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.

A DEFENCE OF THE CEN∣SVRE AGAYNST VVILLYAM Charke, minister.

THE CENSVRE.

[ 1]

* 1.1 THERE came to my hands tvvo bookes of late, in ansvvere of M. Edmund Cā∣piane his offer of disputation: the one vvryten by M. Hanmer, the other by M. Charke: of bothe vvhiche, (vnder correction,) I meane to gyue my shorte Censure, vn∣till such tyme as eyther he, to vvhome the matter ap∣pertayneth, or some other doe make more large and leardned replie: Aduertising notvvithstandinge the reader, that in myne opiniō, this offer of M. Campian, and so many other as haue bene made, required not so muche ansvvering in vvriting, but shorter triall in [ 2] disputation. But yet seinge there can be had nothinge from thē but vvoordes: I vvill examine a litle, vvhat they say at least to the matter.

THE DEFENCE.

HEERE, euen at the verie entrance, the replyer lee∣seth his patience, for that we require short triall in disputation. VVhoe is Campian (sayeth he) or vvhoe are [ 1] the rest of these seedmen, that they should presume to auovv••

popishe religion, that hathe nothing to vpholde it but tyranie, nothing to defend it but lies, nothing to restore it but hipocrisie and rebellion? O M. Charke, remember your selfe. VVe now but begynne: you will be farre out ere we ende, yf you tread the first step with so much choler. Yf the verie naming of disputations make you sweate: what will the thing it selfe doe, yf it should be graunted? yow began∣ne verie hoote with M. Campian in the Tower, but his quiet behauyour cooled you with shame. He tooke at your hands reproches and iniuries, yea torments also, and death it selfe, with more patiēce, thā you can beare a moste reasonable and iust request But (say you) vvhat can they gett by renevveing the battaille, so often and so late∣lie refused by their fathers and captaines? and you note in the margent D. VVatson, & M. Fecknam. * 1.2 VVe know (M. Charke,) the foolish vaine pamphlet set fourth by D. Fulke in his owne commēdation, touching his being at wesbiche castle, and cōference with the learned & reue∣rend fathers, imprisoned there. But as they dyd wiselie in contemning his pride, cōming thither vpon vanitie, without warrant for that he offered: so beside the false∣hode of that scrolle, discouered sence by letters from the parties thē selues, there is nothing in the same, that turneth not to your owne discredit: being confessed therein, that after you had depriued thē of all bookes, yea their verie writen note bookes, * 1.3 (which to learned men are the store house of memorie:) you asked them whether they wold come to Camebrige to dispute or no, yf leaue peraduenture might be procured? And be∣cause they cōtēned so peart & cockishe a marchant, that for matter of glory, cam•• to pose them without autho∣ritie: therfore you publishe bothe in bookes and ser∣mons, that these learned men refused disputatiō, whe∣re as, at the verie same tyme, and bothe before and sen∣ce, hothe we and they haue sued by all meanes possible, to be admitted to a lawfull, equall and free disputation, eyther in Cambrige or anie place els, that shall be ap∣pointed.

VVhat dealing is this? what proceding M. Charke?

where are nowe the lies and hipocrisie you talked of? on which parte doe they appeare? As for tyrānie (being an odious woorde) I will saye nothing, nor will not turne it to you againe: let racking and quartering of those that offered disputation be accompted scholasti∣call reasonning with you. But this I must saye to yow ministers, for your good: that it were farre better, you confessed your feare in playne woordes, than so much to manifest it in dedes, and thereby to discredit the rest of your sayeings.

[ 2] Next after the matter of disputation, M. Charke taketh an other thing in greefe, and that is, that the Censure should saye: seing there can be had nothing from them but vvoordes &c. And for hym selfe, he referreth men to his answer. But for M. Hanmer he answereth, that he hathe brought more reason with his woords, than may well be answered by me. But suppose all this were true, and that bothe his woordes and M. Hanmers also were reasonable woordes: yet are they but woor∣des in respect of the desired disputation, whiche is a deede. And so me thinke the Censure doeth offer them no iniurie. But how reasonable M. Charks woordes are, it appeared partlie by the Censure, and shall doe bet∣ter by this defence. For M. Hanmer, * 1.4 as I thought hym then, not woorthie of particular answere: so much lesse doe I now, remayning worse satisfyed by his second booke than by his first. But yet, as I omitted hym not in the Censure when occasion was offered: so will I not in this defence: allthough finallie I must confesse, that albeit I am not willing to increase a proude humour where alredie it doeth abounde: yet doe I attribute more to M. Chark, than to hym, for some discretion in answering to the purpose.

