Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	flesh_n	nature_n	union_n	2,793	5	9.6156	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A09100	A defence of the censure, gyuen vpon tvvo bookes of william Charke and Meredith Hanmer mynysters, whiche they wrote against M. Edmond Campian preest, of the Societie of Iesus, and against his offer of disputation Taken in hand since the deathe of the sayd M. Campian, and broken of agayne before it could be ended, vpon the causes sett downe in an epistle to M. Charke in the begyninge.	Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610.; Charke, William, d. 1617. Replie to a censure written against the two answers to a Jesuites seditious pamphlet.	1582 (1582)	STC 19401; ESTC S114152	168,574	222

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

serueth their turnes for the tyme. So Martin Luther after he had denied all testimonie of man besides hym selfe he beginneth thus aboute the number of Sacramentes Principio neganda mihi sunt septem sacramenta tantùm tria pro tempore ponenda First of all I must denye seuen sacraments and appoint three for the tyme. Marie this tyme lasted not long for in the same place he sayeth that yf he wold speake according to the vse of onelie scripture he hathe but one sacrament for vs that is baptisme But yet the confessiō of Auspurge whiche pretendeth to folow Luther in all things doeth allowe three by onelye scripture Mary Melancthon whiche professeth onelye scripture more than the rest and wolde seme to knowe Luthers meaning best of all men for that he lyued with hym holdeth fower by onelye scripture and Iohn Caluin holdeth two Agayne by onelie scripture Iohn Caluin fownd the title of heade of the church in king henry to be Antichristiā vvhich novve our folovvers of Caluin in England doe finde by onelie scripture to be most christian Mary yet the Magdeburgians by onelie scripture do condēne the same still In like sorte by onelie scripture the protestantes defended a greate while against Catholiques that no heretiques might be burned or put to deathe whereof large bookes were written on bothe partes But now our protestants in England hauinge burned some them selues haue fownd as they write that it is euident by scripture that they may be burned Luther by onelie scripture found that his folowers and the Sacramentaries coulde not both be saued together and therefore he condemned the one for arrant heretiques Doctor fulke findeth by the same scripture that bothe partes are good Catholiques neyther of them heretiques Finallie how many things doeth M. VVhittgift defend against T. Cartwright to be laufull by scripture● as byshops deanes archedeacons officialls holy dayes and a hundred more whiche in Geneua are holden to be flatt contrarie to the same scripture So that this appellation to onelie scripture bringeth good case in manie matt●rs For by this a man maketh hym selfe Iudge and Censurer not onelie of all fathers doctors councels histories examples presidents customes vsages prescriptions and the like but also of the bookes of scripture and sense it selfe reseruing all interpretation vnto hym selfe But Catholiques albeit they gyue the soueraigntie to scripture in all things yet bindinge thē selues to other things beside for the better vnderstanding of the meaning of scripture as to councels auncient fathers tradition of the Apostles and primatiue churche with the lyke are restrained from this libertie of chopping and chaunging affirming and denyeinge allowinge and misliking at theyr pleasures For albeit they hauing wittes as other men haue might drawe some problable apparāce of scriptures to theyr owne deuises as euery heretique hitherto hathe done yet the auncient interpretation of holie fathers and receiued consent of the churche not alloweing the same it wold preuaile nothing Mary the selfe-willed heretique that reiecteth all things but scripture and therein alloweth nothing but his owne exposition may runne and range and deuise opinions at his pleasure for he is sure neuer to be conuicted thereof allowinge no man to be iudge of his interpretation but onelye hym selfe or some of hys owne opinion This we see fullfilled in all heretiques and sectaries that now lyue whome it is vnpossible so to conuince by onelye scriptures but they will alwayes haue some probable shew whereby to defend them selues and theyr owne imaginatiōs M. Charke therfore chanting so muche vpon this point of onelie scriptures treadeth the pathe of