Apostolical and Euāgelical traditiō the doctrine of fathers haue taught it The second point is the proceeding of the holy ghost from the father the sonne equallie For this M. Charke quoteth vvhen the holye ghost shall come vvhiche I vvill send you from my father the spirit of trueth vvhiche proceedeth from the father But this proueth not expresselie that the holie ghost proceedeth equallie from the father and the sonne together but rather seemeth to inclyne to the heresie of the Greekes that it proceedeth onelie from the father And therfore the heretiques which denyed this equallye buylded their heresie especiallie vpon this place as S. Cyrill noteth Agayne this place telleth not whether it proceedeth by generation or without generation from the father and yet we must beleeue it to be without generation The third poynt is the vnion of the vvoorde vnto the nature of man not vnto the persone For which M. Chark citeth And the vvorde vvas made fleshe But what is this to the point thys proueth that the woorde tooke our fleshe but whether he tooke the nature of man onelye or the persone onelye or bothe together it expresseth not And heere is to be noted by the waye M. Charks lacke of iudgemēt not onelie in the matter but euen in the verie termes of diuinitie For he reprehendinge my woords as vnsounde in that he vnderstoode thē not he chaungeth thē thus That the vvoorde dyd take the nature of man to be one persone and not the persone VVhiche are bothe fond and erroneous For the woorde tooke not the nature of man to be one persone seeing the woorde was one persone before he tooke that nature of man vnto it selfe Nether could the nature of mā be that one persone as M. Charke semeth to weene for so should nature persone be cōfounded in Christ. But I thinke M. Chark neuer studied yet these matters and therfore he myght haue bene lesse malepert in reprehendinge yf he wolde The fowerth doctrine is of baptizinge of infantes For which M Charke quoteth these woordes of Genesis The infant of eight years olde shalbe circumcised in mankynde This hathe nothyng expresselye as yow see for baptisme And yf we had nothing but this lawe for our warrant in baptizing of infantes how chaunceth it that wee baptize infantes before or after the eight daye also why baptize we infantes of woman kynde also whiche were not circumcysed in the lawe Beza was strycken quyte dumme in the disputation of poysie in fraunce withe this demaunde as the byshope Claudius de Saynctes reporteth whoe was present VVherfore I had rather folow S. Austen who contendeth and proueth that baptizinge of infantes is onelye a tradition of the Apostles and not left vs by anye written scripture li. 10. c. 23. super Gen. ad lit And the same teacheth Origen ho. 8. in leuit The fyueth doctrine whiche M. Charke auoweth to be in scripture is the chaunge of the Sabboth daye into Sundaye For which he citeth these woords owt of the reuelations I vvas in spirit in our Lordes daye But heere is no mention of Sundaye or Saturdaye muche lesse of celebratiō of ether of them leaste of all of the chaunge of the Sabbothe appointed by God into any other daye Is not this chaunge then of the Sabboth daye appointed by the law substantiallie proued from this place of scriprure trow yowe The sixt poynt is abowt the fower Gospels and epistle to the Romanes whiche he sayeth to be proued scripture owt of scriptute But yet he quoteth no place of scripture where they are proued to be scripture but onely sayeth they are proued ovvt of the vuoords by the inscription there expressing the names of the vvryters therof But what a mockerie is this is the bare names of the Apostles sufficient to proue that they were written in deed by the Apostles whoe can proue owt of scripture that these names were not counterfayted The fayned epistle to the Laodicenses hathe it not the name of S. Paul in it and begynneth it not with the verie same style as his other epistles doe and yet is it reiected as counterfaite and that onelye by tradition The fayned gospell of S. Bartholomew had it not his name in it and yet was it not reiected The fayned Gospell of S. Thomas had it not his name and yet Origen sayeth he reiected it onelie for that the tradition of the churche receyued it not The three counterfait Gospells among the hebrewes had they not as holy titles as the rest and yet they were reiected by tradition of the churche as Epiphanius sheweth VVhen Faustus the Manachie denyed the Gospell of S. Mathew sayeth not S. Austen Mathaei euangelium prolatū aduersus faustum Manachaeum per traditionem The Gospell of Mathew was alleaged against Faustus the Manachie by traditiō VVhat can be more euident than all this to proue our opinion of the necessitie of tradition and to confound the fond madnes of this poore minister that will haue the bare titles of bookes sufficient to proue their authoritie and so certainlie as the true scripture it selfe once knowen is to be beleeued The seuenth doctrine whiche he holdeth to be expresselie in scripture is that God the father begatt his sonne onelie by vnderstanding hym selfe Marye he citeth no place fort it but reprehending the darkenes of the woordes which notwithstanding are most playne and vsuall to those whiche haue studyed any thing i◠diuinitie he flyeth to an other matter sayeing vve beleeue by testimonie of the vvoorde that Iesus Christ is the onelie begotten sonne of the father And for this he quoteth a place or two of scripture whiche needed not For we holde this to be expresselie in scripture more than in fortye places But the question is of the manner howe this generation may be whiche though it appertaine not to the simple to trouble them selues with all yet the Church must defend it agaynst aduersaryes whoe will obiect as often they haue done hovve can God beyng a spirit begett a sonne and yet the sonne not to be after his father in tyme or nature but equall vvith hym in them bothe vvhat mean you saye they to holde that the holye ghost proceedeth from the father that the sonne proceedeth not but is begotten vvhye is it heresie to saye that the sonne proceedet◠from the father or that the holye ghost is begotten vvhat difference is there betvveene theese speeches hovv doeth the father begett and the lyke All these are poyntes of diuinitie to be discussed And though M. Charke seemeth ignorāt in them all not to vnderstand so much as the verie termes them selues moste playnlie sett downe yet Catholique diuines kuowe what the Churche hath determined heerin against heretiques and infideles And albeit these thynges be not expresselye sett downe in scripture yet are they no lesse to be beleeued thā the other mysteries of the Trlnitie VVherof I
