actions bothe of God and man and al creatures in the world by likning them to some dishonest or ridiculous thing or other whiche a lewde mans inueÌ„tion may find out as this apostata hath done But dothe he charge anye one of the Iesuites in soe manye yeares as he saythe he liued in diuers places with them with any one acte of dishonestie or disorder of lyfe which he might haue done manye if he had liued amongest your ministers soe long Or dothe he improue by learning anie one poynte of their doctrine noe not one but rather vttereth that of their good discipline and orderly life in continual meditation of heauenly thinges with subduing the appetites of their fleshe as maye shame you and your loose ministerie I will put downe his owne wordes translated by you which God enforced him to let faule to his owne confusion and to the iustrifiinge of their honestie The Iesuites sayeth he doe adde vnto their earnest meditations the great toyle of studie also c. And from the time that a man geueth him selfe to such meditations he departeth farre away from al seruice and cherishinge of the body He abandonethe the societye of the fleshe to whippinges and other voluntarye punishmentes of the body He pressethe and beatethe doune pleasure as a blot of shame and as our 18. rule doth command he acknowledgeth the image of Christ in euery one of his spiritual brethren As for riches honor and al thinges which he worlde esteemeth most excellent they contemne them and make none accompt of them These are his wordes M. Charke translated by your selfe the which me thinke contayne prayse ynough especially cominge out of the mouth of a professed enemie which would not report their lyfe to the best yet I doubte lest your enemies shall neuer be able to charge you iustiy with the lyke things Thirdly and lastely I answere to this matter that in this kinde of argument we could easely represse you with many for one of these examples in learned and profounde men of your religion which by the grace of God returne dayly to the Catholicke fayth agayne and that not vpon a fancie as this Apostata left it but vppon great reasons and inuincible proofes which after long studye and toyle they haue founde to stand with the same But for examples sake I wil here recounte onely two both of them later then the running out of this Apostata and both which are exstant in print of men that were many yeares ministers and preachers of your religion The first was called Nicolaus Xylander Borussus who yéeldeth these causes folowinge of his conuersion which I haue onelye touched in general but the Reader may sée them more at large set doune and proued by him selfe in his booke for this purpose 1. His first reason is because he hathe found that the Catholiques haue endured these 15. hundreth years in concorde of one doctrine he recounteth vp 16. distincte Sectes spronge of Luther within these 60. yeares 2. For that the Catholiques can bring their succession of Bishopes one after another from Christ his time vnto ours which the Fathers say to be an inuincible demnostration of the true Churche But the contrarye side bring none at al. 3. The infinite miracles which haue bene in the Catholyque Churche the which we must ether beleue or discredit al antiquitie which reporte them 4. The authoritie of the vniuersal visible Catholique Churche the which hath deliuered vnto vs the Scriptures them selues and haue triumphed ouer soe manye enemies and heresies which from tyme to tyme haue assalted her Whose authoritie was soe great with S. Austen that he would not haue beleued the Gospel but only vppon her authorytie 5. The great holynes of infinite meÌ„ of that Church as S. Anthonie Hilarion Basil Austen Benedict Gregorie Bernard Dominic Frauncis and the like which al were monkes and fryers and professed men of that religion and yet noe doubte are sainctes in heauen which cannot be if they liued in error 6. The reuerent spéeche of Catholique writers and the rayling balsphemous and dishonest spéeche to be found in the writinges of the other side 7. The ordinarye lyinge and fraudulent dealing of Protestantes neuer almost reportinge the opinions of Catholiques trulye but faininge them to say y e which they neuer say nor thinke 8. For that Protestantes estéeme al their Ancestors to be damned and doe breake their wils and ordinaunces by conuerting to prophaâ—â— vses thos reue news and liuings which they assigned to the seruice of God THE Seconde is called Sebastianus Flaschius whoe besides the reasons which the other hath geuen for I omit them which haue bene touched before he yealdethe these reasons of his conuersion 1. For that he hathe founde the Catholiques to teache quite contrarye to that which coÌ„monlye their aduersaryes doe reporte of them 2. For that he hath found by Luthers bookes that he was moued onlye of enuye to write first against the Catholyque Churche 3. For that he hath found in Luthers writings so great dishonestie and scurrilitye of spéeche as might shame anye harlote to reade which could not come froÌ„ a man inspired with the holy Ghost 4. For that the Protestantes doe reiect easily any booke or péece of Scripture which maketh against them and that which they cannot denye he hathe proued that they corrupte it and that they estéeme noe more of Councels and Fathers then of the Turkes Alcoran 5. For that he hath found by reading of ancient histories and Fathers of the primatiue Church that the most of all their newe opinions are ould heresies condemned expressely and by name in the heretikes of the primatiue Church 6. For that he hathe founde Luther to hould manye manifest contrarieties in his woorkes 7. For that Luther séemeth to haue beleued in nothing not being ashamed to saye that he had more confidence in his Katherin Bore and in his Philipe then in Christ. 