie doe recounte all antiquitie doeth wounder at in S. Iohn Baptist cometh but to this that he was brought vp priuatelie in his fathers house cladde in chāblette fedde with creuisses swete Manna VVhat great hardnesse was this A thyrd example may be aboute the controuersie of reall presence in the sacrament for whiche we bring plaine woordes of scripture oute of fower diuerse places of the new testament where the same woordes are repeated withoute exposition or alteration to witt hoc est corpus meum this is my bodie VVhiche woordes dyd seme so playne and cleare for the reall presence of Christe in the sacrament to all antiquitie as no man might without great offence doubt thereof as the woords of S. Ambro. S. Ciril are And as the same Ciril in an other place proueth at large to aske onelye quomodo how it may be is the parte of an vnbeleuinge Iewe seinge God was able as he sayeth as well to doe this as to turne the rodde of Moyses into a serpent To whiche purpose allso holy Epiphanius
32. 33. 34. By agreement of our aduersaries with auncient heretiques in maners page 35. How heretiques falselie accuse Catholiques of olde heresies page 33. How all heresie is Beggarie page â—6 How the Catholique cause is honorable page 36. 37. VVhye the Author hath put downe the Censure it selfe in this defense whiche foloweth pag. 37. A DEFENCE OF THE CENSVRE AGAYNST VVILLYAM Charke minister THE CENSVRE THERE came to my hands tvvo bookes of late in ansvvere of M. Edmund CaÌ„piane his offer of disputation the one vvryten by M. Hanmer the other by M. Charke of bothe vvhiche vnder correction I meane to gyue my shorte Censure vntill such tyme as eyther he to vvhome the matter appertayneth or some other doe make more large and leardned replie Aduertising notvvithstandinge the reader that in myne opinioÌ„ this offer of M. Campian and so many other as haue bene made required not so muche ansvvering in vvriting but shorter triall in disputation But yet seinge there can be had nothinge from theÌ„ but vvoordes I vvill examine a litle vvhat they say at least to the matter THE DEFENCE HEERE euen at the verie entrance the replyer leeseth his patience for that we require short triall in disputation VVhoe is Campian sayeth he or vvhoe are the rest of these seedmen that they should presume to auovvâ— popishe religion that hathe nothing to vpholde it but tyranie nothing to defend it but lies nothing to restore it but hipocrisie and rebellion O M. Charke remember your selfe VVe now but begynne you will be farre out ere we ende yf you tread the first step with so much choler Yf the verie naming of disputations make you sweate what will the thing it selfe doe yf it should be graunted yow beganne verie hoote with M. Campian in the Tower but his quiet behauyour cooled you with shame He tooke at your hands reproches and iniuries yea torments also and death it selfe with more patieÌ„ce thaÌ„ you can beare a moste reasonable and iust request But say you vvhat can they gett by renevveing the battaille so often and so latelie refused by their fathers and captaines and you note in the margent D. VVatson M. Fecknam VVe know M. Charke the foolish vaine pamphlet set fourth by D. Fulke in his owne commeÌ„dation touching his being at wesbiche castle and coÌ„ference with the learned reuerend fathers imprisoned there But as they dyd wiselie in contemning his pride coÌ„ming thither vpon vanitie without warrant for that he offered so beside the falsehode of that scrolle discouered sence by letters from the parties theÌ„ selues there is nothing in the same that turneth not to your owne discredit being confessed therein that after you had depriued theÌ„ of all bookes yea their verie writen note bookes which to learned men are the store house of memorie you asked them whether they wold come to Camebrige to dispute or no yf leaue peraduenture might be procured And because they coÌ„teÌ„ned so peart cockishe a marchant that for matter of glory camâ— to pose them without authoritie therfore you publishe bothe in bookes and sermons that these learned men refused disputatioÌ„ where as at the verie same tyme and bothe before and sence hothe we and they haue sued by all meanes possible to be admitted to a lawfull equall and free disputation eyther in Cambrige or anie place els that shall be appointed VVhat dealing is this what proceding M. Charke where are nowe the lies and hipocrisie you talked of on which parte doe they appeare As for tyraÌ„nie being an odious woorde I will saye nothing nor will not turne it to you againe let racking and quartering of those that offered disputation be accompted scholasticall reasonning with you But this I must saye to yow ministers for your good that it were farre better you confessed your feare in playne woordes than so much to manifest it in dedes and thereby to discredit the rest of your sayeings Next after the matter of disputation M. Charke taketh an other thing in greefe and that is that the Censure should saye seing there can be had nothing from them but vvoordes c. And for hym selfe he referreth men to his answer But for M. Hanmer he answereth that he hathe brought more reason with his woords than may well be answered by me But suppose all this were true and that bothe his woordes and M. Hanmers also were