so taken away by baptisme but that it remaynith styll to tempt vs M. Charke to deceyue the reader foysteth in this woorde synne to S. Austens text reciting his woordes thus Concupiscence is not so forgyuen in baptisme that it is not sinne By whiche addition of the woorde synne the matter seemeth to stand cleere on hys syde And this also can not be excused by ignorance but sheweth open and willfull malice in the man I passe ouer many of these and suche lyke tryckâ—s whiche can not proceede of negligence simplicitie or ignorance but muste needes be effectes of sett-malice As where he reportinge diuers vntruethes against the Iesuites owt of Gotuisus as he now sayeth concealed the author in his first booke And now though vppon necessitie he confesse the same yet fynding the things there reported in his conscieÌ„ce to be false where as his Author citeth allwayes two Iesuites bookes for proofe of the same that is CeÌ„sura Coloniensis which is not to be had in EnglaÌ„d and Canisius his greate Catechisme which euery man may haue and reade M. Chark quoteth the page alwayes in Censura Coloniensis whiche he is sure can not be seene and concealeth the page cited lykewise by his Author in Canisius for that hys reader turning to Canisius hys places should fynde the falshoode bothe of M. Charke and hys Author And Sometimes also when Gotuisus dyd not belye the Iesuites sufficientlye M. Charke without blushing will falsifie hys woordes to make them more odious as where Gotuisus hys woordes are that the Iesuites saye the scripture is as it vvere a nose of vvax M. Chark sayeth their woordes are the scripture is a nose of vvaxe Infinite such things you shall fynde in the treatyse foloweing whiche proueth manifestlye that point wherof I spake before to wytt that M. Charke is a man of no synceritie in matters of controuersie but purposelye bent bothe wittinglie and willinglie by all meanes possible to deceyue And thus much M. Chark concerning your writing As for your other behauyour towardes M. Campian in the Tower of London els where I mean not greatlie to stand vpon It was suche as myght be looked for at a mans handes of your makyng or degree The Censure somewhat noted your inciuilitie in woords which you had vttered agaynst hym before in your booke But that was nothing to the contemptuous vsage of so learned a man in open audieÌ„ce with barbarours threatenyng of that further crueltie whiche then you had in mynde and nowe haue putt in execution vppon hym But aboue all other things that was most ridiculous and fytt for a-stage whiche you thought was excellent and became you vvell and that vvas your often turning to the people requesting them to reioyse thank the Lord that he had gyuen you suche an argument agaynst the papistes as novve you had to proposeâ— And then wheÌ„ greate expectation was moued the argumeÌ„t came forth it proued not woorth three egges in Maye for that M. Câ—mpian dispatched it oftentymes in lesse than halfe three woordes These are the comedies that you exercise to get applause of the people vvithall For vvhiche cause also you had M. Norton the Rack-maister at your elbovve to repeat and vrge your argument for you to the purpose Surelie it is pitie that you durst not make these fevve disputations publik vvhere more men might haâ—e laughed and bene witnesses of your folye especiallie of that in the end when beynge now brought to a non plus in argueing and thervpoÌ„ the people beginning to depart you M. Charke caused the dores to be shutt and no man to be lett owt vntill with one consent they had ioyned with you in prayer to thanke the lorde for your victorie that daye gotten vppon M. Campian O M. Chark how greedie are you of a litle vainglorie and how vayne are the wayes by which you seeke yt thynke you that men haue no Iudgement in the woorld abrode Trow ye not that many smylde in their sleeues to beholde this hypocrisie no no yf you had parted with M. Campian but at an euen hand as you ioyned with hym with all inequalitie we should haue had books of Triumphe sett â—oorth before novv And this secret of yours all the people of England doeth knowe Doctor Fulke dyd but looke into vvisbyche castell the last yeare past and framed to hym selfe but a certaine imaginatioÌ„ of a victorie for that those learned prisoners contemned his conference and beholde he printed presentlie a pamphlett in hys ovvne prayse as after is shevved And vvhat then vvolde you and your bretheren haue done abovvt these disputations vvith M. Campian yf you had thought yt any vvaye able to abyde the vevve And yet as I sayd you knovv the inequalitie vvherby you dealt vvith that maÌ„ being but one vnbookt vnprouided vvearyed vvith imprisoâ—ment and almost dismembred vvith the rack threatned and terrified vvith deathe to come appointed onely to ansvver and neuer to oppose All this you knovve and the vvorlde bothe knovveth and meruaileth at yt abrode Mary vve meruayle not vvhoe know your purses For that vve are sure and dare auowe to your faces that you vvill neuer deale vvith vs at euen hand or vpoÌ„ equall conditions vvhile you lyue And heere M. Charke because we are now fallen into this matter I am in the name of all my felow Catholiques to renew our publike chalenge of equall disputation to you and to all your brother ministers agayne You see M. Campian is gone whome you named in this matter our onelye Champion You see also that M. Sherwyn is made awaye with hym whome you are wont to saye for more abasement of the other to haue bene farre better learned than M. Campian hym selfe But how soeuer that was bothe of them haue you dispatched and therby in your opinion greatly weakned our cause Yet notwithstanding we are the same men that we were before yea muche more desirous of this tryall than before VVherfore we request you now at length yea we coniure you either for trueth sake yf you seeke yt or for your ovvne credites sake yf ye will retayne it that you yeald vs after so muche sute and supplication some equall triall eyther by writing preaching or disputing There is no reasoÌ„ in the worlde but onelie feare that may moue you to denye vs this our request For the reason of state which you alleage M. Charke in your replye is most vayne For what can a peaceable disputation graunted vs for religion indaunger your state but onelie that you wold saye that this disputation may chaunce to discouer your errors and so make the hearers deteste your state of heresie For other daunger there can be none to your state And yf you had the trueth with you as you pretend whose propertie is the more to shew her selfe the more she is examined you should muche increase your state by this publike tryall For that you shoulde bothe gayne more to your parteâ— by opennyng the
sayd trueth and also confirme many of your owne syde that now iustlye doe wauer vpon this open discouerie of your feare in tryall VVherfore once againe I saye vnto you ministers obtaine vs this disputation thoughe it be onelie but for a shevv therby to hold maintaine your credites VVe protest before God that vve seek it onelie for the triall of Christ his trueth for searche vvherof vve offer our selues to this labour charges perill of lyfe VVe aske for our safties but onelie such a vvarrant from her Maiestie as the late Councell of Trent dyd offer vnto all the protestaÌ„ts of the wolrd wherof you haue the copie vvith you VVee will come in what kynde number at what tyme to what place you shall appoint Yf you will haue your owne countrie meÌ„ they are redie to come Yf you will haue straungers to dispute in your vniuersities before the learned onely there shall not want For your selues vve gyue you leaue to call all the learned protestants of Europ for your defence VVe will take onelie our owne countrie men yf you permitt vs. VVe gyue you leaue to oppose or defende to appoint questioÌ„s to chuse owt controuersies to begynne or end at your pleasure and to vse any other prerogatyues that you please so that they impugne not the indifferencie of tryall VVhat can yow alleage whye yow should not accept this If you had leuer make this triall in other countries than at home before your owne people as perhaps you had chuse you what protestant state you lyst and procure vs therin the forsayd saftie from the prince and we will nether spare labour nor cost to meet you therin also Or yf this seeme hard or lyke you not then take you but the paynes some