8. For that he hath found them by experience to be parshall and to exaggerate euerye litle thing that they can find amisse in the liues of Catholiques althoughe amongest them selues they liue most viciouslye especiallye in the sinne of the fleshe For albeit they haue wiues of their owne yet doe they in Germanie according to Luthers doctrine vse their maydes at their pleasure and more then this the ministers vse commutation of wiues amongest them selues and a preacher of no smal account would nedes enforce this man to change wiues with him And many other such thinges whiche he proued amongest them he saythe that verye shame letted him to reporte them FINIS The effecte of M. Hanmers booke The effecte of M. Charke his booke The first part Iesuites noe Secte 1. Reg. 17. 4. Reg. 1. 4. Dan. 1. Marc. 1. The name of Iesuites In psal 132. lib. 11. hist. ca. 3. Li. 3. con lit Petil. ca. 40 Bookes written in the coÌ„mendation of monkes and fryers Luc. 9. Ioh. 12. Math. 19. The true lyfe of Iesuites M. Hanmers notorious lye Vide Iaco. Payuam li. 1. de ortho explicat Ignatius the beginner of the Iesuites Vide Iaco. Payuam li. 1. orthodo explicat Pet. Maffeum in vita Ignatij de Loyola Luther beginner of the new Ghospel Vide Ioan. Cocle. in vi Lutheri LindaÌ„ li. de fug ido ca. 8. 9. Luthers doctrine Lib. de fug idolis ca. 8. Li. de miss angul pag. 228. to 7. li. de missa priua Hoss li. 1. de heres Claudi de Sainct li. de reb eucha LindaÌ„ li. de fug id ca. 8. Luth. ep ad Argenti epist. ad Io. Har. Bucer ep ad Luth. A definition of Sinne. Gen. 29. Aug. li. 3. de lib. arb cap. 19. Transposition in alledginge of Scripture Concupisence noe synne Rom. 7. Rom. 8. Li. de Nup. conc ca. 23. 25. li. 1. con ep 2. Pelag. ca. 13. et li. 1. Re tract ca. 15. Math. 5. First motions noe synne Exo. 20. Deu. 30. Li. de nupt et concupis capit 23. Eccl. 18. All things not expressed in Scriptures Thinges beleeued whiche ar not in Scripture Colos. 4. Obiection 2. Timo. 3. Profitable Necessarye Parts of scripture loste Addinge to Scripture Deut. 4. Non addetis ad verbuÌ„ c Deut. 18. The Scripture may be wrested to an euill sence Nu. 21. Ioh. 3. Math. 25. Psal. 18. The readinge of Scripture 1. Tim. 4. Luc. 2. Math. 22. Deut. 2. Faythe and woorkes Rom. 11. Faythe and hope Heb. 6. Rom. 5. Luc. 10. Faythe grounded onlye vppon the word of God Hope hathe doubte in it Heb. 6. Rom. 5. 1. Pet. 1. Phil. 2. Eccle. 9. Inuocation of Saintes Esa. 63. Ieron in ca. 63. Esa. Math. 25. Hoc facite Traditions Two kinde of traditions 2. Thes. 2. Marc. 7. Three kyndes of Rabbinical expositions of the Law Worshippe of Creatures 2. Cor. 6. Act. 5. 7. Exod. 25. Num. 21. Ioh. 3. Psal. 45. Phil. 2. Aug. li. 3. de Trin. cap. 9 10. M. Charke his lacke of modestye M. Charke his zeale Lyinge for the game Newes from Rome printed by 10. Charlewoode Ed. Whyte The 2. parte M. Charke his conclusion Religion standeth with temporall obedience Rom. 13. Tit. 3. 1. Pet. 2. Vide Apolo duas Iusâ—ni mart A bad argument Wiclif li. 4. Trial. ca. 3. Concil CoÌ„ sessi 8. Luther in Bulla LeoÌ„ 10. Caluin li. 3. inst cap. 19. li. 4. cap. 10. The third part Distinctions Epi. Iudae Arist. in Elench Libertye of pen. Proofes in disputation Councels Fathers and stories Theod. li. 1. hist. ca. 8. Syno Constan Damas. here 99. Philosophie Note this reason Flying onely to Scripture condemned as heretical The 4. Parte Aug. ep 137 ad ple. Hip. Psal. 68. Luc. 16. The Iesuites lyfe by the enemies confession Great labour Deuine meditations Chastising the fleshe Perfect charitye Contempte of riches and honour Causae motiuae N. Xilandri iÌ„pres sae Ingolsta dij 1579. IreÌ„ li. 3. ca. 3. Optat. li. 2. coÌ„tr Donat Aug. ep 165. Professio Catholica M. Seb. Flas chij impres Colo. 1580. Li. de capâ— Bab. eth 〈◊〉 Pap. Li. coÌ„t Pap. et in sermo conuiualib Vide Sand. de visib moÌ„ cap. 57. Fabius de aÌ„tilogijs Lut Serm. conuiu et tit de prophet et tit de oper Dei Ser. de matrimo
the virgins which were rauished by vyolence in the Primatiue Church did it were no sinne Lastly he should haue added done wittingly for although Iacob laye with Lya which was not his wife yet because he knew it not but thought her to be Rachel his wyfe he sinned not Soe that the perfect definition of sinne is not that which Monhemius did put down and the Protestantes folow but rather that which Iesuites together with S. Austen and other learned Fathers haue set doune to wit Sinne is a humane acte voluntarilye and wittingly commited against the law of God And this is to be vnderstood of actual sinne properly But now how doth M. Charke ouerthrow this doctrine forsooth thus Contrarye to this saythe he is the woord of God 1. Iohn 3. the transgression of the lawe is sinne You séeme to haue made a vowe M. Charke not to deale playnlye in anye one thing Can you not aledge one litle sentence without falsifyinge The woords of S. Iohn are these Euerie one that sinneth committeth