his forefathers and pleadeth for a pryuilege of ease which whether we will allovve hym or no he entreth vpon it of his ovvne authoritie and dravveth scrip●ure to euerye deuise of his owne braine so violentlie as a man may take cō●●ssion to see yt I shall haue many examples hereafter in this ansvver but yet one vvhich is the chefe ground of this his preface I can not omitt After he had proued ovvt of Saincte Iohn that vve must trie spirites and not beleeue euerye nevv spiritt whiche is true he will nedes alleage owte of the same Apostle a full and plaine rule as he termeth it whereby to discerne and trie his oure spirites The rule is this Euery spirit vvhiche acknovvlegeth Iesus Christe to haue come in fleshe is of God and euerye spirit vvhiche dissolueth I●sus is not of God but of Antichriste Here now may be sene what difference there is in exposition of the scriptures For the aunciēt fathers interpreted this place as of it selfe it is most euident ●o be gyuen as a rule against the Iewes which denied Christe to haue taken fleshe Also against Ebion and Cherinthus heretiques nowe gone into the worlde as fore-runners of Antichriste dissoluing Iesus that is denieing his godheade and cōsequently denyeing the sonne of God to haue come in fleshe Martin Luther interpreteth this place to be vnderstoode of M. Charke and his felowes sayeinge That spirit is not of god but of Antichriste vvhich dissolueth Christs fleshe in the sacrament But to vs Catholiques how can it be by anie deuise wrested who neyther denye Christe to haue come in fleshe nor yet do dissolue the name of Iesus by anie doctrine of ours But yet Marke how M. Charke interpreteth this place and cōfesse that he hathe a singular grace in abusing scripture VVhat soeuer spirit sayeth he shall confesse Christe to haue come in fleshe as a prophet alone to teache as papistes doe not teaching traditions besides the vvritten vvoorde also as a kinge alone to rule as papistes doe not defending the popes authoritie also as a preest alone to sanctifye as papistes doe not vpholding the Masse this spirit is of God and the other of Antichriste Is it maruaile yf these men build what they list vppon scripture when they can fovvnde so many absurdities vppon one sentence thereof I wolde here aske first whether M. Chark thinketh that vve exclude Christe vvhen vve allovve prophetes to teache vnder hym kinges to raigne vnder hym preests to sanctifie vnder hym or no If he thinke we exclude Christe he is to fond to reason against sensible men knowing not what they holde But yf he thinke we allowe prophets kings and preests vnder Christe onelie and in hys name how can he call this the spirit of Antichrist doe not the scriptures allowe Prophets and teachers vnder Christe in the churche Ephes. 4. Act. 5 Also kinges and rulers thoughe puritanes wolde haue none 1. Pet. 2. Act. 2 Also may not preestes sanctifie by the woord of God 2. Timo. 4 How then are these things accompted Antichristian doe not protestants teache the same what deepe Mysteries of puritanisme are these Christe is a prophete alone a kinge alone a preest alone Againe I aske what doe the traditions of Christe and his Apostles for of those onelie

diuersitie of opiniō as hath bene shewed M. Charke can not geue one example to the cōtrarie for the maintenance of this absurde definition of different forme in profession c. VVhereby he wold make all them sectaries whiche differ in anye externall forme By whiche reasō all their owne byshops ministers Iudges lawyers and the like are sectaries and all diuersities of states are sects For is there not a different forme in making of a byshope and of a minister is not there diuersitie in their authorities in their apparell in their state and forme of lyfe notwithstanding that bothe doe professe ministerie of the woorde The laye man and the preacher doe professe one religion and yet is there no difference in the forme of their profession is the ministers forme of apparell of preaching of ministring the sacraments of obedience to his byshope of obseruing the statuts of college or church wherein he is nothing different from any other laye man or is he a sectarie for this who wold say this and much lesse print yt but onelie william Charke I leaue the begynning of his definition as too too childish ridiculous for hym that professeth learning where he sayeth a sect is a companie of men as yf a man should say an heresie is a compauie of men or an opinion is a companie of men or a frencie