number of you to come into any Catholique kyngdome or countrie where you best please And wee will procure what securitie soeuer reasonable you shall demaund for your persons And more then that we will beare your expenses also rather than so good a woorke shall remayne vnatteÌ„pted And yf you can deuyse any other conditioÌ„ to be performed on our partes whiche I haue left owt doe you adde the same and we will agree by the grace of God to fullfill it If we offer you reason than deale somewhat reasonablie with vs againe For all the world will crye shame and begynne to discredit you yf you will nether gyue nor take vpon so great oddes as heere are offered you If you dare not venture with disputatioÌ„s yet graunt vs certaine sermons to encounter with you vpon this matter Or yf that also be to daungerous procure vs but a litle passage for our bookes at leastwyse you M. Charke shall doe an honorable acte to obtayne licence of free passage for this booke vntill it be answered by you to the end that men hauinge reade this ouer may be the better able to conceyue your answer when it comethe THE ANSVVERE TO THE PREFACE TOVCHINGE DISCERNINGE of Spirites MAister Charke besides the matter in question maketh a praeface to the reader touching the vtilitie necessitie and waye of tryeing spirites alleginge the woordes of S. Iohn whereby we are willed not to beleeue euerie spirite but to trie the spirites whether they be of God VVhich he saythe he and his felowes offer to doe and we refuse But that this is clearlie false and a formall speche onelie withoute trueth or substance our dedes doe testifie which are alwayes with indifferent men as good as woordes Our bookes are extant whereby we haue called to tryall all sectaries of our tyme as they rose vpp and shewed new spirites as Luther Corolostad Swinglius Munster Stankarus and Caluin whome our aduersaries folow as one of the last And nowe in England yf we had not bene willing or rather desirouse of this triall of spirites we wolde neuer haue laboured so muche to obtayne the same of our aduersaries in free printing preaching or disputatioÌ„ much lesse wolde we haue aduentured our liues in comming and offering the same to theÌ„ at home with so vnequall conditioÌ„s on our syde as we haue done and doe dayly for the triall of truthe And yf all these our offers and endeuours ioyned with so many petitions and supplications for triall haue obtained vs nothing hitherto but offence accusations extreme rackings and cruell deathe me thinke M. Charke had litle cause to make this preface of our refusing triall and their offering the same except it were onelye for lacke of other matter and to kepe the custome of sayeing somewhat in the beginning But perhappes M. Charke will saye that althoughe we offer triall yet not suche nor by suche meanes as in his opinion is lawfull sure and conuenient VVhen we come to the coÌ„bate then remayneth it to be examined whiche parte doeth alleage best meanes whiche shalbe the argument of this my answer to this preface And I will endeuour to shew that all the meanes of tryall which M. Chark his felowes will seme to allow in woord for they offer none in deede are neyther sure possible nor euident but onelie meere shyftes to auoyde all triall and that we on the coÌ„trary parte doe not onelie allow but allso offer all the best and surest wayes of tryall that euer were vsed in Gods churche for discerning an hereticall spirit from a Catholique The onelie meanes of tryall whiche M. Chark will seme to allow is the scripture wherto onelie he wolde haue all triall referred and that which can not be tryed therehence by hym must stand vntryed And then as yf we refused all tryall of scripture he vseth his pleasure in speche against vs. But this is a shyft common to all suche as M. Chark is And the cause thereof I will declare immediatlye S. Augustin dothe testifye it of the heretiques of his tyme. And all the sectaries of our dayes doe make it plaine by experience referring theÌ„ selues in woordes eche one to the holie scripture onelie for maintenance â—f there errours and denyeing all other meanes of tryall whereby the true meaning of scripture may be knowen The causes of this shyft in all new teachers are principally three The first to gett credit with the people by naming of scripture and to seme to honour it more than their aduersaries doe by referring the whole triall of matters vnto it The second is by excluding councels fathers and auncitours of the churche who from tyme to time haue declared the true sense of scripture vnto vs to reserue vnto them selues libertie and authoritie to make what meaning of Scripture they please and thereby to gyue colour to euerye fansie they list to teache The third cause is that by chalenging of onelie scripture they may delyuer them selues from all ordinances or doctrines left vnto vs by the first pillers of Christe his Church thoughe not expresselie sett downe in scripture thereby assume authoritie of allowinge or not allowing of comptrolling or permittinge what soeuer liketh or
sayeth that albeit the hoost seme to vs of a rounde forme inseÌ„sible yet who soeuer beleeueth it not to be the verie true bodie of Christe seing he hathe sayd it is excidit a gratia salute Suche a one is fallen from grace and saluation And S. Chrisostom sayeth we must not beleeue sense and reason in this matter Sed quoniam ille dixit hoc est corpus meum credamus etiamsi sensui absurdum esse videatur But because Christ hathe sayed this is my bodye we must beleâ—ue it although it seme absurd to our sense Hoc idem corpus cruentatum lancea vulneratum quod in caelum extulit This is the very same bodie vvhose bloode vvas shed and vvhiche vvas vvounded vvith the speare and vvhiche he caried vpp vvith hym to heauen All whiche notwithstandinge oure aduersaries haue founde out a new exposition of these woordes thys is my bodye affirming that it must be construed this is onelie the signe of my bodie For the whiche construction as they haue neither scripture nor auncient father for theyr warraÌ„t or example so agree they not amongest them selues of this exposition For Luther in his tyme numbreth vpp eight dyuerse and contrarie expositions of Sacramentaries vppon these woordes coÌ„ming from eight diuerse spirits of the deuyll as he affirmeth And a learned byshop of our time hathe gathered 84. gyuen by diuerse sacramentaries vppon the same So that once goe oute of the highe waye and there is no ende of erringe And because I haue here made mention of Doctor Luther a man by M. Charks opinion illuminated singularlie by the holye ghost and compared to Elias by the common phrase of all protestants I will repeate here what he had reuealed to hym by hys holy spirit touchinge this interpretation of M. Charke and his felowes First he writteth thus to the protestants that is to the true Christians as he calleth them of Argentina Hoc diffiteri nec possum nec volo si Corolostadius c. This can I not nor vvill deny but yf Corolostadius or anie man els could for this fyue yeres haue persuaded me that there had bene nothinge in the sacrament but bread and vvine he should haue bound me to hym by a great good turne For I haue takeÌ„ great care and anxietie in discussinge this matter and haue endeuoured vvith all my povver sinovves stretched ovvte to rydde my selfe of the same For I dyd vvell see that by this thing I might hurt the pope more than in anie other matter But I do see my selfe captiue no vvay being left to escape For the text of the gospel is too plaine and stronge and suche as