iniquitie and sinne is iniquitie Or as you will perhapps séeme to enforce it out of the gréeke woorde Anomia Sinne is transgression of the law But why haue you fraudulently turned it backward you knew well the force of transposition out of Sophistrie that it changeth all the meaning of the sentence For if I saye Euerie man is a liuing creature it is true but if I turne it backward and saye Euerie lyuinge crature is a man it is false Soe these woordes as S. Iohn vttereth them are most true Euerie sinne is iniquitie or transgression of the law but as you vtter them they are false to wit That euerie iniquitie or transgression of the lawe be it neuer soe little or donne without ether consent or knowledge or by a madd maÌ„ or brute beast should be properlye a mortal sinne Soe that this firste blasphemye of the Iesuites commeth not to be soe haynous as you would make it but rather to confound your ignorance which vnderstand not soe cléere doctrine but huddle vp matters as M. Campion telleth you alsoe to note your vntruthe in misreporting their woordes and the Scriptures against them And of this first depend the other two that folow 2. You report the Iesuites to saye Concupiscence remayning in the regenerate although it be against the law of God yet is it not sinne properlye in it selfe or of his owne nature Cens. fol. 38. You wil néedes helpe the Iesuites out with that which maketh for your purpose Wher finde you in them the wordes Although it be against the lawe of God They saye that albeit this Concupiscence doe sturre or moue a man some times to doe things whiche are repugnant to the lawe of God yet if no consent of harte be yelded vnto it it reacheth not to the nature of a mortal sinne woorthye of eternal damnation And albeit S. Paul doe some times cal it sinne yet meaneth he not properlye but by a figure wherby the name of the cause is often tymes atributed to the effect as the latine spéeche is called the latine Tongue because spéeche is the effect of the tongue Soe Concupiscence being the effect of original sinne is called some times sinne but not properly but only figuratiuely as also S. Paul calleth Christ him selfe Sinne because he was the sacrifice for sinne And all this is S. Austen his note whose playne woords in the same place are Concupiscence is not sinne in the regenerate if conseÌ„t be not yelded vnto her for the accomplishing of vnlawfull woorkes The same teacheth not only S. Augustine in dyuers other places but also all other Fathers of the Primatiue Church as Nazianzenus orat de S. Lana Pacianus orat de bap Clemens Alexandrinus Li. 1. Pedago cap. 6. Cyprian ser. de lot peduÌ„ et Li. 2. ep 2. Ambro. Li. 1. de vocat gentiuÌ„ capit 5. Soe that al these good Fathers are partakers with the Iesuites of this blasphemie which you enforce vppon them But how doe you proue it to be blasphemie marie because Christ saythe Whosoeuer shall see a woman to luste after her he hath alredye committed adulterie with her in his harte But are you soe ignorant M. Charke doe you not sée that Christ by adding the woords in his harte meaneth onlye of him which geueth consent of harte to his luste and concupiscence and would put it in execution if he had tyme and place and abilitie but this is your common alleaging of Scripture 3. You reporte the Iesuites to saye That the first motions of lust are without hurt of sinne Cens. 54. 89. It is most true and playne as they deliuer it but you by clipping their woords make euerie thing to séeme a paradoxe They saye the first motions of luste if they come of natural instinct only without anye cause geuen by vs are no sinnes so longe as we geue no consent of hart vnto them And the reason is because it lyeth not in vs they being natural to prohibit them to come no more then it dothe to prohibit our pulse from beating And therfore séeing no sinne can be coÌ„mitted without our will and consent of hart as I haue shewed before these first motions can be no more sinnes in vs then they are in beastes for the like reason Nether is the ten the commaundement alleaged by you for the contrarie doctrine to wit Thou shalt not couet anye waye repugnant to this For this commaundement forbiddeth consent to these motions and not the verie motions which are not in oure power as the Scripture it selfe signifieth when it saythe This commaundement which I doe geue the this daye is not aboue thee And as S. Austen learnedlye prouethe out of an other place of scripture wher this commaundement is expounded to wit Goe not after thy concupiscence That is consente not to them or followe them not 4. You reporte the Iesuites to say The holye Scripture is a doctrine vnperfecte maymed lame not contayning all thinges necessarie to fayth and saluation Cen. fo 220. You are tooe shameles M. Charke in setting for the these for the Iesuites woordes Lett anye man read the place and he shall finde noe such thing but rather in contrarie manner the holy Scripture with reuerente woordes most highlye commended Notwithstanding they reprehend in that place Monhemius for sayinge that nothing is to be receaued or beleued but that whiche is expreslye founde in the Scripture For reproofe of which heresie they geue examples of manie thinges which bothe we and our aduersaries also doe beleue which neuerthelese are not set downe expresâ—ye in the Scripturs although perhaps â—educed therof As the perpetuall virginitye of our Ladye after her childe-birth two natures and two willes in Christe the procéedinge of the holye Ghost equally from the Father and the Sonne with out generation the vnion of the worde vnto the nature of maÌ„ and not vnto the personne That