is a companie of frentike men VVhen S. Paul saieth I liued a pharisey according to the most certaine sect of our religion will ye say he meant according to the moste certaine number of men of his religion or rather according to the moste certaine deuided opinion of his religion for the number of phariseys were not certaine Againe when S. Paul sayeth the vvoorks of the flesh are manifest as sects c. VVill you saye here multitudes of men are workes of the fleshe where as the greek hath heresies So like wyse when S. Peter sayeth of false prophets they bryng in sectes of perdition in greeke heresies of perdition will you saye multitudes of men of perdition I omitt many other examples in scripture which doe conuince your absurditie and besides that doe proue our principall point that sects and heresies are all one Although I am not ignorant that in common speeche this woorde sect may improperlie signifie the men also whiche professe the same but not in a definition where the proper nature of eche woorde is declared After this new definition set downe M. Charke proueth the Iesuites to be a sect by the same for whose disgrace onelie he deuised it His collection or argument is this Seing therefore the Iesuits receyue a peculiar vovve to preache as the Apostles dyd euery vvhere to doe it of free cost to vvhipp and torment them selues after the example of a sect called by the name of vvhippers and condemned longe a goe seing thy are deuided from all others and doe folovv the rule of Loyolas it appeareth plainlie they are a sect A substātial conclusion for a man of your making These be like the conclusions ye made in the tower against M. Campian I meane not of your last conclusion to dispache hym at Tiburn for that was vnanswerable although nothing foloweing of the premisses I meane of your pretended dysputations wyth hym But to our matter what is there in this illation that can make the Iesuits a sect if it were all graunted to be true that they vovv to preache as the Apostle dyd Yow know the scripture doeth allow and commende the dedication of a mans lyfe by vow to gods seruice Num. 6. Psalm 131. VVhat then To preache euery vvhere and at free cost This you should be a shamed to say seinge Christ hym selfe commaundeth it to his Apostles Teache all nations preache the gospell to all creatures yovv haue receyued it freelie geue it freelie And S. Paul gloryeth muche that he had taught the gospell of free cost 2. Cor. 11. VVhat then maketh them sectaries To vvhipp and torment them selues yf it were true why for what reason It is writen of S. Paul by hym selfe that he chasteyned his owne bodie 1. Cor. 9. yea and that he caried the brāds of Christe in his flesh 2. Cor. 4. And the scriptures do talke muche of mortyfyeing our members of crucifyenge our flesh and the like and neuer a woord of pamperinge the same And ecclesiasticall stories doe make large mention of great seueritie of the auncient fathers and Saints heerein As of the seueritie in lyfe of S. Iohn Baptist and other Saints Also of the Saints of the olde testament who went about as S. Paul sayeth in camels hears in goats skinnes and the like And he that will see great store of examples gathered together out of all antiquitie about this matter lett him reade but one chapiter of Marcus Marulus de castigatione corporis per flagella of chasteyning the bodie with whippes S. Ierom. testifyeth of hym selfe by an occasion gyuen to a secret frende of his That his skynne vvas novv become as blacke vvith punishement as the skinne of an Ethiopian And Ioannes Cassianus that liued about the same time hathe infinite examples of the practises of holy fathers in this point And albeit Peter Martyr a renegate friar after he had now coped with a wenche doeth ieast at S. Basil and S. Gregorie Nazianzen for the hard handling of their owne bodies yet there is reason to think that they knew what they did as well as he And yf you ministers of England wold vse a litle of this salue sometimes also possible the worlde wold goe better with you fewer Eatons should neede to stand on the pillorie for lyeing with their owne daughters fewer hynches flye the countrie for rauishing of yong gyrles especiallie being preachers and hauing wiues of their owne besides And manie other foule enormities in this kynde wolde easier be auoyded But yf you will not practise this remedie your selues for contristing or making sadde the holie ghoste within you as your phrase is yet impute it not as Schisme and heresie