can not easelie be ouerthrovvne by any man and muche lesse by vvoordes and gloses deuised by a phaÌ„tasticall heade For I my selfe God forgyue me for it am too prone to that parâ—e so farre foorthe as I can perceyue the nature of my ovvne Adam Agayne the same prophet in an other place after many most detestable woords vttered against M. Chark and his parteners sayeth thus his spiritibus credat doceri veritatem si quem perire delectat c. Lett hym beleue that these spirites doe teache the trueth vvho deliteth to damne him selfe vvhereas in dede they began not theyr doctrine but by manifest lyes and novv doe defend the same onelye by lyes diuulging the same by corrupting other mens bookes not vouchsafing to heare the anguishes of our consciences vuhich crie saye the vvoordes of Christ are cleare and manifest eate this is my bodye And againe in a certayne treatise intituled against the phanaticall Spirits of sacrameÌ„taries He sayeth talking of this interpretation of the woords This is my bodye Age ergo quando adeo sunt impudentes c. Goe to then seing they are so impudent therfore I vvill geue them a Lutheran exhortation accursed be their charitie and concorde for euer and euer And after coÌ„ming to the expositioÌ„ of the sayde woordes he sayeth thus Doctor Carolostad vvresteth miserablie this pronoune this Svvinglius maketh leane this verbe is Oecolampadius tormenteth this vvorde bodye other doe boucher the vvhole text and some doe crucifie but the halfe thereof so manifestlie doeth the deuyll holde vs by the noses And agayne in the same worke he hathe these wordes To expound the vvordes of Christ as the sacramentaries doe this is the signe of my bodie is as absurd an exposition as if a man shoulde interprete the scripture thus In the beginning God made heaueÌ„ earthe that is the Cuckovve dyd eate vp the Titling or hedge Sparrovv together vvith her bones Again in S. Iohn And the vvoorde vvas made fleshe that is a croked staffe vvas made a kyte This was the opinion of holy Luther towching our aduersaries interpretatioÌ„ or rather euasion and shift whiche I haue alleaged somewhat more at large against M. Chark for that he esteemeth and defendeth the man as a rare instrument of the holy ghoste VVhich yf it be true then woe to M Charke and his comparteners whose spirit is so contrarye to this mans holy illumination By this now it appeareth that the controuersie is not betwene vs whiche part prouoketh to scripture which doeth not but as it hathe allwayes bene betwixt heretiques and Catholiques which part alleageth true meaning of Scripture whiche thing accordinge to the councell of wise Sisinius to Theodosius the Emperour we desire to be tried by the Iudgement of auncient fathers indifferent in this matter for that they lyued before our coÌ„trouersies came in question But our aduersaries will allow no exposition but theyr owne whereby it is easie to defeate what soeuer is brought against them ether scripture or doctour For examples sake to proue that we may lawfullie make vowes are bouÌ„d also to perform the same being made we alleage the plaine woordes of the prophet vouete reddite domino vowe ye and reÌ„der your vowes to god how will the aduersarie auoyde this think you M. Fulke answereth this text belongeth onelye to the olde testament But what may not be wiped awaye from vs that lyue vnder the new testament by suche interpretations Again to proue that there is some state of lyfe of more perfectioÌ„ in Christianitie than other we alleage the cleare saying of Christe Si vis perfectus esse vade vende quae habes da pauperibus habebis thesaurum in caelo veni sequere me Yf thow wilt be perfect goe sell all thow hast and gyue to the poore and thow shalt haue a treasure in heauen and come folowe me VVhat answer haue they trow you to this M. Fulke answereth this vvas spoken onelie as a singular triall to that yong man alone and not to others beside hym VVhat a deuise is this May not he as well say also that the other woordes immediatelie going before were onlie spokeÌ„ to this yong man to witt Si vis ad vitam ingredi
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
let vs pardon hym this for that he confesseth hatred to haue bene the cause Yet notwithstanding I doe not see how anie learned or common honest man and muche lesse a pretended preacher of gods woord can iustifie such vnciuile and outragious tearmes against his brother by any pretence of Christianlike or tolerable hatred such as M. Charke I suppose wold here insinuate And that which he wolde seeme to alleage for his excuse in the replie that for tenne lines of railing gathered against hym he might haue gathered tenne leaues against me is neither to the purpose nor trew Not to the purpose for that yf I had answered him with bitter speache again being prouoked by his example and iniurie what excuse had this bene for him which begāne without exāple Secōdlye it is apparentlie false that he sayeth of me excusable by no other figure than by the license of a lie For yf we talk of leaues as printers accompt them there are but halfe tenne in the whole Censure But yf he take leaues as they are folded in that booke yet tenne leaues doe take vp a good parte therof VVhiche yf I filled vpp with railing tearmes onelie suche as now I haue repeated out of M. Charke I doe confesse my selfe to haue bene ouerseene and fault woorthie in writing But yf it be not so◠as the reader may see thē M. Charks tōgue hathe ouerslipped in foloweing rather the Rhetoricall phrase of line and leaues than the fathefull report of a true accusation I may not passe ouer this matter so soone For that I thinke it of importance to discrye the spirites of vs that are aduersaries in this cause You know the sayeing of Christ ex abundātia cordis os loquitur Our mouth speaketh accordinge to the abundance of our hart I meane a man may be knowen by hys speeche as S. Peter sayd to Simon Magus vpon his onelie speeche In felle amaritudinis obligatione iniquitatis video te esse I see thee to be in the verie gaule of bitternesse and in the bondage of iniquitie And the scripture is plaine in this point Qui spiritum Christi non habet hic non est Christi He that hathe not the spirit of Christ appertayneth not to Christ. Now then yf we consider the quiet calme and sober spirit of Christ and of all godlie Christiās from the beginning and the furiouse reprochefull vncleane spirit of Satan and all heretiques from time to time and doe compare them bothe with the writings of Catholiques gospellers at thys daye we may easilie take a skantlinne of the diuersitie of theyr spirits I will not talke heere of euery hoote woorde vttered in Catholique bookes by occasion of the matter neither is this in question for bothe Christ and his Apostles and many holie fathers after them vsed the same some tymes vpon iust zeale especiallie against heretiques with whome olde S. Anthonie as Athanasius writeth beinge otherwise a milde◠Saint could neuer beare to speake a peaceable woorde But for rayling and fowle scurrilitie suche as protestantes vse ordinarilie against vs among them selues when they dissent I dare auowe to be proper to them and theyr auncestours onelie VVhat more venemous woordes can be ymagined thā those of Scorpions poysoned spyders and the like vsed by M. Charke against reuerend men M. Hanmers tearmes of lovvsie crippled are but Ieastes For I passed ouer hys scurrilitie where he sayd in his first booke The first of your gentrie vvas Ignatius the creeple standinge vnder Pompeiopelis tovver and geeuinge the pellet ovvt of