I would you might be féede cuē for the sauing of your credit M. Charke to alege one place without corruption Doe you translate Lex domini immaculata The Lawe of the Lorde is perfecte in sense soe that it maye not be wrested to a wronge interpretation This is maruelous Immaculata signisieth in these countryes vnspotted voyde of filthe or dishonestye wherewith prophane wrytings are often times defiled But the Law of God is deuoyde of all such thinges and therefore conuerteth soules wheras other wrytinges doe often times corrupt them But that Immaculata can not be translated perfecte in sense it is euidente by this that euerye sillable and worde in God his Lawe is vnspotted but yet not perfecte in sense and much lesse so cleare as it may not be peruerted to an euil meaning wherby your fraudulente translation is discouered 7. You reporte the Iesuites to saye The readinge of the Scripture is not onely not profitable but manye wayes verye hurtefull to the Churche Fol. 21. Did you thinke M. Charke when you wrote this that anye of these bookes whose leaues you cite were to be had or séene in Englande I thinke noe or els you are at a poynte to make none accounte what you speake hereafter The Iesuites haue not this which you reporte here in their names But onely they laye doune certayne wayghtye reasons whye the readynge of Scripture is not rashelye and without verye greate consideration to to be permitted to the rude and ignorant people which vnderstande it not and therfore maye easely misconceaue the meaning therof shewing also that al heresies from the beginning haue bene founded vpon the misunderstanding of the Scripture and yet this without al faulte of the woorde of God but by the ignorance or malyce of the misconsterer As in like manner al sinnes arise by the misuse of the creatures of God which creatures notwithstandinge are good in their owne natures as the Apostle teacheth and Christ him selfe is sayde to be an occasion of ruine vnto some and yet without any faulte of his This is the Iesuites doctrine the contrarie wherof I would sée nowe how M. Charke according to his promise will proue out of the cléere woord of God Mary saythe he Christe delyuerethe a contrarie note Math. 22. Yee erre not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God whereof he would inferre that all men must read the Scriptures A stronge argumente the circumstances considered for first the men to whome Christe spake these woordes were noe ignorante people but learned Saduces which came prepared to pose Christe about the resurrection This appeareth by the subtile question which they put for the of seuen brethren which had alone wife groūded vppon the lawe of Moyses wherby they thought to ouerthrow the doctrine of resurrection But Christe hauing heard their question toulde them that they erred not vnderstanding the Scriptures touching that poynte of resurrection which Scriptures he interpreted to them presentlye out of the iij. chapter of Exodus Also he sayde they erred not vnderstanding the power of God wherby he is able to rayse againe the selfe same bodye in nomber whiche is dead though it be vnpossible as it is in all natural reason Soe that Christ spake not here to vnlearned men nor of all Scriptures nor of readinge but of vnderstanding What maketh therfore this to your purpose M. Charke forsoothe as much as if you should reason thus my Lorde Chaunceller sayd to certayne Doctors of the Arches pleading a case vnskilfully before him you erre not vnderstandinge the common lawe in this case nor the Princesse anthoritie Ergo by these woordes he meanethe that al the clownes of Englande shall fall to readinge of the common lawe albeit they vnderstand neuer a woorde therof 8. You reporte the Iesuites to saye That the rightuous mā lyueth by faith ne hath it not in Christ but by his own woorkes fol. 118. You wearye me out with your impudent lyes there is noe suche thinge what should I aunswere you and yet as though they had sayde it you bringe in a place of S. Paule against the same sayinge If rightuousnes come by our woorkes it is not now grace As thoughe noe mans woorkes coulde be rightuous in this lyfe whiche is bothe from the purpose and false For we denye not but the firste and chéefe rightuousnes wherof Saint Paule speakethe in this place that is wherby a man is called first from sinne or infidelitye to the seruice of Christe his sinnes forgeuen him and he iustified by the infusion of grace this rightuousnes I saye is onlye of Gods merrye and noe waye of our woorkes or by anye merite of the same But yet notwithstandinge after we are nowe made iuste and by the mercye of God placed once in state of grace the good woorkes which ensue of this grace may be rightuous and meritorious not of themselues or of their owne natures as you wickedly affirme vs to hould but thorough the dignitye of that grace of Christe whiche remaynethe in the doers The whiche grace beinge once loste their good déedes are noe more rightuous or merytorious The which true doctrine of ours you will not vnderstand but alwayes of malyce report it contrarye as also you