But, for that M. Charke will needes so frendelie take vpon hym the avouchement of M. Hanmers do∣einges, as thoughe he had not enoughe to defend his owne: I will oute of a heape of foolerie & falsehoode, (pached together by M. Hanmer, after the fashion of their sermōs) alleage a few things: requiring M. Charke

in his next wryting, to answere for the same. And yf he fynde it somewhat hard: Lett hym blame his owne tongue, for medling in matters whiche he might haue auoyded. Nether will I touche any thing now, mentio∣ned before in the Censure, for that these thinges shall haue their owne place to be discussed after. Now pur∣pose I onelie to note a fewe pointes of many, * 1.5 which shall declare sufficientlie the mans constitution. He ha∣the in his first book fol. 12. That lyra sayeth: Ab ecclesia romana, iam diu est quòd recessit gratia: VVhiche he inter∣preteth thus: It is long sythence the grace of God is departed from the churche of Rome. VVhereas the woordes are Graecia, Greece, and not grace, signifyeinge, that the Greeke churche was long since departed from obedience of the churche of Rome. How will you ex∣cuse this M. Charke? For suppose there were anie cor∣rupte booke that had (by error) Gratia, for Graecia (whiche I may scarse imagin:) But yet to help hym to an excuse, suppose it should be so:

yet lyra his whole dis∣course vppon S. Pauls woordes, * 1.6 nisi venerit discessio pri∣mum: Except a reuolte be first made, the ende of the worlde shall not come:

with all the circumstances, and other examples there alleaged of the Romans empire, must nedes haue shewed hym (yf he haue sense,) that he talked onelie of the countrie of Grece, and not of the grace of God.

* 1.7In this second assertion of his second booke, he attributeth this sentence to the Iesuites: All and euery the things contained in holie scripture are so vvrapped in ob∣scurities, that the best learned can gather thence no certain knovvleige. This is impudent. For they haue the plaine contrarie in the verye places by hym cited to witt, that not all, but some places, are hard in scripture: as is to be seene in Payuas Andrad. li. 2. pag. 12. * 1.8 whiche woordes also M. Hanmer without shame alleageth.

In his eleuenth assertion he sayeth thus: The Iesui∣tes hold, that there be many thinges more grieuouse and more damnable, than those that repugne the lavve of God, and yet the lavve condemneth them not, namelie, traditions, mans

lavves, & preceptes of the church. But this is shamelesse al∣so: for the Iesuites doe teache the cleane contrarie: to witt, that what soeuer is sinnne, is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 condemned by the lawe of God, and what so euer offendeth the lawe of God, yf it be donne wittingely and withe consent of harte (for otherwise it offendethe not the lawe,) is sinne: * 1.9 and this may be seene in the definition of sinne extant in Canisius, a Iesuite. And for traditions, they holde that yf they be suche traditions as came from Christ and his Apostles: then is the wilfull breakinge of suche traditions, sinne directlye against God hym selfe. But yf they be but traditions or precepts of the churche: then the breache therof (as also of all other our superiours commandementes) are offences against men: but yet consequentely also against God: for that he hath commaunded men to obey theyr superiours, whiche rule them, and that in conscience as S. Paul proueth. Rom. 13.

In his fiftenthe assertion he saith: * 1.10 The Iesuites saye, that iustification is none other, than the seeking or searchinge of rightuousnes or (to speake philosophicallie) a motion vnto rightuousnes. But this is folie, besides malice, shewinge that he knoweth not what he speaketh him selfe. For the Iesuites haue no suche woorde: but do gyue a more learned description of our iustification, than (I thinke) he can conceyue: whiche is this: * 1.11 Iustfiication is the tran∣slation of a man from that state vvherein he vvas borne the sonne of the first Adam, into the state of grace and adoption of the children of God, through the second Adam Iesus Christ our Sauyour: Canis. pag. 748. VVhat shall we now say of this man?

In his Nyententhe and Twentith assertions, he sayeth that the Iesuites holde a tvvofolde Iustification, a first and a second: This is true: but what more? And that our vvorkes are necessarilie required for the first iustification, & doe merit the amplification of the second: This is clearlie fal∣se: and except this man be besides hym selfe, I maruai∣le what he meaneth by this shamelesse behauyour. For the Iesuits doe teache the quite contrarie: to witt, Iu∣stificari

nos gratis, quiae nihil eorum quae iustificationem prae∣cedunt, siue fides, siue opera, ipsam iustificationis gratiam pro∣meretur: * 1.12

These are their very woordes, whiche are en∣glished thus: we are iustified freelie with out woorkes: for that nothinge goinge before our iustification, whe∣ther it be faith, or woorkes, doeth merit vs the grace of our iustification.