reasonable woordes yet are they but woordes in respect of the desired disputation whiche is a deede And so me thinke the Censure doeth offer them no iniurie But how reasonable M. Charks woordes are it appeared partlie by the Censure and shall doe better by this defence For M. Hanmer as I thought hym then not woorthie of particular answere so much lesse doe I now remayning worse satisfyed by his second booke than by his first But yet as I omitted hym not in the Censure when occasion was offered so will I not in this defence allthough finallie I must confesse that albeit I am not willing to increase a proude humour where alredie it doeth abounde yet doe I attribute more to M. Chark than to hym for some discretion in answering to the purpose But for that M. Charke will needes so frendelie take vpon hym the avouchement of M. Hanmers doeinges as thoughe he had not enoughe to defend his owne I will oute of a heape of foolerie falsehoode pached together by M. Hanmer after the fashion of their sermoÌ„s alleage a few things requiring M. Charke in his next wryting to answere for the same And yf he fynde it somewhat hard Lett hym blame his owne tongue for medling in matters whiche he might haue auoyded Nether will I touche any thing now mentioned before in the Censure for that these thinges shall haue their owne place to be discussed after Now purpose I onelie to note a fewe pointes of many which shall declare sufficientlie the mans constitution He hathe in his first book fol. 12. That lyra sayeth Ab ecclesia romana iam diu est quòd recessit gratia VVhiche he interpreteth thus It is long sythence the grace of God is departed from the churche of Rome VVhereas the woordes are Graecia Greece and not grace signifyeinge that the Greeke churche was long since departed from obedience of the churche of Rome How will you excuse this M. Charke For suppose there were anie corrupte booke that had by error Gratia for Graecia whiche I may scarse imagin But yet to help hym to an excuse suppose it should be so yet lyra his whole discourse vppon S. Pauls woordes nisi venerit discessio primum Except a reuolte be first made the ende of the worlde shall not come with all the circumstances and other examples there alleaged of the Romans empire must nedes haue shewed hym yf he haue sense that he talked onelie of the countrie of Grece and not of the grace of God In this second assertion of his second booke he attributeth this sentence to
a counceller to an emperour Raskall Staphylus It is vnsitting and argueth excesse of fond and foolishe malice For yf an enemie of mean conditioÌ„ should call an Englishe counceller raskall should he not discouer therby his owne raskalitie and lacke of witt But of all other Martin Luther as the first father of all these new imppes had primitias spiritus the first fruites of this spirit in full measure euen as the Apostles had of the holie spirit to the end he might imparte due portions to his children and successors I could alleage infinite examples in this kynde but that I desire to be shorte and shall haue occasion to touche some part of the same in other places after Onelie as it were for a taste I will cite some fewe owt of his booâ—e writen against oure most noble and famouse king Henrie the eight the moste learned and wittiest prince that euer England had But yet heare what the fuâ—ious spirit of this our new prophet vttered against hym then consider whether he could be of God or no. The booke is extant to be solde in England and I will note the leafe to the ende I may not be imagined to feygne or aggrauate any thing First then in his preface of that to Sebastian Scâ—ike Earle of passune he defaceth his Maiestye intolerablie sayeing that he is an enuious madde foole babling vvith much spettle in his mouthe Then at length comming to the booke it selfe he sayeth that the king is more furious than madnesse it selfe more doltish than folie it selfe endewed with a blasphemouse and rayling mouthe with an impudent and whorishe face full of dastardie without anie one vaine of princelie blood in his bodie a lyeing Sophist compounded onelie of ygnorance and poysoned malice a damnable rotten worme whoe when he could not auoyde the venemouse poyson and Sneuell of his enuie by his lower partes sought occasion to vomyt it vp by his fylthie mouthe it were a shame for anie beastlie whoore to lye as he doeth a basilisk and progenie of an adder to whome I doe denounce sayeth he the sentence of daÌ„nation this madde buggish Thomist miserable book-maker a God latelie borne in England I saye plainlie this HARRYE lyeth manifestelye sheweth hym selfe a moste light scurrill Of this crime doe I luther accuse this poysoned Thomist I talke with a lyeing scurrill couered with the tytles of a king a Thomisticall brayne a clownish witt a doltishe head a bugge and hipocrite of the Thomists moste wicked folish and impudent HARRYE this gloriouse king lyeth stoutelie lyke a king heere now must I deale not with ignorance blockishenesse onelie but with obstinate and impudent wickednesse of this HARRYE for he doeth not onelie lye like a moste vaine scurre but passeth a most wicked KNAVE in detorting of scripture see whether there be any sparke in hym of an honest man surely he is a chosen vessell of the deuyll I would to