his taile VVhat a shamelesse slouuen ys this to write Shevv me Allen if thovv cannest for thy guttes sayeth D. Fulk is not this a Ruffianlike spirit in a preacher of the gospell But yf you will see more of this mans spirit read but hys answers to D. Bristow D. Allen and the rest Against M. Bristow he hathe these woordes with many more Levvde losell vnlearned dogbolt traiterous papist shameles beast of blockish vvitt impudent Asse vauntparler barkinge dogge and moste impudent yolpinge curre leaden blockish and doltish papist proude hypocrite of stinking greasie antichristian and execrable orders blunderinge blynde boosting bayard blasphemouse heretique blockheaded Asse And in his two bookes against M. D. Allen besides the former speeches and other infynitelye repeated he hathe these Brasen face and yron forehead O impudent blasphemer brainlesse brablyng Sycophant rechelesse Ruffian vnlearned Asse skornefull caytise desperat dicke O horrible blasphemer O blasphemouse barkinge horrible hellhounde In his booke that beareth a shewe of answere to M. D. Stapleton he vseth these tearmes amongest other Canckered stomake papist senseles blocke vvorthy to be shoren in the pole vvith a number of crovvnes popishe svvyne popishe boares gods curse light vpon you brasen face Stapleton blockedded papist shameles dogged of stomake slaunderer of grosse and beastely ignorāce dronken flemminge of dovvaye more lyke a block than a man Thus muche he hathe against thes learned and reuerend men wherof eche one for many respectes maye be counted his equall to say the least therfore in common ciuilitie setting a side all consideration of godes spirite wherof these good felowes make vaunte aboue other men thes tearmes or the lyke were not to be vsed as in deed amongest the gentiles they were not nor of any honest or Christian wryter since I might repeate a greate deale more of this ministers scurrilitie against many men whome forsoothe he answerethe for as one sayd well of hym he is the protestantes cōmō post horse to passe you any answer without a baite to any Catholique booke which cōmethe in his waye but it were to longe and lothesome to repeate all onely heare more what he sayethe in his booke against M. Martiall and by that iudge of his style against the rest He callethe him by one vile name or other in euery page of his booke as dogbolt lavvyer vvranglinge petifoggar egregious ignorant vsher goose asse prating proctor meete for a bōme courte arrogāte hipocrite impudant asse blockhedded and shameles asse blasphemous beast fylthie hogge beastely grunter shameles dogge blasphemous idolatour raylinge Ruffian slanderous deuill And is ther any iote of Christian modestie or godes spirite in this man is he to speake indifferentely more fytt for a pulpitt or for an ale benche surely if the pott were not at hand when he wrote this he discouerethe a fowle spirite within his breaste but yet not vnmeete for a man of his occupation And this now of the scollars but thinke you that the maisters were not of the same spirite reade Iohn Caluine and you shall see that his ordinarie tearme against his aduersaries in euery chapter almost especially whē he speaketh against his superiours as bishopes and the lyke is to call them Nebulones knaues which woorde beside the foule gaule whereof it procedeth is an vnseemelie tearme euen as that of M. Fulke when he calleth
VVhich appeareth also by the scripture it selfe For act 28. where bothe the latin translation and their English hathe a secte the greek hath heresie So likewise gal 5. the same you may reade act 24.26 2. pet 2. And if in olde time there were anie differēce betwene these woordes amōg the gentiles heresie was the more generall cleane contrarie to that M. Charke imagineth For that heresie signifyeing an election of some priuate opinion was the generall name to all the particular sectes of philosophers As to the secte of Stoikes platonikes peripatikes and the like as moste learnedlie doe note S. Ierom in cap. 3. ep ad Tit. And Isodorus l. 8. etym. cap. 3. Theophilact in ca. 2. ep ad col And Tertulian l. de prescript So that this was a great ouer sight in M. Charke The second argument whiche M. Charke vseth to proue a difference betwene a sect and an heresie and so to ouerthrowe the definition is for that yf one man sayeth he cutt hym selfe of in opinion he shall not be called a sect except there be manie But he shalbe called a sectarie M. Charke as also for the same cause he shall be called not an heresie but an heretique I maruaile where your witt was when you deuised this differēce without a diuersitie But you adioyne to this two examples of scripture the one of the Corinthians sharplie rebuked of Schisme by S. Paul for that one sayd he was of Paul an other of Apollo an other of Cephas an other of Christ who notwithstanding dyd not differ in matters of faith saye you but therein by your leaue you are greatlie deceyued For albeit S. Paul doeth vse the greeke woord Shisme in that place which in his proper significatiō is but a degree to heresie as S. Augustine proueth by example of the donatists first shismatikes after heretiques yet schism in his large ample significatiō whereby it signifiethe all diuision cōprehēdeth not onelie heresie but also all error of faith whereby men are deuided in beleefe which is not alwayes heresie except it be defended against the churche with obstinacie And such schisme o◠diuisiō in beleefe was the schisme of the Corinthiás as S. Austen well noteth for that they erred in a point of faith esteming the vertue power of Baptisme not to depend onelie of Christ but of the dignitie of the Baptiser And therfore one bragged as baptized of Paul an other of Apollo an other of Cephas some folowing the trueth in deede sayd that by what minister soeuer they were baptized yet held they onelye their Iustification sanctificatiō of Christ as cōcurring equallie with all his ministers in Baptisme This is S. Augustens Catholique exposition besides this the woordes of the text doe manifestlie proue the same Is Christ deuided sayeth S. Paul that is doeth he impart hym selfe more in one mans baptisme than in an others or doeth he not equallie and whollie concurre in euerie of his ministers baptisme Agayne vvas Paul crucified for you to witt thereby to be able to sanctifie you of hym selfe by his baptisme Or vvere you baptized in the name of Paul No but in the name power and vertue of Christ who onelie sanctifieth in euerie baptisme I thank God that I haue baptized none among you but Chrispus and Caius and the house of Steuen lesse anie man might say that you vvere baptized in my name By this it appeareth plainlie that the Corinthiās were deuided in matter of faythe about baptism VVherfore as this example maketh nothing to the purpose for whiche it was brought so is it fondlie and malitiouslie applied by you against Catholiques whoe say I folovv the rule or order of lyfe of Benedict I of Augusten I of Basil I of Francis wherein there is no difference of faith at all No more to this purpose thoghe the matters be vnlyke than yf yow ministers should saye among your selues in the contrarie sense of libertie I will liue vnmaried after the order of my Lorde of Canterburie I will take a wyfe after the platforme of my Lord of London I will haue two wiues together after the fashiō of M. Archedeacon of Salesburie I will haue a wyfe and a wenche besides after the custome of some other archedeacon and preacher in England Your second example is of the phariseys vvho vvere a notorious sect saye you and