VVhiche woordes allso of thes fa∣thers, doe conuince M. Hanmers other slaunder in the 21. assertion, where he sayeth. The Iesuites, holde that the vvorks that are before iustification, are meritorious: VVhich is moste false: for besides the place alleaged, they teache the plaine contradictorie therof: to witt, that merit pro∣cedeth onelie of grace in them, that are novv iustified. Canis. pag, 786. So that yow see this man hathe no conscience what, or how, or wherein he lyeth. I omitt many exāples more of his malice: * 1.13 as where he sayeth, that Iesuites holde, that the lords prayer may be sayde to saintes, and that their reliques may be honoured cultu latriae, vvith the honour due to God hym selfe. * 1.14 Also where he falsyfyeth manifestlie the Councel of Trent, sess. 4. cap. 1. By puttinge (51) to their woordes, about traditions, and so peruerting the whole meaning. But I will adde onelie an exāple or two of his ignorance, and then lett the reader iudge whether fo∣lye or malice be greater in this minister.

* 1.15In his fiueth assertion agaynst the Iesuites he citeth as blasphemous this sentence of theirs. Synne is so voluntarie, as yf vvill vvere not, it vvere no sinne: VVhe∣re as this sentence is not theirs, but S. Austens, and that twise repeated in two seuerall bookes of his: Vsque adeò peccatum voluntarium est malum, vt nullo modo sit peccatum, si non sit voluntarium. Agayne, in his eigth assertion he citeth this sentence (as blasphemous) of the councell of Trent: VVe accurse them that say, the commaundementes of God to be impossible to a man iustifyed, and in state of grace. VVhere as the verie same is bothe in S. Ierome, and S. Augusten: whose woords are: Execramur blasphemiam eo∣rum, qui dicunt impossible aliquid homini a deo esse praeceptū. Againe, in his seuenth assertion he reprehendeth the councell of Trent, for affirming, that, all sinnes are

quite taken awaye by baptisme, and not rased onelie: * 1.16 where as the verie same is, woord for woorde, in S. Au∣gusten: Dicimus baptisma auferre crimina, non radere. * 1.17 By which is euident, that this man hathe eyther redd litle, or borne litle away, besides certaine notes of raylinge, as appearethe: And therefore I thought it nedelesse to answer hym any further. Now therfore will I returne to the Censure, which breeflie gyueth the effect of bothe M. Hanmer and M. Charke his booke as foloweth.

THE CENSVRE.

Meredyth Hanmer ansvvereth more quietlie, * 1.18 plainlie, and more good folovv lyke, excepting a fo∣vvle lie, or tvvo, vvherof I must tell hym vvhen place [ 1] serueth. He offereth also liberallie for his part, dispu∣tation: [ 2] vvho notvvithstanding is not like to be one of [ 3] the disputers, yf the matter should come to that passe. He had gathered some notes out of Sleydan, kemni••ius, [ 4] and frier Bale against the pope, and in derision of the Catholique religion, vvhiche he struggleth to vtter in diuerse places, vvithout occasion gyuen. He oppu∣gneth [ 5] feercelie and confirmeth diuerse things, nether sayed, nor denied, nor thought of by M. Campian. He frameth to hym selfe an aduersarie in the ayer, and manfullie fighteth and assaulteth the same. Finallie, [ 6] his booke s••meth to verie litle purpose, but onelie to spreade abrode the copies of the others reasonable of∣fer, vvhiche vvas some labour before, to vvrite oute to so manie handes as desired it.

THE DEFENCE.

To this no man in particular answereth anye thing. M. Charke letteh it stand, and M. Hanmer onelie sayeth in generall: * 1.19 That these are vnreuerent speeches against hys persone•• VVhiche I denie: for that onelie is to be counted personall reproche whiche toucheth ma∣ners,

and this onelie concerneth his fashoode and folye in doctrine. And for his persone God knoweth I hate it not, but coulde be content to wishe hym as good a personage, as he desireth, so it might be without the hurt of his parishōners. But yet, that I may not seeme to haue gyuen this censure of his booke, without all cau∣se: I will breefelie runne ouer the principall pointes [ 1] thereof. I sayd therefore that he answered more quiet∣lie and plainlie: for that he rayled in his first booke lesse than william Charke dyd, as may appeare in that which foloweth, where bothe their woordes against the Ie∣suites are put downe: also, more good felovv like: For that he draweth not all things to treason as the other doeth, but ioyneth familiarlie with M. Campian, calling hym hys felovv student in Oxforde, * 1.20 thoughe hym selfe were but a poore ladd, when M. Campian was of credit and woorshipp in that place. And finallie he persuadeth: M. Campian to take parte of felicitie with hym and his fe∣low ministers, * 1.21 to leaue his vovves to be performed by other Iesuites beyond the seas, and ioyning vvith them, to abādonne this austeritie of lyfe, and to taste, hovv svveete the lord i••: whiche is as muche to saye, as to take a wyfe and a be∣n••fice, and other sweete morsells which commonlie fall to ministers lottes in England. Is not this spoken like a good felow, trow yow?

