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
can a man damne him selfe doe what mischefe he can except the wil refuse to beleeue In his booke de capti Babil cap. de baptis The ten commaundementes appertayne nothing vnto vs. Serm. de Moys It is a false opinion and to be abolished that there are foure ghospels For the ghospel of Iohn is the onelye fayre true and principal ghospel In prefa ad nouum Testam And this he sayed because the other thrée Ghospels spake too much of good works If anye woman can not or wil not proue by order of law the insufficiencie of her husband let her request at his handes a dyuorse or els by his consent let her lye priuilye with his brother or with some other man Lib. de matri in epithal super 1. Cor. 7. If the wife wil not come let the maid come Serm. de matrim Matrimonie is much more excellent then virginitie Li. de vot euang Christ and S. Paule did not counsaile but dissuade virginitie vnto Christians Lib. de vot monast It is as necessarie for euerye man to haue a wife as it is to eate drinke or sleepe Li. de vo coniu in asser art 16. Al Christians are as holy and is iust as the mother of God and as the Apostles were Serm. de Trin. de B. Maria com ep 1. Pet. I leaue other infinit beastly doctrines which he taught for the inuentiō wherof he had much conference with the deuil him selfe whom Bishoppe Lindan and dyuers others wryte to haue bene séene talke bodyly with him by men of very great credit And Luther himselfe confesseth in his workes that he had often and familier speache with him and that he was first moued by him to wryte agaynst the Masse in the yeare 1534. He also diserybeth his voyce sayinge that it was so terrible huge and dreadfull that he was lyke to dye dyuers times after the nightes conference with him And that dyuers men were slayne by such conference Notwithstanding it was his chaunce to escape albeit as he sayeth he did eate more then a bushell of salte together with this deuil But yet neuerthelesse he was deceaued in the ende as al men are that deale with such Marchantes For Luther going one night drunke to bed as Hosius wryteth was founde there the next day deade slayne as is thought by this his familier deuil For he was a pitifull creature to looke on as Sainctes describeth al blacke with his tonge lying out as a man stranguled And this was the end of Luther after almost thirtye yeres lyuinge in all kynde of sensualitie pryde and dissention not onelye with the Catholique Church but also with his owne broode and ofspring Carolostadius Oecolampadius Bucer and Zuinglius parents of the Protestantes religion whom he perseruted cursed and condemned to the very pitt of hel for damned Heretickes as yet appeareth in his bookes writen agaynst them Wherefore whether the Protestantes or the Iesuites may be more ashamed of their first father let the indifferent Reader iudge There is the lyke lyfe or worse wryten of Calum by a french man that lyued with him of the same religion at that time and was translated into Englishe by a countrye man of ours and had bene put in print ere this had not my L. of London by an euil chance gotten the copye into his handes Fourthly you wil néedes bringe the Iesuites in discredit by certayne blasphemous doctrines which you say they hold in a booke writen by common consent called Censura Coloniensis out of the which you haue for examples sake put downe thirtine blasphemies in their owne very wordes as you saye noting the leafe and adding the cleane contrarye doctrine out of the worde of God And that men should knowe that you deale playnely and bring their very words and no sillable of your owne you haue put their sayinges doune in a differēt romane letter But M. Charke in brotherly charitie let me reason the matter a litle with you Are you not ashamed of this falshode did you not thincke that this your booke might be examined by some man or other in déed you haue al the Printes to your selfe and your searchers are so watchful as nothing can passe their handes to the discouering of your doinges and therefore you may both saye and print what you wil And our eares may wel burne on this side the sea and our harts rew at the shameles vntruethes which we heare and sée vttered there amongste you dayly but we can not remedie it and this that I wryte now I make account it may as wel perishe as dyuers things of greater importāce haue done heretofore But suerly me thincketh a wise man that had care of his soule might sée the lighte at a litle hole and descrye the conclusion by a few premisses If you in so short a pamphlet vtter so many so manifest so inexcusable vntruethes as I wil now shewe which notwithstanding you might reasonably doubt leste perhapps they might be disclosed what wil you and your felowes dare auouch in your sermons spéeches and discourses which you are sure shal neuer come to the examination But now let vs consider these wicked blasphemies of the Iesuites with whom if you haue dealt truelye and honestlye thē let al be beléeued which you speake dayly of vs if you haue done otherwise then the same malice which droue you to abuse your selfe towards them may also iustelye be suspected in the reste of your doinges and sayings towards vs. 1. First therefore you reporte the Iesuites to say It is not sinne what so euer is agaynst the word of God Censura Colon. leaf 44. These wordes are guilefully reported péeced and culled out for your purpose of a large discourse and yet most true in their sense The occasion whereof was this One Monhemius a Lutherā against whose Catechisme this Censure of Colē was made would néeds proue Concupiscēce remayninge after Baptisme to be a damnable mortal sinne albeit no consent of harte were geuē vnto the same and for proofe of the same he brought in this definitiō of sinne Sinne is what so euer repugneth to the law of God The which definition the Censure of Colen affirmeth not to be in al respects perfecte but that dyuers wordes should be added to the same as for example in stéede of that he sayeth Sinne is what soeuer c. he should haue sayed Sinne is an action for that there be dyuers things which repugne against the law of God as euil men euil lawes the deuils and the lyke which notwithstandinge are not properlye sinnes for that they are not actions Secondlye he should haue sayed not onely Sinne is an action but Sinne is a humane or reasonable action for if a mad man a foole or a beast should commit an acte prohibited by Gods lawe as for example kill a man it were properly no sinne Thirdly he should haue added voluntarie for if a man should doe a noughtie acte against his will as