to them which vse it moderatelie as you may imagin the Iesuites will being not fooles nor hauing yron bodies but sensible as yours are And as for the last reason you add of their folowing Loyolas his rule of lyfe and that they are deuided from others made schismatikes therby I haue shewed before that being but a particular direction of lyfe and maners grounded on the scripture and practise of auncient fathers and allowed by the superours of the Churche it can be no matter of sect or heresie nether are Iesuites seperated frome others by this but rather nearer ioined with all the godlie for that vertue is but one and he that leadeth the most vertuouse lyfe is ioyned nearest to Christ and to all good Christians And this now may be answered supposing that all were true that you report in this place of the Iesuites lyfe and vocation which is not

a-right but yow will saye perhappes Your spirit within you telleth you soe And my spirit M. Charke telleth me the contrarie One of them must needes be a lyeing spirit and whie not yours as well as myne These are fansies gentle syr william proper to hereticall braynes to assure them selues such knowlege aboue other men Luther sayde many yeres after he was a protestant ego credo fortiter imo ausim dicere scio purgatorium esse I beleeue stowtelie yea I dare auowe that I know there is a purgatorie Yet he denied it after Martin Bucer whē he was a Zuinglian knew as he sayd that doctrine to be deliuered from heauen but yet afterward comming backe to be a Lutheran he protested openlie that he knew it was moste false And againe returninge to be a Zuinglian he knew it was true againe and the other false and yet all this while certaine knowlege can not be false Yf a man should aske all the sectaries now lyuing they wold say the same that you doe of theyr certaine knowlege VVherefore me think you might haue spared these woordes of your certayne knovvlege whiche nether helpe your cause nor hurt ours any further than the credit reacheth of your owne bare woorde that also in your owne commendation Of concupiscence Art 2. THE CENSVRE 2. Secondlie you report the Iesuits to say Concupiscēce remayning in the regenerate although it be against the lawe of God yet is it not sinne properlye in it selfe or of his owne nature Cens. fo 38. 1 you vvill needes helpe the Iesuits out vvithe that vvhiche maketh for your purpose VVhere fynde you in them the vvordes Although it be against the lawe of God They saye that albeit this concupiscence doe sturre or moue a man sometimes to doe things vvhiche are repugnant to the lavve of God yet yf no consent of harte be yeelded vnto it it reacheth not to the nature of a mortall sinne vvorthie of eternall dānation 2. And albeit S. Paul doe sometimes call it sinne yet meaneth he not properlie but by a figure vvhereby the name of the cause is of●entimes attributed to the effect 3. as the latin speeche is called the latin tongue because speeche is the effect of the tongue So concupiscence being the effect of original sinne is called sometymes synne but not properlie but onelie figuratiuelie as also S. Paul calleth 4. Christ hym selfe Sinne because he vvas the sacrifice for sinne And all this is S. Austēs note vvhose plaine vvordes in the same place are Concupiscēce is not sinne in the regenerate yf consent be not yeelded vnto her for the accomplishing of v●law●●ll woorkes The same teacheth not onelye S. Augustine in diuerse other places but also all other fathers of the primatiue church as Nazianzenus orat de S. Lauacro Pacianus orat de bap Clemens Alexandrinus li. 1. pedag c. 6 Ciprian ser. de lot pedum li. 2. ep 2. Ambr. li. 1. de vocat gentium cap. 5. Soe that all these good fathers are partakers vvith the Iesuits of this blasphemie vvhiche you ensorce vpon them But hovv doe you proue it to be blasphemi●● Marie because Christ sayeth whoe soeuer shall see a woman to lust after her he hath alredie committed adulterie with her in his harte But are you so ignorant M. Charke Doe you not see that Christ by adding the vvoordes in his hart meaneth onelie of hym vvhich geueth consent of hart to his lust and concupiscence and vvolde put it in execution yf he had time and place and abilitie but this is your common alleaging of Scripture THE DEFENCE The charge of helpinge owt the Iesuits doctrine with these woordes although it be against the lavve of God he layeth vpon Gotuisus But I accept not this excuse For he might haue seene in Canisius pag 184. 