[ 2] As for, the fovvle lye or tvvo, that I charged hym withall, they are to haue theyr place of examynatyon after. That, he vvas not like to be one of the disputers, yf the [ 3] matter came to disputation: was hut onelie my coniecture. Marie yet since, the sequele hathe proued it true: for there hath bene disputation, and M. Hanmer no dispu∣ter. [ 4] His notes against the pope, gathered out of Sleidan, frier bale, and others, & vttered from the pur••ose, & vvithout iust occasion: doe appeare in euerie page of his booke. [ 5] That, he oppugneth and confirmeth m••ni•• things, neyther sayd, nor denied, nor thought of by M. Camp••an: and conse∣quentlie frameth his aduersarie in the ••ayer: I might shew by many examples throughout his booke, as fol. 6. where he proueth by many authoriti••s, that the pla∣ce

maketh not a man holie, yf he haue no spirit: * 1.22 but who denieth this? also. fol. 7. where he laboureth to cōfirme, that vnder a holie garment there maye lurk wicked∣nesse: but what then? Also, fol. 9. vvhere he bestirreth hym selfe vehementlie, to shew by scripture & doctors, that we must obey superiors and temporall magistrates: who dowbteth of this? And yet this course he holdeth throughout that litle booke, whiche were to longe to repeat in particular. And therfore I might well conclu∣de, that, this booke vvas to small purpose, other than to [ 6,] spread abrode the copies of M. Campians equall offer, to their hands whiche either could not, or durst not haue it in writing before. VVhereof I dare say many gentlemē in Englād will beare me witnesse: who tooke securitie of getting or retayning the same by counte∣nance of this booke, whiche before they could not sa∣felie doe. And this shall suffice for iustifyeing of this first Censure. Now to M. Charke.

THE CENSVRE

VVilliam Charke dealeth more subtilie: * 1.23 for he reporteth the Chalenge onelie for his purpose, and that also sometimes falsified, except it came corruptlie to his handes. He vtereth also muche more malice, by dravving euery thing to disloiltie & rebelliō, vvhich is done by the Catholiques for conscience & religiō. He flattereth the higher states, vvhiche can pleasure hym, palpably. He vvearieth his hearer vvith the in∣finite repition of the vvorne out tearmes, of pope and poperie. He exceedeth in inuention of rayletiue spea∣che. He vndertaketh all maner of lyes vvithout blus∣hing, and ventureth vpon anye assertiō vvhat soeuer, for the bringinge of the Iesuites in discredit vvith the reader.

Vpon this ansvvere therfore of M. Charke, I meane to enlarge my selfe a litle, ī brotherlie charitie,

not omitting to remember also the other, vvhere occa∣sion [ 1] shall be gyuen. And for the restrayning of M. Charks rouing, to some certain points, I meane to con∣sider first of that vvhiche he vttereth touchinge the Societie of Iesuites. * 1.24 Secondly, touching the man vvho∣me he ansvvereth. Thirdlie, touching the matter or demaunde propounded. Lastlie, touching the Apostata brought in, for the defacing of Iesuites and the Ca∣tholique religion.

THE DEFENCE.

All those thinges appertaining to the Censure of M. Charks booke, though misliked and denied by hym, yet for that they come after to be verified, in their par∣ticular places: I passe ouer now without examination: onelie aduertising the reader, that thexceptiō he taketh [ 1] against my order and diuisiō of partes in the Censure, as diuised for myne owne ease, thereby, to be large or short, touche or passe by, ansvvere or omitt at my pleasure, is a causelesse quarell. For that I chose this methode of necessitie, as well for M. Charks ease in replyeing, as for myne owne in answering: & especiallie for the readers commoditie, in vnderstanding the whole matter, when the pithe of all that, whiche laye dissolutelie before in his booke, enuironed with long and bitter inuectiues, embreued with spitefull and contumelious speaches, and euerie waye cast about with odious accusations, light suspitions, insufficient collections, and vaine sur∣mises of treasons, rebellions, dissimulations, practises, & what soeuer els a fond malitiouse head could deuise to obiect, should be drawen out clearlie and orderlie to fowre generall points, and therein, indifferentlie and without cholar be examined to the reader. The which thing yf I haue not performed my desire was at least to performe, and my endeauour shall be now to supplie any thing that wanted then. Albeit I persuade my selfe, that nothing was omitted then of any weight or im∣portance

in M. Charks booke, as may well appeare both by his and M. Hanmers replies. Now then let vs enter vpon the first part of the diuision sett downe by the Censure.