God pigges could speak to iudge betwene this HARRYE and me But I will take asses that can speake Iudge you yee Sophists of the vniuersities of Paris Louan and Coolen what this HARRIESâ— logike is woorthe I am ashamed HARRYE of thy impudeÌ„t forhead which art no more a king now but a Sacrilegiouse thyefe against Christs owne woordes I will faygne heere certaine kindes of fooles and madde men to the ende I may sett out my king in his coulours and shew that my bedleme king doeth passe all bedlemnesse it selfe VVhat nede had I of suche pigges to dispute withall thow lyest in thy throte foolish and sacrilegiouse kinge this block my Lord Maister HARRYE hathe taughte together with his asses and pygges now he is madde and crieth foemeth at the mouthe neyther could I with all my strengthe make this miserable kinge so filthie and abominable a spectacle to the worlde as he by furie maketh hym selfe what harlot euer durst bragge of her shame as this moste impudent mouthe of his doeth this foole must haue a dictionarye to learne what a sacrifice is Oh vnhappie that I am to be enforced to leese tyme with suche monsters of folie and can not gett a learned man to contend with me I leaue infinite despitefull slaunderouse and scurrile woordes whiche this impudent apostata vseth against his Maiestie and some are so dishonest as I am ashamed to englishe them as vvhere he sayeth Ius mihi erit Maiestatem Angelicam stercore conspergere And againe Sit ergo mea haec generalis responsio ad omnes sentinas insulsissimae huius laruae Againe Haec sunt robora nostra aduersus quae obmutescere coguntur Henrici Thomistae Papistae quicquid est fecis sentinae latrinae impiorum sacrilegorum eiusmodi Sordes istae labes hominum Thomistae Henrici sacrilegus Henricorum asinorum cultus furor insulsissimorum asinorum Thomisticorum porcorum os vestrae dominationis impurum sacrilegum And a hundred moe sentences like VVhereof yf euer good or honest man and muche lesse a prophet vsed the like I am content to be of the protestantes religion but yf neuer ether ruffian or rakehell vsed suche speeche to a prince before then may we be sure that this man was no elect vessell of God whiche hathe no part of his spirit in hym I might heere repeate the like spirit of his in writing against the Caluinists and the Caluinists against hym but that I haue occasion to speake somewhat of it afterward But yet one place I will cite in stead of all the rest and that is of the churche of Tigurine against Luther whose woordes are these Nos condemnatam execrabilem vocat sectam c. Luther calleth vs a damnable and exeâ—rable sect But let hym looke that he doe not declare hym selfe an archeheretique seeing he vvill not nor can not haue anie societie vvith those that confesse Christ. But hovv maruailouslie doeth Luther heere bevvraye hym selfe vvith his deuils vvhat filthie vvoordes doeth he vse and suche as are replenished vvith all the deuills in hell for he sayeth that the deuill dvvelleth bothe novv euer in the ZuynglyaÌ„s and that they haue a blasphemouse breast insathanized supersathanised and persathanized and that they haue besides a moste vayne mouthe ouer vvhich Sathan beareth rule being infused persused and transfused to the same dyd euer man heare suche speeche passe from a furiouse deuill hym selfe Hitherto are the woordes of the Tigurine Caluinistes whiche may easilie refute M. Charks shamelesse lyes in defence of Luther as after shall be shewed And heere would I haue the reader to consider withe what conscience Charke dothe call Luther a holy and deuyne man a litle after and whittaker in his booke against M. Campian callethe hym a man of holy memorye seinge the Tigurine Caluinistes whoe saye their maisters doe call hym an archeheretique and a furious deuyll is not this open disimulation and
and affirmed that the husband ought to geue consent to his wife in this matter and that yf he refused then shee might prouide for her healthe by secret flyeing from him and goeinge into an other countrie might marie an other This counsaile I gaue when I was yet in feare of Antichrist But now my mynde should be to geue farre other counsaile that is layeing my hands vppon the locks of suche a husbaÌ„d that should so craftelie deceyue a woman I wold shake hym as the prouerbe is and that vehementlie and the same is my Iudgement of the woman also albeit it falleth out more seldome in women than in men to neede this counsaile Now let the reader Iudge whether M. Charke be a true man or no in cutting of the woordes that folowed immediatlie in Luther after the sentence by hym alleaged and notwithstandinge with a moste impudent face to crye out and insult against me as reading a peece of Luthers senteÌ„ce against the manifest purpose of the vvriter can this be excused from extreme impudencie and moste willfull falsehoode against his owne coÌ„science Lett hym defend this yf he can with all the helpes and deuises of his felowes or else lett the reader by this one point of open dishonestie discouered Iudge of the rest of their dealings with vs of their slaundering of vs without all coÌ„scieÌ„ce in their sermons where they are sure not to be controlled Lutheâ— goeth on to inueigh against that husband that wolde not in this case permitt his wyfe to lye with an other he being