73● which Gotuisus citeth also for the same as well as the Ce●sure of Cole● and whiche M. Charke confesseth to haue reade that Gotuisus belyed the Iesuits in his reporte for that there is no suche thinge in the places alleaged of Canisius as by reading any man may see VVhich● declareth euidentlie that yow haue no playne meanyng but a secret intention to deceyue As also when you assure your reader that I denyeing concupiscence to be a mortall sinne according to the question betwene Monhemius and the Iesuits doe thereby graunt vnder-hand that it is some kinde of sinne VVhich was no more meant by me than you denyeing before Martin Luthers mariage to be sacrilege dyd meane thereby to graunt vnder-hand that it was adulterie fornication or any other lesser sinne of the fleshe The exposition of S. Pauls woordes callinge concupiscence improperlie sinne quia peccato facta est because it was wrought in vs by originall sinne as S. Augustin sayeth M. Charke reiecteth calling it a wrāgling exposition though it be the exposition of the primatiue churche and so recorded by S. Augustin in many places of his woorkes as lib. 1. de nuptio concup ca. 23. li. 1. contr 2. ep pelag c. 13 lib. 1. retract c. 15. li. 2. cont Iul. c. 13. and li. 6. c. 11. All whiche M. Charke as better learned in S. Paul than Austen all the fathers of that time contemneth as easilie as yf it were the exposition of some vnlearned boye and beginneth hym selfe like a doctor to discourse a-new vpon S. Pauls meaning mary as it commonlie falleth out to suche malapert marchants he is no sooner in but he is ouer the eares in absurdities For his discourse is this S. Paul proueth sayethe he that though the lavve sturreth vs to synne yet is it no synne VVell this maketh for vs. For soe we may reason that though concupiscence doe sturre vs to sinne yet is it no sinne But what inferreth he therfore sayeth he yf the lavve vvh●che is holie doe come in question notvvithstanding of synne for that it prouoketh our corrupt nature to synne hovv muche more concupiscence vvhich is vncleane in it selfe This proueth nothing M. Charke but from the place a disparatis where commonlie children and distracted men take their arguments For how holdeth this yf the lawe for sturring to sinne be called in question of sinne and be no sinne then concupiscence for sturring to sinne must be called in question of sinne and be sinne in deede but he will saye perhappes the force of the argument standeth in the woordes holie vncleane in this order yf the lawe being holie be called in question of sinne what shall we saye of concupiscence which is vncleane and what more can you say M. Charke than to call it in questiō of sinne that somewhat more than the lawe is called in question which is bothe pure and holie and no wayes ether vncleane or euill or the effect of sinne as we graunt concupiscence is and yet for all this not properlie sinne without consent of hart as S. Augustin in the places alleaged proueth

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 frō 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 vnderstāding hymselfe That infantes vvithout reason should be baptized That the common Creede vvas made by the Apostles The celebration of the Sōdaye 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 Go●uisus reporte●h or misreporteth the Iesuites yf I reporte hym faythfullie it is no s●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 cōmonlie 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 reasō this argumēt of yours is If a marchāt departing into an other countrie shoulde leaue his cōmaundementes 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 thē 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 cōmaundement 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 questiō betweene vs and the protestātes is of expresse scripture onelie and not of any farre fett place whiche by interpretation may be applyed to a cōtrouersie For this contention beganne betwene vs vpō this occasion that whē we alleaged diuerse weightie places and reasons owt of scripture for proofe of inuocatiō 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 wh●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 expre●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 cōtayned as he sayeth manifestely in scripture The first is of two ●●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 Monothelit●s abowt this matter owt of scripture in the end they concluded in these woordes vve beleeue this for that