doe shamfully this place of S. Paule to make it serue your purpose For S. Paule saythe that Gods election wherby he chooseth men to be Christians is of grace onlye and not by merite of woorkes and you drawe it generallye against the rightuousnes of al good woorkes And because it would not streche soe farre you haue added vnto it of your owne these woordes If rightuousnes come by our c. which woordes are not in S. Paule 9. You reporte the Iesuites to saye Men doe surely hope that euerlastinge lyfe shall be geuen them but they doe not beleue it now hope often fayleth otherwise it were no hope Cens. 118. For confutation of which doctrine you aleage out of S. Paule Hope is the sure anchor of the soule And againe Hope maketh not ashamed In the which you shew your selfe vnlearned huddlinge vp and confoundinge faythe and hope as one thinge the whiche S. Paule 1 Cor. 13 dothe affirme to be distincte thinges The Iesuites doctrine if you vnderstoode it is true learned and cléere to wit that noe man with out a speciall reuelation from God as the Apostles had from Christ when he sayde that their names were written in the booke of lyfe maye beléeue that he in particuler shalbe saued albeit he maye well hope it And the reason of this is for that the only obiect of faythe is the woorde of God reueled vnto vs ether by writing or by tradition that is as much to saye as noe man maye beléeue or haue faythe in anye thinge excepte it be reuealed vnto him by the woorde of God Wherof it foloweth that whatsoeuer a man beléeueth must be soe certayne necessarie and infallablye true as it cannot possiblye be
in ep 1. ad cor Isodorus Li. diu offic cap. 18. Damascenus Li. de ortho fid cap. 14. with others Nether importeth it anie thinge though the woorde facere dothe not signifie to consecrate of his owne nature for the facte of Christe going before draweth it to that signification as if a man should singe and afterwarde say to the standers by Hoc facite Doe the same héere facere should signifie to singe though not of his owne nature 12. You reporte the Iesuites to say Traditions are of equal authority with the woorde of God we must beleue thē though they be manifestlye against the Scripture Cens. fol. 230. You drawe towards an end M. Chark therfore you wil make a soūd lie for a parting blow You haue here added of your owne We must beleue them thoughe they be manifestlye against the Scripture The Iesuites say no such woord but they affirme the former parte of your wordes although not soe generally confusedly as you report For they say not that all traditions are of equal authoritye with the woord of God but only such as are certaynlye descended from Christ his Apostles and were deliuered by thē to be obserued as parte of the woorde of God For there are two kinds of traditions or doctrines receaued onlye by woord of mouthe the one called Ecclesiastical because they were begone and left vs only by the Church and thes ar of no greater authoritie then the writinges and other decrées of the Churche are The other are called Apostolicall or deuine left vnto vs by Christ the Apostles and thes are of no lesse authority then if they had ben writen by thē or then are the other things which they wrot For if a maister should leaue vnto his seruantes one thing in writing and an other thing by woord of mouthe they are of equal authoritie as all men wil graūt Thes traditions therfor if they be certainly knowen to come frō Christ his Apostles the Iesuites say they are of equal authority with y e written word not al traditiōs as you malitiously reporte And now that Christ his Apostles left vnto the Church diuers doctrines by word of mouth only not writen it is proued by inuincible argumētes as by the testimonies of the Councels Fathers stories of the Primatiue church by many places of scripture as namly by that S. Paule saithe to the Thessalonians Brethern stande fast and hould the traditions which you haue lerned ether by word of mouth or by our epistle Also it is proued by doctrines which we haue and hould the Church hath so done frō the beginning which doctrines notwithstanding are not writen but receaued by worde of mouth from Christ and the Apostles as baptisme of infantes celebration of the sondaye the nomber of the bookes of Scripture the fast of lent and the like wherof I haue geuen more examples before in your fourth reporte Now this being soe how vainly doe you bring in M. Charke against this the sayng of Christ touching the superstitious scribes and Pharases In vaine doe they worshipe me teaching doctrines that are but the traditions of men In your owne conscience I aske you is this anything pertaining to our purpose or contrarie to the Catholiques doctrine which I haue set doūe if it be not why doe you soe shamlesly deceaue the people with such impertinēt stuffe But this is your onlye refuge and herein lyethe the whole mayntenance of your cause to reporte vs still amisse and to refute vs with that whiche nothing pertayneth to the matter As in this place whiche you haue héere brought in let the reader marke how manye differences there be betwixt it and our purpose First Christ in this place reprehendeth the teaching of doctrins that are but of men and we talke of doctrines deliuered vs by Christ and his Apostles Secondly Christe reprehendeth not al obseruation of traditiōs of men but the noughtie obseruation