THE FIRST PART OF THE CENSVRE, touching the Societie of Iesuites.

THE CENSVRE

Maister Charke imployeth all his povver, and laboureth painfullie, to bring in defiance the oder of Iesuits, containyng most notable, learned & vertuous, men. For the vvhich purpose he vseth diuerse means: and first his ordinarie vvaye of railing, by calling them. 1 1.25 A blasphemouse sect, new and detestable Iesuits, a weake and shamefull order, Scorpions, heretiques, Ie∣busites, poisoned spyders, wicked monkish friers, and frierlie monkes, scoutes to rebellion, frogges and ca∣terpillers of Aegipt, absurd and blasphemous doctors, bellowes to kindle persecution: of Beggerly estate, traitours, swarmes of grashoppers, noysome beasts. To vvhome M. Hanmer addethe, That theye are the broode of a cryppled souldiour, and of the lowsiest or∣der of all. All vvhiche, I lett passe vvithout aunsvve∣ring, for that it proueth nothing but one, vvhich is, that they lack all Christian and honest modestie, vvhiche abuse so muche so many good men, vvhose vvisdome, learning, and honestye of lyfe is better knovvne to the vvorld, than anie such railers can be credited to the contrarie.

THE DEFENCE.

To all this M. Charke ansvvereth by this cōfessiō, [ 1] I acknouleige my labour imployed to bring in discredit the Iesuits, And agayne, also, I grannt the speaches vvhich in all hatred of popish practises I vtered: And yet he complaineth grieuouslie in his preface that the papists, fashion is, to discredit the men for their doctrines sake. But let vs pardon hym this, for that he confesseth hatred to haue

bene the cause, Yet notwithstanding I doe not see, how anie learned or common honest man, and muche lesse a pretended preacher of gods woord, can iustifie such vnciuile and outragious tearmes against his brother, by any pretence of Christianlike or tolerable hatred: such as M. Charke (I suppose) wold here insinuate: And that which he wolde seeme to alleage for his excuse in the replie, that, for tenne lines of railing, gathered against hym, he might haue gathered tenne leaues against me: is neither to the purpose, nor trew. Not to the purpose: for that yf I had answered him with bitter speache again, being prouoked by his example and iniurie: what excuse had this bene for him which begāne without exāple? Secōd∣lye, it is apparentlie false, that he sayeth of me, & excu∣sable by no other figure, than by the license of a lie. For yf we talk, of leaues as printers accompt them: there are but halfe tenne in the whole Censure. But yf he take leaues, as they are folded in that booke: yet tenne leaues, doe take vp a good parte therof. VVhiche yf I filled vpp with railing tearmes onelie, suche as now I haue repeated out of M. Charke: I doe confesse my selfe to haue bene ouerseene, and fault woorthie in writing. But yf it be not so•• as the reader may see: thē M. Charks tōgue hathe ouerslipped in foloweing rather the Rhe∣toricall phrase of line and leaues, than the fathefull re∣port of a true accusation.

I may not passe ouer this matter so soone. For that I thinke it of importance to discrye the spirites of vs that are aduersaries in this cause. You know the sa∣yeing of Christ, ex abundātia cordis os loquitur. * 1.26 Our mou∣th speaketh accordinge to the abundance of our hart. I meane, a man may be knowen by hys speeche, as S. Pe∣ter sayd to Simon Magus, vpon his onelie speeche, In felle amaritudinis, & obligatione iniquitatis video te esse. * 1.27

I see thee to be in the verie gaule of bitternesse, and in the bondage of iniquitie.

And the scripture is plaine in this point. Qui spiritum Christi non habet, hic non est Chri∣sti. * 1.28 He that hathe not the spirit of Christ appertayneth not to Christ. Now then, yf we consider the quiet, cal∣me,

and sober spirit of Christ, and of all godlie Christiās from the beginning, and the furiouse, reprochefull, & vncleane spirit of Satan, and all heretiques, from time to time: and doe compare them bothe with the writings of Catholiques & gospellers at thys daye: we may easilie take a skantlinne of the diuersitie of theyr spirits. I will not talke heere of euery hoote woorde vttered in Ca∣tholique bookes by occasion of the matter, (neither is this in question) for bothe Christ and his Apostles, and many holie fathers after them, vsed the same, some ty∣mes vpon iust zeale, especiallie against heretiques, with whome olde S. Anthonie (as Athanasius writeth beinge otherwise a milde•• Saint) could neuer beare to speake a peaceable woorde. * 1.29 But for rayling, and fowle scurri∣litie, suche as protestantes vse ordinarilie against vs, & among them selues, when they dissent, I dare auowe to be proper to them, and theyr auncestours onelie.