yet dyd not cut of them selues by heresie from the churche VVherein agayne you ouerslipp fowlie For in that they were a notoriouse sect they held particular heresies as the passing of soules from bodie to bodie the like whereof you may read in Ioseph L. 2. de bello Iudaico cap. 7. in philastrius in his catologe of heresies vpon the woord phariseus And this is to be vnderstoode of some of the pharises For other wyse I confesse that the pharises were sometime called a sect or heresie in good parte for that they defended the immortalitie of the soule and were deuided therby from the Saduces who denyed the same act 23. And in this sense spake S. Paul when he sayd before the Iudgement seat towching his lyfe past before his conuersion I lyued a pharisey according to the moste certaine sect of our religion VVhere is to be noted against M. Charke againe that S. Paul in greeke vseth the woord heresie whiche in his generall signification importinge onelie a choyse of any opinion as I haue noted before might be taken in good sense euen as this woorde Tyrannie might and was taken of the olde writers though now by vse and appropriation bothe the one and the other be taken in euell part And to the ende M. Charke may confesse his ouersight in this matter I will alleage hym the woordes of one of his owne doctors M. Fulke by name who of this matter sayeth thus S Paul hym selfe openlie acknouleged that he vvas a pharisey vvhen nothing vvas vnderstoode by the name but one that beleeued the resurrection of the dead although the tearme of pharisey vvas othervvyse the name of a sect of heretiques vvhiche maintained many damnable errors from vvhiche the Apostles vvere moste free By this nowe is defended the definition of sectaries geuen by the Censure and ouerthrowne that fond new definition deuised by M. Charke and called by hym a truer definition according to the true etymologie of the vvord to witt A sect is a cōpagnie of men that differ from the rest of their religion in matter or forme of their profession Touching the true etymologie whiche he speaketh of I can not tell what he meaneth nor I think hym selfe For in greke the scripture vseth the woorde heresie for i◠as hathe bene shewed whiche can yelde no etymologie to maintaine this definition And in Latin Secta muste nedes come ether a secando or a sectando bothe whiche being referred to matters of the mynde as necessarilie they must doe include alwaye a
and saye Euerye liuing creature is a man it is false Soe these vvoordes as S. Iohn vttereth them are moste true Euerie sinne is iniquitie or transgression of the lawe but as you vtter them they are false to vvitt that euery iniquitie or transgression of the lawe be it neuer so litle or done vvithout eyther consent or knoulege or by a madde man or brute beast should be properlie a mortall sinne Soe that this first blashemie of the Iesuits coÌ„meth not to be so haynouse as you vvolde make it but rather to confound your ignorance vvhich vnderstand not so cleare doctrine but hudle vp matters as M. Campian telleth you also to note your vntruthe in misreporting their vvords and the scriptures against them And of this first depend the other tvvo that folovve THE DEFENCE For couering of falshoode in this place M. Charke is constrayned to vse a falshoode or two more according to the sayeing that one lye is not maintayned but by an other things aequiualent sayeth he as for example the definition and the thing defined may be conuerted one mutuallie maye be affirmed of the other as the gospell is the povver of God to saluation And the povver of God to saluation is the gospell And therefore these two woordes also siâ—ne transgression of the lavve But I denie this consequence for transgression of the lawe is not the definition of sinne as hath bene proued nor is it equall in signification with the same but reacheth further than sinne as the former discourse sheweth And thefore it is but absurdlie brought in againe heere as a thing graunted seing thereof is all the contention Secondlie let M. Charke looke leste he be deceyued wheÌ„ he sayeth the power of God to saluation is the proper definition of the gospell seing Christ hym selfe whiche notwistandinge is not the gospell but author of the gospell is called by the same woordes in an other place DVNAMIS THEOV that is The povver of god and no doubt but to saluation as M. Charke will not denie VVherfore though it import not our matter at all yet I thinke M. Charke was somewhat grosselie ouerseene in choyse of this example After this for some countenance of his fraudulent transposition he sayeth as for the transposition lett the Apostles vvoordes be marked sayeing God is a spirit Yet the vvoordes lye thus in the greeke text a spirit is God VVherfore let not transposition seeme straunge to you No more it doeth M. Charke in common speeche and in a tongue that will beare it as the latin and greek doeth But when we measure the weight of woordes or propositions and that in oure English tongue as in our matter it falleth out traÌ„spositions are frauduleÌ„t as in the verie example whiche you alleage a spirit is God if you wolde inferre therof ergo euerie spirit is God as you inferre that euery transgression of the lavve is synne you should easilie see your owne falsehood For Angels also are spirits as the scripture sayeth and yet not Goddes And heere for my learning I wolde know of you Sir in what tongue the Apostle sayeth God is a spirit different from which you say the greek hath a spirit is God surelye M. Chark you are ouer bolde in your auouchements of the scriptâ—re For not onelie the greeke but also the latin and Syriak hathe Spiritus est deus and therfore bothe fondlie and falsely doe you attribute it as peculiar onelie to the greeke But M. Charke reserueth a sure carde for the end therewith to dashe all that hath bene sayd before and that is the sentence of S. Iohn afterward omnis iniquitas est peccatum all iniquitie or transgression sayeth he is sinne VVhich seemeth so plaine against me as he greatlie insulteth and triumpheth affirming that the victorie by this one senteÌ„ce is gotten but beleeue hym not good reader for he thinketh not so in his owne coÌ„science but well knoweth that this sentence maketh greatlie against hym thoughe he wolde deceyue thee with the bare sound and equiuocation of woordes For in the former sentence where is sayd sinne is iniquitie S. Iohn vseth for the woord iniquitie ANOMIA in greeke which signifieth any transgression or variance from the lawâ— be it great or litle as hath bene proued and as the nature of the greeke woord importeth in which sense it is most true that euerie iniquitie is not sinne as I haue shewed as S. Augustin proueth of verie purpose l. 2. cont Iul. pela c. 5. And alleageth also S. Ambrose in the same opinion as also Methodius apud Epiphanium her 64. quae est Origenis And S. Augustin proueth it in many other places besides shewing in our verie case how concupiscence is iniquitie in the regenerat but yet no sinne And this for the first place Now in the second place where the same Apostle sayeth euerye iniquitie is sinne he vseth not the same generall woorde ANOMIA VVhiche he vsed before but ADICIA which is a more speciall woorde and signifieth an iniustice or iniurie as the philosopher sheweth assigning it as the contrarie to Iustice and therfore no maruaile though this kinde of iniquitie be sinne as S. Iohn sayth yea great sinne also for of such onelie S. Iohn talketh in that place sayeing there is a sinne to death I doe not saye that any man