of them by estéeming them more then the worde of God and by breaking the worde of God for the obseruinge of them which we also doe condemne Thirdlye those traditions of the Pharases which Christ reprehendeth were certayne idle and foolishe external ceremonies as the washing of cuppes and the lyke and dyuers of them were directe contrarye to the worde of God as certaine corrupt expositiōs of the law as Christ noteth there And these were of thrée kindes The one left by Rabbi Akiuam the other by Rabbi Iuda the thyrde by the sonnes of Asomoneus which interpretations all were called Deuteroseis that is secondarye expositions after Moyses of which peruerse expositions came al their errours of the Talmud But now what is this to the holye Traditions of Christ and his Apostles or of the Primatiue Church 13. Lastly you report the Iesuites to say We must worshippe the image of Christ with lyke honour that we doe the holy bookes of the Ghospel fol. 66. Agaynst which you bring in S. Paul askinge What agreemente is there betweene the temple of God and Idoles I answere much more agréement then there is betwéene the matter we talke of and this place of S. Paule For he talketh of drawinge the yoke with infidels and our question is whether the worshippe done to the image of Christ and to the Byble be al one or no But you by callinge the image of our Sauiour an Idole shew your selfe impious and you are accursed for it by the seuēth general Councel And by putting such great difference betwéene the worship of Christes Image and his books of the Ghospel you proue your vnderstanding to be very litle For if you graunt any kinde of worshippe to the one how can you deny the same to the other séeinge that both are creatures and as the Image was made by the Karuer so the letter of the Byble by the Printer and the hononr done to the one and the other is not to them selues but onely to God whose Image and word they are But if you denye al kinde of honour to them both in that they are creatures for we assigne no diuyne honour vnto them Thē first your place of S. Paul of difference is nothing to the purpose Secondlye what wil you saye to the worshipppe done vnto the Arke vnto the Cherubins vnto the serpent of brasse Why doth Dauid say Doe you adore the stoole of his feete Why are we commaunded to bowe our knée at the sounde of the name of Iesus which is but a creature representing Christ to the eare as his image doth to the eye S. Austen geueth this reason for it Because the honour done to these thinges doth redounde vnto him who is signified by them But you are so wilful M. Chark as you wil not vnderstād y e difference betwéene an image and an idole nor betwéene the honours done vnto a creature and to the creator but malitiously you wil stil confound the same in our names
We know your doctrine bothe in Iohn Wicklife Luther and Caluine to be daungerous to al Princes whom you mislyke teaching that subiectes are not bound to obey their Princes for cōscience sake but that if the Prince rule amisse they are frée to restraine him and punish him at their pleasure which doctrines we condemne The commotions also of those of your religion in al countries where they can make their parties good are knowne to the worlde And I doubte whether you would liue soe quietlye in England as Catholiques do if the state pressed you as it dothe them but we teache it to be of conscience and dutie And it is but the cruel and bloody spirite of your ministers which by your books and sermons séeke to sturre vp bothe Prince and Maiestrate to aflict Catholiques more and more in England and to accounte them as disloyal subiectes wherby you will one daye proue that you hinder your cause more thē by anye one thing For it commeth not of that spirit which you would séeme to haue nether is it the waye to gayne men to your religion As the late racking and tormenting of those vertuous priestes for their consciences in the Tower wherof al Christendome at this daye talketh what hathe it gotten to your religion nothing but the casting of mens hartes into a horrour of suche straunge and vnwonted dealinges and if you should driue men by such means to desperation what gayneth your religion or the state therby But to retourne to M. Campion againe whose comming into Englande you wil néedes enforce as a politique man that sée the far into common wealthes that it is for practise against the state in hope of a golden day For the first he hathe aunswered you that he commethe with a quite contrarie purpose and with contrarie commaundement from his Superiors whoe deale in no country with matters of estate as the world can witnes as the Indies Iapon can geue example where they haue dealt so many yeares for the bringing of men to the Christian religion disalowed by the states of those countries and yet are noe medlers against those estates nor euer caused subiectes to leaue their obedience to those infidel Princes And to the second touching the golden daye which you talke of I know not in what sence you may speak it to that man whom al the goulde in England as I thinke wil not gilte for that he contemnethe gould as much as you desire it and flatter for the meanes wherby to gayne it And to tel you more plainly M. Charke in few words if M. Campion and you should mete in equal balances I thinke you would appeare to be to lyghte in those poyntes wherin you