VVhat more venemous woordes can be ymagi∣ned thā those of, * 1.30 Scorpions, poysoned spyders, and the like, vsed by M. Charke against reuerend men? M. Hanmers tearmes of lovvsie & crippled, are but Ieastes. For I passed ouer hys scurrilitie, where he sayd in his first booke: The first of your gentrie vvas Ignatius the creeple, standinge vnder Pompeiopelis tovver, and geeuinge the pellet ovvt of his taile. VVhat a shamelesse slouuen ys this, to write? Shevv me Allen (if thovv cannest) for thy guttes (sayeth D. Fulk: * 1.31) is not this a Ruffianlike spirit, in a preacher of the gospell? But yf you will see more of this mans spi∣rit: read but hys answers to D. Bristow, D. Allen, and the rest. Against. M. Bristow he hathe these woordes, with many more. Levvde losell, vnlearned dogbolt, traiterous pa∣pist, shameles beast, of blockish vvitt, impudent Asse, vaunt∣parler, barkinge dogge, and moste impudent yolpinge curre, leaden blockish and doltish papist, proude hypocrite, of stin∣king, greasie, antichristian, and execrable orders, blunderinge, blynde, boosting bayard, blasphemouse heretique, blockhea∣ded Asse. And in his two bookes against. M. D. Allen, besides the former speeches, and other infynitelye repeated, he hathe these: * 1.32 Brasen face, and yron fore∣head.

O impudent blasphemer, brainlesse brablyng Sycophant, rechelesse Ruffian, vnlearned Asse, skornefull caytise, despe∣rat dicke. O horrible blasphemer. O blasphemouse, barkinge, horrible hellhounde. In his booke that beareth a shewe of answere to M. D. Stapleton, he vseth these tearmes amongest other: * 1.33 Canckered stomake papist: senseles blocke: vvorthy to be shoren in the pole vvith a number of crovvnes: popishe svvyne: popishe boares, gods curse light vpon you: brasen face Stapleton: blockedded papist: shameles dogged of stomake slaunderer: of grosse and beastely ignorāce: dronken flemminge of dovvaye: more lyke a block than a man.

Thus muche he hathe against thes learned and reuerend men, wherof eche one, for many respectes ma∣ye be counted his equall, to say the least, & therfore in common ciuilitie, setting a side all consideration of go∣des spirite (wherof these good felowes make vaunte a∣boue other men,) thes tearmes or the lyke were not to be vsed, as in deed amongest the gentiles they were not, nor of any honest or Christian wryter since. I might re∣peate a greate deale more of this ministers scurrilitie, against many men, whome (forsoothe) he answerethe: (for as one sayd well of hym, he is the protestantes cō∣mō post horse, to passe you any answer without a baite, to any Catholique booke which cōmethe in his waye,) but it were to longe and lothesome to repeate all, onely heare more what he sayethe in his booke against M. Martiall, * 1.34 and by that, iudge of his style against the rest. He callethe him by one vile name or other in euery pa∣ge of his booke, as, dogbolt lavvyer: vvranglinge petifog∣gar: egregious ignorant vsher: goose: asse: prating proctor, meete for a bōme courte: arrogāte hipocrite: impudant asse: blo∣ckhedded and shameles asse: blasphemous beast: fylthie hogge, beastely grunter, shameles dogge, & blasphemous idolatour, raylinge Ruffian, & slanderous deuill. And is ther any iote of Christian modestie or godes spirite in this man? is he (to speake indifferentely) more fytt for a pulpitt, or for an ale benche? surely, if the pott were not at hand, when he wrote this: he discouerethe a fowle spirite within his breaste, but yet not vnmeete for a man of his

occupation.

And this now of the scollars: but thinke you that the maisters were not of the same spirite? reade Iohn Caluine and you shall see that his ordinarie tearme against his aduersaries in euery chapter almost, * 1.35 espe∣cially whē he speaketh against his superiours, as bisho∣pes and the lyke, is to call them Nebulones knaues: which woorde beside the foule gaule whereof it procedeth, is an vnseemelie tearme, euen as that of M. Fulke, when he calleth a counceller to an emperour Raskall Staphy∣lus: * 1.36 It is vnsitting, and argueth excesse of fond and foo∣lishe malice. For yf an enemie of mean conditiō should call an Englishe counceller raskall: should he not disco∣uer therby his owne raskalitie, and lacke of witt?