should aske for that all iniquitie is synne c. whereby is euydent that the Apostle taketh not iniquitie in this place expressed by the woord ADICIA in the same sense wherein he tooke it before vsing the woord ANOMIA VVhiche M. Charke well knoweing sheweth hym selfe a willfull deceyuer in that he wolde delude his reader with the equiuocation of the latin translation which at other times he reiecteth withoute cause or reason Lastlie he chargeth me with alteration of the text of scripture for translating omnis qui facit peccatum euerie one that sinneth where I should haue translated sayth he euery one that doeth sinne This is a charge woorthie of M. Charke that will playe small game rather than sytt owt I praye you sir what difference is there in the two phrases your vvyfe spinneth and your vvyfe doeth spinne But you coÌ„fesse in deede there is litle holde in this and therefore freendlie you doe pardon me for it and doe conclude sayeing you think perhaps to serue the Lorde in your opinion and I knovv I serue the Lorde You are happie that haue so certaine knowlege of your good estate M. Charke though to vtter it in this place I doe not see what occasion you had But I praye you let me learne how you came to this knowlege Not by Aristotles demoÌ„strations I am sure which yett are the onelie means of certaine science properlie How then by fayth but you know that faith can assure nothing whiche is not reuealed by the woorde of God VVhat parte of gods woorde then teacheth vs that william Charke in particular serueth the Lorde
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
examples of many things vvhiche bothe vve and our aduersaries also doe beleeue vvhich neuerthelesse are not sett dovvne expreslye in the Scriptures although perhaps deduced therof As the perpetuall virginitie of our ladie after her childebyrth Tvvo natures and tvvo vvilles in Christ The proceeding of the holye Ghost equallie froÌ„ the father and the Sonne vvithout generation The vnion of the vvorde vnto the nature of man and not vnto the persone That God the father begat his Sonne onelye by vnderstaÌ„ding hymselfe That infantes vvithout reason should be baptized That the common Creede vvas made by the Apostles The celebration of the SoÌ„daye in steade of the Satterdaye The celebration of Easter onelye vppon a Sondaye The fovver Gospels vvhich vve vse to betrue Gospels not fained or corrupted That our epystle to the Romanes vvas vvriten by S. Paul And the other vvhich is to be seene to the Laodicenses is fayned and not vritten by hym seyng notvvithstanding S. Paul neuer mentioneth any epistle vvritten by hym selfe to the Romanes but yet sayeth that he vvrote one to the Laodicenses All these things I saye and many more are beleeued by vs generallye and yett none of them expreslie to be found in scripture THE DEFENCE To the charge of shameles belyeing the Iesuites M. Chark answereth nothing but thus hovv soeuer Goâ—uisus reporteâ—h or misreporteth the Iesuites yf I reporte hym faythfullie it is no sâ—ame to me But it is shame to your cause good Syr whiche can not be mayntayned but with lyeing on all handes And yet must not this shame lyght onelie on Gotuisus as you wolde haue it though you neuer named hym in your other bookes but vpon your selfe principallie First for that you had read this infamous lie refuted to kemnitius of whome Gotuisus woorde for woorde hath borowed it by payuas Andradius and proued to be as it is a moste shameles slaunder of his owne and no one woorde of the Iesuites Secondlie you must needs haue seene as no dowt but you had that Gotuisus reported an open vntruthe by the fower other places of Canisius whiche he alleageth for the same as well as the Censure of Colen All which fower places any man that will reade for the booke is coÌ„monlie to be solde in England shall see that Gotuisus is a shameles felow and you a playne deceyuer in that you cited onelie the Censure of Colen whiche you knew was not to be had suppressed Canisius which is extant to confound your vntruethe These tryckes may admonish men that are not vtterlie willfull how you are to be trusted in other matters of greater importance wherin your falshoode can not be so easylie conuicted to the sight of all men as in this it is Seeke all the bookes that euer the Iesuites wrote whiche are manye and yf you fynde in any one of them any one of these three odious woordes wherwith you charge them that is imperfect mamed or lame attributed to the scriptures I will yeeld in all the rest that you affirme of them But you haue a shyft to couer your dealing heerin and that is that seing we holde that all thinges necessarie to saluation are not written in the scripture Therfore we holde in effect saye you though not in woordes that the scripture is imperfect mamed lame VVhiche reason yf yt were true yet were your dishonestie great in settinge foorthe so odious woordes of your owne fayning for the wordes of the Iesuites But mark how voyde of reasoÌ„ this argumeÌ„t of yours is If a marchaÌ„t departing into an other countrie shoulde leaue his coÌ„maundementes with hys seruantes partlie in writing partlie by woorde of mouth might the seruantes saye that he had left them a broken commaundement writen but yf he should yet add further vnto them that yf they dowted of any thing they should repayre to hys wyfe and she should fullie resolue them therin might not he iustlie account hym selfe iniuried by theÌ„ yf they notwithstanding should accuse hym for leauing them an imperfect maymed and lame commaundement No more is it any defect to scripture or gods coÌ„maundement as S. Austen proueth at large li. 1. contra Cresc c. 32. that God hathe lefte certayne things vnwriten for that we may receyue the same by tradition in the churche as that doctor proueth whiche Churche Christ hathe commended vnto vs as his espouse in earthe to be heard and obeyed by vs in all dowtes The verie same doctrine teacheth the sayd father li. de fide oper ca. 9. and also ep 66. ad Don. To the twelue particular poyntes sett downe by the Censure as not contayned expresselie in scripture and yet to be beleeued M. Charke answereth that seauen of them are in scripture the other fyue for that they are not in scripture they are not of necessitie to be beleeued But heere is first to be noted that the questioÌ„ betweene vs and the protestaÌ„tes is of expresse scripture onelie and not of any farre fett place whiche by interpretation may be applyed to a coÌ„trouersie For this contention beganne betwene vs vpoÌ„ this occasion that wheÌ„ we alleaged diuerse weightie places and reasons owt of scripture for proofe of inuocatioÌ„ of Saints prayer for the deade purgatorie and from other controuersies our aduersaries reiected them for that they dyd not playnelie and expresselie decide the matter VVherupon came this question whether all matters of beleef are playnelie and expresselie in scripture or no whâ—che they affirme and we denye And for proofe of our part we alleage all these twelue particulars and many more which are poyntes necessarilie to be beleeued and yet not expresselie in scripture For answere wherof you shall see how this man is distressed First he sayeth that seauen of them are contayned in scripture Marie he flyeth from the question of expreâ—se scripture and alleageth places a farre of wherof the question is not For the Censure graunteth that many of them myght be deduced from scripture but not so expresselie as they are to be beleued But lett vs runne ouer these seuen pointes coÌ„tayned as he sayeth manifestely in scripture The first is of two â—â—tures and two willes in Christ for which he citeth these woords Of his sonne vvhiche vvas made vnto hym of the seed of Dauid according to the fleshe Also not as I vvill but as thou vvilt But how doe theese woordes proue euidentlie the matter in question That deductions heerof may be made from scripture admitting the interpretation of the Churche vpon the places alleaged I graunt but that interpretation of the churche beinge sett asyde the bare text onelie admitted these places can not conuicte an heretique that wolde denye ether the distinct natures or distinct willes in Christ as appeareth by the councell of Constantinople where after long stryuing in vayne with the Monothelitâ—s abowt this matter owt of scripture in the end they concluded in these woordes vve beleeue this for that