would séeme to your paryshoners to haue your ful waight Touching the matter TOuching the petition or matter demanded to wit disputation for trial of the truthe M. Charke in no wise likethe it saying more ouer That he would wonder if anye which pr ofesse the gospel should now looke for disputation wherof he geueth diuers reasōs First for that They haue had truthe now established soe many yeares But this séemeth a verie weake reason for the controuersy is whether it be truthe or noe and we vndertake to proue the negatiue parte And for his nomber of yeares they being but two and twentie they suffice not for a prescription by the common lawes of England and muche lesse to exclude vs whiche can proue our continuance for a thowsand peares without interruption An other reason is for that as he saythe They shal gayne noe great victorie in ouercōming two or three of the last and the least in the quarel But this is not soe for they shal gayne al the Catholiques in England to their side and vs that are abrode also if they can shew the truthe to be with them And albeit two or thrée doe speake for the reste in this demaund yet shal there be more so dispute euen as manie as they wil admit with safetie for their comming A third reason he geueth for that These Iesuites will make the trial with false weyghtes and measures which are abomination to the Lorde while after their custome they dispute with vnlearned and peeuish distinctiōs false argumentes and absurde interpretations But this shal appeare M. Charke in the trial and your victorie shalbe the more easie You haue vsed bothe lying argumentes and absurde interpretations in this little booke of yours as hathe bene shewed but what the Iesuites wil doe you cannot yet tell perhappes they are not of your spirite And in calling them vnlearned and peuishe you runne further then your felowes wil allowe for they haue proued confessed the contrary And these termes maye easily be retourned vppon your selfe not in wordes but in déedes by the wekest of thowsands of their schollers But in déed their distinctiōs offend you much which according to the saying of the Apostle you condemne and reuile because you vnderstand them not For you must knowe that distinguishinge in al sciences according to the Philosopher appertaineth to the learned and not to the peuishe but especially in deuinitie wher al heresies spring by confounding and huddling vp matters and al truthe is displayed by distinguishing of thinges into their proper natures As also in the cōtrouersies of our time when we haue distinguished and put the cléere difference betwixt the things that you confound as betwene Idols Images bloody and vnbloody sacrifices Iustice by faythe and merite of good works mediation of Christ and intercession of Saintes faith and hope tradition of men and of the Apostles and manye other the lyke when I say we haue distinguished these thinges into their proper natures and shewed eche parte consonant to the worde of God then you haue no more to saye for that your ignorance is bewrayed and the truth made to euerye mans eyes manifest Fourthly you saye M. Charke that disputation is not necessarie for that we haue had and may haue the libertie of our pen. The which is as true as the rest of your assertions before No no the worlde knoweth what search you make after euerye pamphlet that commeth from vs and how you persecute them that bring in or receaue the same within the realme And is this geuinge vs libertie of our penne Doe you M. Charke and your felow ministers for the credit of your cause and for the auoiding the danger of this disputation procure vs but the libertye of one of your printes and we wil aske no further tryal Lastlye you forstraule your opinion of the proofes to be admitted in disputation if the matter agaynst your wil should come so farre fourth That is that onely scripture were to be admitted in such disputation and with one breath you reiecte by name all Councels Fathers Stories naturall and morall Philosophie And of Councels and stories you saye They are witnesses of contrarietie one to an other Of Fathers Some of
them are condemned of bastardie and other not guiltie of that crime yet were they but men how great so euer they were Of natural and moral Philosophie you say That they are enemies of true religion and two great nourses of Atheisme and heresie To which I answere that albeit we grounde our beléefe onelye vppon the worde of God and make that onely the obiecte of fayth more then you doe as I haue shewed before in your ninth reporte yet doe we mislike this audacitie of yours in reiectinge these verye notable helpes lefte vs by God for the better vnderstanding of his word For by Councelles Fathers and stories we come to knowe not onlie which is the worde of God and whiche is not but also which is the righte meaning of the same among soe infinite wrong interpretations which so manye hereticks from time to time haue inuented vpon the same with whom I might easely erre if I had not this certaine way to knowe what the true Catholique Church which can not erre hath alwayes holden And this can not I tel but onelye by the testimonie of Councels Fathers and stories by the which onely Theodoret wryteth that the famous hereticke Arrius was conuicted and not by the bare letter of Scripture which he and al other hereticks would interpret as they list The seuenth