But of all other Martin Luther, * 1.37 as the first father of all these new imppes, had primitias spiritus, the first fruites of this spirit in full measure, (euen as the Apostles had of the holie spirit) to the end, he might imparte due portions to his children and successors. I could al∣leage infinite examples in this kynde, but that I desire to be shorte, and shall haue occasion to touche some part of the same in other places after. Onelie as it were for a taste, I will cite some fewe owt of his boo••e writen against oure most noble and famouse king Henrie, the eight, the moste learned, and wittiest prince that euer England had. But yet, heare what the fu••ious spirit of this our new prophet vttered against hym, & then con∣sider whether he could be of God or no. The booke is extant to be solde in England, * 1.38 and I will note the leafe, to the ende I may not be imagined to feygne, or aggra∣uate any thing. First then, in his preface of that to Seba∣stian Sc••ike Earle of passune, he defaceth his Maiestye intolerablie, sayeing: that he is an enuious madde foole, babling vvith much spettle in his mouthe. Then at length, comming to the booke it selfe, he sayeth that the king is more furious than madnesse it selfe: * 1.39

more doltish than folie it selfe: endewed with a blasphemouse and rayling mouthe: with an impudent and whorishe face: full of dastardie: & without anie one vaine of prince∣lie

blood in his bodie: a lyeing Sophist, compounded onelie of ygnorance and poysoned malice: a damnable rotten worme: * 1.40 whoe when he could not auoyde the ve∣nemouse poyson and Sneuell of his enuie, by his lower partes, sought occasion to vomyt it vp by his fylthie mouthe: it were a shame for anie beastlie whoore to lye as he doeth: a basilisk, and progenie of an adder: to whome I doe denounce (sayeth he) the sentence of dā∣nation: * 1.41 this madde buggish Thomist: miserable book∣maker: * 1.42 a God latelie borne in England: I saye plainlie, this HARRYE lyeth manifestelye, & sheweth hym selfe a moste light scurrill? Of this crime doe I luther accuse this poysoned Thomist: I talke with a lyeing scurrill, couered with the tytles of a king: a Thomisticall bray∣ne: a clownish witt: a doltishe head: a bugge and hipo∣crite of the Thomists: * 1.43 moste wicked, folish, and impu∣dent HARRYE: this gloriouse king lyeth stoutelie lyke a king: & heere now must I deale not with ignorance & blockishenesse onelie, but with obstinate and impudent wickednesse of this HARRYE: * 1.44 for he doeth not onelie lye like a moste vaine scurre, but passeth a most wicked KNAVE in detorting of scripture: * 1.45 see whether there be any sparke, in hym of an honest man? surely he is a chosen vessell of the deuyll. I would to God pigges could speak, to iudge betwene this HARRYE and me, But I will take asses that can speake. Iudge you (yee So∣phists of the vniuersities of Paris Louan, * 1.46 and Coolen) what this HARRIES•• logike is woorthe. I am ashamed (HARRYE) of thy impudēt forhead, which art no more a king now, but a Sacrilegiouse thyefe, against Christs owne woordes. I will faygne heere certaine kindes of fooles and madde men, to the ende I may sett out my king in his coulours: and shew that my bedleme king, doeth passe all bedlemnesse it selfe. VVhat nede had I of suche pigges to dispute withall? thow lyest in thy thro∣te, foolish and sacrilegiouse kinge: this block my Lord Maister HARRYE hathe taughte together with his asses and pygges: * 1.47 & now he is madde, and crieth & foemeth at the mouthe: neyther could I with all my strengthe

make this miserable kinge so filthie and abominable a spectacle to the worlde, as he by furie maketh hym sel∣fe: what harlot euer durst bragge of her shame, as this moste impudent mouthe of his doeth? * 1.48 this foole must haue a dictionarye to learne what a sacrifice is: Oh vn∣happie that I am, to be enforced to leese tyme, with su∣che monsters of folie, and can not gett a learned man to contend with me.

I leaue infinite despitefull, slaunderouse and scurrile woordes, whiche this impudent apostata vseth against his Maiestie, and some are so dishonest, as I am ashamed to englishe them: as vvhere he sayeth: * 1.49

Ius mi∣hi erit Maiestatem Angelicam stercore conspergere.

And againe. Sit ergo mea haec generalis responsio, ad omnes senti∣nas insulsissimae huius laruae. * 1.50 Againe,

Haec sunt robora nostra aduersus quae obmutescere coguntur, Henrici, Thomistae, Pa∣pistae, & quicquid est fecis, sentinae, latrinae impiorum, & sa∣crilegorum eiusmodi: Sordes istae & labes hominum, Thomistae & Henrici, sacrilegus Henricorum & asinorum cultus: furor insulsissimorum asinorum, & Thomisticorum porcorum: os vestrae dominationis impurum & sacrilegum.