God the Father begat his Sonne onlye by vnderstanding him selfe That infantes without reason should be baptised That the common Créede was made by the Apostles The celebration of the Sondaye in stead of the satterdaye The celebration of Easter onlye vppon a Sonday The foure Gospels which we vse to be the true Gospels and not fayned or corrupted That our epistle to the Romains was wryten by S. Paule and the other whiche is to be séene to the Laodycenses is fayned and not wrytten by him séeinge notwithstanding Saynt Paule neuer mentioneth any epistle wryten by him selfe to the Romanes but yet sayethe that he wrote one to the Laodicenses Al these things I say and many more are beléeued by vs generallye and yet none of them expressye to be founde in scripture But how doe you now ouerthrowe this doctrine and prooue it blasphemie M. Charke By a place of S. Paule Al the scripture is geuen by inspiration of God and is profitable to teach to confute to correcte and to instructe in iustice that the man of God maye be perfect and throughly instructed to euery good worke Wherof you inferre that the Scripture is sufficient to perfection but how wrongefullye it shal now appeare And first I let passe your ordinarie misusinge of scripture by adding fiue wordes of your owne in this litle sentence to wit the is and and throughlie which audacitie if it were in translating of Aesops fables it were follerable but in the holie Scriptures where euerie worde must be taken as from the holie Ghoste it is impious Secondlie this place maketh nothinge for your purpose which I proue by two reasons The first is because S. Paule saieth not here that the Scripture is sufficient to perfection but onelie that it is profitable Nowe you know that a thinge maie be verie profitable yea necessarie to an effecte and yet not sufficient to doe the same without all helpe As meate is profitable and necessarie to maintaine life and yet not sufficiēt without natural heat clothes and the like The second reason is for that S. Paule signifieth in this place that euerie parte or canonicall booke of Scripture is profitable to make a man perfecte but yet we can not say that euerie part or booke is sufficient for then al other bookes of scripture besids that were superfluous And that S. Paule meaneth in this place euerie seuerall canonicall booke or parte of Scripture by the wordes Omnis scriptura it is euident by that he vseth the worde Omnis and not Tota which two words how much they differ both in Gréeke and Latine all Logisioners know For omns homo signifieth euerye man And M. Charke him selfe in this verye same sentence hath translated Omne opus bonum Euerye good worke And yet deceatcfullye hath he trāslated Omnis scriptura Al the scripture As though S. Paule had mente onelye that al the Scripture put together is sufficient to perfection which sense can not stand Firste for that al the Scripture at such time as S. Paul wrote this wanted dyuers important partes as the Ghosepl of S. Iohn the Apocalips and some other which were writen after and consequentlye should haue bene superfluous if the other before had bene sufficient Secondly because we lacke at this day many parts of Scripture which of likelihoode were in S. Paules time As the booke of Nathan the Prophet with the volume of the Prophet Gad 1. Paralip vlt. The booke of Ahias Salonites and the vision of Addo the Prophet 2. Paral. 9. Many of the Parables and verses of Salomon for he wrote thrée thousande of the one and fiue thousand of the other 3. Reg. 4. Also the epistle of S. Paul to the Laodicēses Colos. 4. wherof it foloweth in M. Charks owne sēse that if al the Scripture put together is onely sufficient to perfection then our Scripture now lacking dyuers partes of the same is not sufficient And so me thinkethe M. Charke wrestethe this place against him selfe 5. You reporte the Iesuites to saye That the want of holy Scriptures must be supplyed by peecing it out by traditions Cens. fol. 220. This is coyne of the former forge all false and noe one such word to be found in al their booke But yet as though they had sayed soe you fight manfullye agaynst this your owne sentence sayinge in manner followinge Contrarye to this is the lawe in Moyses Thow shalte not adde to the wordes which I speake to thee nether shalte thou take from them But why do you breake the law M. Charke in reportinge the law you haue héere added the singuler nūber in the Verbe and the plural in the Noune and haue taken awaye the numbers which the law geuer vsed and changed the same at your owne pleasure and that for a purpose which I could gesse at But let al thinges be lawful vnto you what maketh this law for your purpose By your meaning the Apostles and Euangelistes did offend in adding any thing besids the law of Moyses which is absurd Nether did Moyses in this place forbiddinge to adde or take awaye speake of his wryten law for he had not yet writen it but of those thinges which he deliuered them by worde of mouth at that time the which he willed them to kéepe and obserue whollye and perfectly without chaunging it by additiō or diminutiō or by their owne corrupte gloses as noughtie men are wonte to doe And this is the true meaninge of that place and not as you would haue it that nothinge should be beléeued besides that which Moyses set doune for a litle after Moyses him selfe commaundeth the Iewes to heare the Prophet which God should rayse after him as himselfe mening therby Christ. 6 You reporte the Iesuites to saye The holy Scripture is a nose of waxe Cens. 117. God forgeue you for abusing so much these learned men Marie you take the waye to ouermatch both learninge and trueth too if you may haue your desire He that wil reade the place by you quoted shal finde the Iesuites vpon occasion geuen them to say in effect thus that before the rude and ignorante people it is easie for a noughtye man to wreste the scripture to what interpretation pleaseth him beste for the flatteringe ether of Prince or people euen as a man may frame a nose of waxe what way or to what forme he liste And wil you of this make them to saye that the holye Scripture is a nose of waxe Christ is lykened to a serpent and yet is no serpent Also to a couetous Vserer and yet is none Nether doth the Scripture cōmit blasphemie in vsinge such similitudes But how prooue you M. Charke that the Scripture maye not be wrested into manye senses before the rude people as a nose of waxe maye be into manye formes Because it is contrarye saye you vnto the wordes of Dauid The law of the Lorde is perfecte conuerting soules Suerly
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