not hable to serue her turne hym selfe coÌ„cludeth egregie deberee solucre eiusmodi imposturam that he ought to pay sweetly for deceauing her so And in an other place he sayeth that yf a man haue tenne vvyues or more â—ledde froÌ„ hym vpon like causes he may take more so may vvyues doe the lyke in husbands VVhereupon Alberus one of your owne religion noteth that IOHANNES Leidensis tooke many wyues and one KNIPPERDOLLINGE tooke thirtene for his parte So that this doctrine was not onelie taught but also practized vpon Luthers authoritie The fifthe dostrine Fyftlye Luther is reported to teache Yf the vvyfe vvill not come let the mayd come To this M. Hanmer answereth You â—ather vpon Luther an impudent slaunder being not in deede his ovvne vvordes but alleaged by hym as spoken by an other M. Charke graunteth them absolutelye to be Luthers owne woordes but seeketh an interpretation for Luthers meanyng sayeing In this place Luther speaketh of a thyrd cause of diuorse vvhen the vvomaÌ„ shall obstinatlye refuse her husbands companie So that these men doe litle care what they answer so they say somewhat and we may see how trymlye they doe agree But the truthe is they are Luthers owne wordes deliuered to the husband to vse to his wyfe as the woordes before were for the wyfe to vse against her husband and they can not be excused eyther by M. Hanmers shamelesse deniall or by M. Charks impartinent interpretation thus they stand in Luther Hic nunc oportunum est vt maritus dicat si tu nolueris alia volet si domina nolit adueniat ancilla Here now is oportunitie for the husbande to say to the wyfe yf you will not an other will yf the mistresse will not lett the handmayde come And that this was practized in Germanie to all kynde of lasciuiousenesse yea among the ministers them selues Sebastian flaske a preacher once of Luthers owne familie doeth testifie And when you are not a shamed to defend the doctrine you are more bolde than the Lutherans them selues who for verie shame doe suppresse the Germane booke wherein it was written as Cromerus a Germane testifieth And Smideline hathe no other waye to answere it against Staphilus but to aske vvhy Luther might not retract this as S. AusteÌ„ dyd maniâ— thinges but yet proueth not that euer he offered to recant it Now whereas you seeke to couer this dishonest doctrine of your prophet by alleaging two positions of the Catholiques about deuorse in mariage as absurd in your sight as this the one that a man may deuorce hym selfe from his vvyfe for being a bondvvoman yf he kuevv it not before the mariage the other that he may do the same for couetousnes in her by Peter lombards opinion the first is true allowed by all lawes of nature Ciuill and Canon that vpon great reason for that he which marieth a bondwoman vnwittinglie leeseth his free choyse by ignorance nor can not haue power ouer her bodie as mariage requireth she beyng in bondage to other Also he can not beget childeren but bonde cum partus sequatur ventrem And coÌ„sequentlie can not bring them vpp at his pleasure nor instruct them necessarilie which things doe repugne to the state of mariage The second albeit it be but the sayeing of one man yet his meanyng is that yf this couetousnes or other notoriouse vice of the wyfe should break out to the husbands notable dammage or daunger as yf she should fall to stealing or the like then he might dimittere eam as lombards woordes are that is dimisse her from his companie but not dissolue the knott of wedlock as bothe S. Thomas doeth expounde it 3. p. q. 59. art 6. and Dominicus Sotus in 4. sent dist 39. art 4. But yet what are all these things to the lasciuiouse doctrine of Martin Luther The last fovver doctrines The other fower doctrines foloweing for that you graunâ— them as they lye think them sownd enough to â—tand with your gospell I nede not to repeat in particular or alleage other places where Luther holdeth the same By your Censure they are curraÌ„t Catholique and good But yet in the first where you preferre matrimonie before virginitie yt may be noted of the reader for examples sake how farre you differ from the spirit of the primatiue churche whiche condemned this position as an intolerable heresie in IOVINIAN and others onelye to make equall matrimonie with virginitie as appeareth by S. Ierome in his two moste learned and vehement bookes against Iouinian and by S. Augustin recounting the 82. heresie of his time And by S. Ambrose also in his epistle to Syricius the pope and by other fathers And yf this auncient churche whiche our aduersaries in woordes will graunt to be the true and pure churche dyd detest this heresie in IOVINIAN HELVIDIVS BASILIDES I mean to affirme matrimonie paris esse meriti cum virginitate as their woordes are that is to be of equall meritt with virginitie what wolde the same churche doe to M. Luther M Chark for preferringe mariage before virginitie And yf to omitt all others S. Cyprian Athanasius Basil Ambrose Chrisostom and S. Augustin did write whole books in commendation and preferment of virginitie aboue all other states of lyfe comparing it to the lyfe of Angels and affirming the dignitie thereof to be incomparable what
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
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