general Councel also conuicted the Monothelites and proued two distincte wills to be in Christ by the helpe of natural Philosophie by which they shewed it to be a most sure and necessarie consequence that If Christ had two natures he must needes haue also two distinct willes For that there could not be a nature indewed with reason without a wil. And as for moral Philosophie who séeeth not the necessitie of it for the vnderstandinge the natures of vertue and vice and al other actions belonginge to man And albeit these thinges may be abused as also Scripture may yet is it grosse ignorance for an abuse that may be to condemne the thinges which are excellent giftes of God and sparkes of his most high and infinite wisdome To depriue vs therfore of al these helpes and to turne vs ouer onely to a bare letter of scripture the which eche man may ether deny to be scripture or wrangle at his pleasure vppon the sense it is as much to saye as that controuersies in religion shall neuer be ended as both reason teacheth vs and experieÌ„ce not only of al ages past but also of our times sheweth For séeinge there are at this daye the Hussites in Boemeland the Trinitaries in Transiluania the Anabaptistes in Pooleland the Adamites in dyuers partes of Germanie the Lutherans in Saxonie the Caluinistes in France the Puritanes and family of Loue in England and other the lyke sectes in the worlde abrode which all with one voyce agrée agaynst the Catholicke Church in this poynte that Scripture only is to be receaued and al other testimonies to be reiected How comethe it to passe that these sectes groundinge their seueral religions vpon the méere word of God as they say can not yet end their controuersies If the scripture be so playne cleare easie euident and sufficient to ende al controuersies as they say why doe they so long disagrée Howe can they vppon so manifest and cléere a thing as they say the scripture is build so manye contrary opinions and defend them out of the same Scripture But it is but a shifte of the â—ommon enemie to depryue men first of their euidences and witnesses and afterward to set them by the eares for the tytle And I find this poynte of flying onely to scripture to haue bene an old tricke of al hereticks of the Primatiue Church for the maintenance of their owne deuices and therefore condemned in them as hereticall by the same Church Namely in the ValentiniaÌ„s as testifieth Ireneus li. 3. con He. And Tertulian li. 8. de prescript Also in the Marcionistes as the same authors witnes Also in the Arrians as Epiphanius wryteth Her 69. And S. Austen li. 5. con Maximum ca. 1. And Socrates li. 1. hist. ca. 14. Also in the Aetians as S. Basil wryteth lib. de spirit sanct ca. 27. And finallie in the Aerians as Epiphanius writeth Her 75. And S. Augustine Her 53. Wherefore M. Charke affirminge the same draweth in on line with thes progenitors of his Touching the Apostata M. Charke in the ende of his booke bringeth in for the defacinge of Iesuites and al Catholique religion a dialogue writen by one Christian Franken a GermaÌ„ brought vp as he saithe amongest the Iesuites as one of that Societie but afterward being made a ProtestaÌ„t reuileth in that booke bothe Iesuites and al Catholicke religion as frier Luther frier Bale and manye other Apostatas before him haue done Touchinge whom first if it be true and not coyned by them selues as the newes of Rome before was I must answere as S. Austen did to the lyke thing whose wordes are these Simplye I doe confesse before our Lord whoe is witnes vppon my soule that since I began first to serue God as I haue hardely found better men then thos which haue profited in monasteries soe I neuer founde worse then such as fel in monasteries And agayne in the very same epistle handling the place of the psalme where Christ sayeth They insulted agaynst me which sate in the gate and songe in my reproche which droonke wine He applyeth the whole to such as you are M. Charke which insulte against Christ and his religion for the faule of some on religious man Wherfore doe these men sitt sayeth S. AusteÌ„ of hereticks scoffing at religious men and for what doe they watch but onely if any bishoppe or clarke or monke or nonne should chance a faule that they may make it to be thought that al are such though in al it be not manifest And yet notwithstandinge these felowes do not cast out their owne wiues or accuse their owne mothers for that some one maried woman is founde to haue committed adulterie But when any fault or falsehode doth ether sound or appeare in any of them that professe the holy name of religious lyfe these felowes labour enforce and striue by all meanes possible that this faulte may be thought to be in all These men therefore which seeke the pleasure of their tonges by our greefes and sorowes may be compared to the doggs which licked and tooke pleasure in the sores and woondes of good Lazarus Secondly I answere that this rayling treatise of this Apostata translated and intituled by you A discouery of Iesuites hath noe foundation at al in it but only a lewd foolish applying of euery good thing in that religion to some euil absurd and wicked meaning framed by his owne imagination without geuing any reason or profe of the same By which kinde of argument it is easye to depraue not only al religion but also al other ordinances al common welthes all