shall serue for this tyme. He hath wryten two large and learned volumes of the corruptions of gods woorde by the heretiques of our tyme where he hath these wooâ—des Est ergo verbum dei c. VVherfore the vvoorde of God is as holie scripture conteyneth the knovvleige of saluatioÌ„ the cleare lanterne and shynyng lampe it is the hydden mysterie the heauentlie Manna the pure and proued golde the learnyng of Saints the doctrine of all spirit and trueth the loking glasse the liuelye fontayne the sealed booke vvhich booke vvho soeuer doe vse vvell they are Gods scholars they are spirituall they are vvyse they are iust they onelye are made the freendes and heyres of almightie God These are Canisius a Iesuites woordes And doe these men speak baselye of scriptures as M. Chark heere accuseth them But now we come to examine the text alleaged by M. Chark agaynst the Iesuites to wytt Lex domini immaculata the law of our Lord is vnspotted or vndâ—filed which M. Charke wolde haue to signifie that the scripture is so perfect playne in sense as no wicked man may wrest or abuse the same For whiche absurd reasoninge and wrestinge of scripture he being now reproued by the Censure heare what he answereth and how he defendeth hym selfe The Censure sayeth he supposeth me to haue but one Byble and that of the olde translation onelie vvhich hathe the lavve of the Lord is vndefiled c. but the original hath the lavve of the Lord is perfect And the best translations haue so translated it your olde translation goeth alone The 70. folovv the rest Heere you see that M. Charke bryngeth diuers reasons for his defense First that he hath diuers Bybles in his house and that of diuers translations Secondlie that the original or hebrew text of this verse in the Psalme hath not immaculata that is vndefiled or vnspoted but rather perfect in that sense as he defendeth it Thirdlie that all the best translations haue it so and that our olde translation differeth from them all Fouerthlie that the septuagint or seuentie greke interpretours are also against vs here in This is all M. Charkes defense But here by the waye wolde I haue the reader to Marke how muche M. Charke getteth to hys cause Yf I should graunt hym all that he hathe here sayd surelie he should gayne onelie that the law of God is perfect And is this against any thinge that we saye or holde or is it against the signification of the woord immaculata in the olde latin translation whiche he impugneth Is not a thinge immaculate or vndefiled also called perfect euen as on the contrarie a filthie or defiled thinge is called imperfect If then we should graunt that the hebrew and greeke textes had the woord perfect in them in steed of the latin woord immaculata yet this dothe not condemne the olde translation for vsing the woord immaculata immaculate For that immaculate as hath bene shewed signifieth also perfect from spot mary not perfect in that sense wherin M. Charke talketh and for proofe wherof he alleaged this sentence to witt that because the law of the lorde is perfect therfore the scripture can not be wrested whiche is a most false and absurd illation vppon the worde perfect For S. Paules epistles are persect together withe other scriptures and yet S. Peter sayeth that many men dyd wrest and depraue them But now lett vs consider the seuerall fower pointes of M. Charkes former answer whiche as yow see if wee should graunt vnto him without contradiction yet had he gayned nothing therby But lett vs examine them Touching the first whiche he answereth that is abowt the varietie of Bybles and translations which he hath at home I will not stand or coÌ„tend with M. Chark Let hym haue as many as he please the matter is howe well he vnderstandeth or reporteth those Bybles and not how many he hath The second poynt is false that the hebrew text disagreeth from the olde latin translation as shalbe shewed after The thyrd is fond that all the best translations doe differe from the olde translation heerin For what best or better or other good latin translation hath he than the olde whiche was in vse in gods Churche aboue thirtene hundred yeeres past as may be seene by the citations of the fathers whiche lyued then whiche was afterwarde also ouervewed corrected by S. Ierom which was also so hyghlye coÌ„mended by S. Augustin what other better translation I saye hath william Charke than this auncient which he so contemneth except he will name some latter of our tyme as of Erasmus Luther or the like whiche Beza hym selfe notwithstandinge affirmeth to be nothing lyke the olde traÌ„slatioÌ„ for exactnes The fowerth poynt which he addeth is a shameles lye that the septuagint in greeke doe dissent from the woorde immaculata in the latin For their woorde is AMOMOS which their owne lexicon will expound vnto them to be immaculate innocent irreprehensible To returne therfore in a woorde or two to the originall text the hebrew woorde is TAMAM or TAM which the septuagint doe interpret as you haue heard AMOMOS that is irreprehensible and the auncient latin translation immaculata immaculate And what refuge then can M. Charke fynde heere I doe not denye but that it signifieth also perfect for that what soeuer is irreprehensible and without spott may also be called perfect as hath bene shewed But how doeth this proue that it signifieth to be perfect in sense in suche sorte as it may not be wrested or peruerted In the 118. Psalme where our auncient translation hath beati immaculati in via your owne englysh bible hath translated it M. Charke blessed are those that be vndefyled in the vvaye and the Hebrew and greeke woordes are TAM AMOMOS as in the other text How then doe you rayle at our olde auncient translation for that wherein your new englishe byble doth the verye same the lyke you may see in infinite other places as leuit 3. v. 1. 6. Also Num. 6. v. 14. VVhere sacrifices are appointed to be immaculate according to the auncient tranflation And your englishe byble translateth it so too sayeinge they must be without blemishe where the hebrew and greeke woordes are TAM and AMOMOS as before By whiche is seene that M. Charke careth not whether he runneth what he forgeth or whome he reprehendeth so he maye seeme allwayes to saye somewhat And of all other shyftes this is the last and the easiest and of most credit and least able to be spyed of his reader as he thinketh to inueighe against the olde latin translation when he is pressed vnauoydablye with any place of scripture alleaged For this shyft besides the present couering of the difficultie yeeldeth also some opinion of Learning to his Maister gyuinge men to vnderstand that he is skillfull in the learned tongues whereas God knoweth the refuge is vsed for bare