And a hun∣dred moe sentences like. VVhereof yf euer good or honest man (and muche lesse a prophet) vsed the like: I am content to be of the protestantes religion: but yf ne∣uer ether ruffian, or rakehell, vsed suche speeche to a prince before: then may we be sure, that this man was no elect vessell of God, whiche hathe no part of his spi∣rit in hym.

I might heere repeate the like spirit of his in wri∣ting against the Caluinists, * 1.51 and the Caluinists against hym, but that I haue occasion to speake somewhat of it afterward. But yet one place I will cite in stead of all the rest, and that is of the churche of Tigurine against Luther, whose woordes are these Nos condemnatam & execrabilem vocat sectam &c. Luther calleth vs a damnable and exe••rable sect. But let hym looke that he doe not decla∣re hym selfe an archeheretique, seeing he vvill not, nor can not haue anie societie vvith those, that confesse Christ. But hovv maruailouslie doeth Luther heere bevvraye hym selfe

vvith his * 1.52 deuils? vvhat filthie vvoordes doeth he vse, and su∣che as are replenished vvith all the deuills in hell? for he sayeth that the deuill dvvelleth bothe novv & euer in the Zuynglyās, and that they haue a blasphemouse breast insathanized, su∣persathanised, and persathanized, and that they haue besides a moste vayne mouthe, ouer vvhich Sathan beareth rule, being infused, persused, and transfused to the same: dyd euer man heare suche speeche passe from a furiouse deuill hym selfe? Hitherto are the woordes of the Tigurine Calui∣nistes, whiche may easilie refute M. Charks shamelesse lyes in defence of Luther, as after shall be shewed. And heere would I haue the reader to consider withe what conscience Charke dothe call Luther a holy and deuy∣ne man a litle after, and whittaker in his booke against M. Campian callethe hym, a man of holy memorye, se∣inge the Tigurine Caluinistes, whoe saye their maisters doe call hym an archeheretique and a furious deuyll: is not this open disimulation and blinding of the peo∣ple? but heerof you shall see more after, when we come to speake of theyr dissention. And this shall be enough of this matter for this time. Now we come to examine whether the Iesuites be a blasphemous sect or no, as M. Charke calleth them, and the Censure denieth: for thus it foloweth vpon that whiche went before.

OF sectes and sectaries.

THE CENSVRE.

Mary I cannot let passe to tell M. Charke, that to call the Iesuites, * 1.53 A blasphemous sect, seemeth not onelie levved, but also vnlearned. And as for their blaphemies, they come to be examined after: but hovv they may be termed A secte, I cannot see. For yf li∣uing more straitlie then the common sort, * 1.54 in apparell, diet, or order of lyfe, doe make a sect: then not onelie Iesuites, * 1.55 but Elias, Elizeus, Dani••l, and Iohn Baptist, are also to be called sectaries, for that they are repor∣ted in the scripture to haue led a different and more

straite lyfe in those points, than the common sorte, and yet are commended in scripture for the same. But yf sectaries are onelie made (as in dede they are) by cut∣ting them selues of, 3 1.56 in opinion of religion from the ge∣nerall bodie of the Catholiques churche, as braunches from the tree, and by holding a seuerall faith in reli∣gion to them selues: then can not Iesuites (by your ovvne confession) be anie secte, vvhoe differ not one Iote in opinion of religion, from the vniuersall Catholi∣que churche, but (as yovv say) defend euerye litle point of the same, be it neuer so vntrue or absurd in your sight. VVherfore, vnlearnedlie yovv call them a sect, as also vnseemelie yovv skoffe at theyr name of Iesuites, 4 1.57 vvhiche they chalenge not to them selues, nor euer vse it in theyr vvritings or speeche, but onelie na∣ming them selues, a Societie dedicated peculiarlie to the honouringe of the name of Iesus, by preachinge the same in all places of the vvorld, vvithout any revvar∣de, and vvith vvhat daunger bodelie soeuer.

THE DEFENCE.

The answer to this is somewhat confuse and vnor∣derlie. But I will reduce it to the order heere set dow∣ne. To the examples alleaged he sayeth: As for the exā∣ples of Elias, Elizeus, Daniel, and Iohn Baptist, they are no lesse vvickedlie than vnlearnedlye alleaged to auovve the Iesuites order. This is a hoote entrance (as you see) ioy∣ned with a manifest cauille. For these examples are not alleaged to auow the Iesuites order absolutelie, but in one point onelie of different lyfe from the common sorte: whiche point notwithstanding is fownd also in other besides Iesuites. But marke his reason. 1 1.58 VVhat are you able (sayeth he) to bringe out of the vvorde of God, vvhie Elias should, after more thā tvvo thovvsand yeres, be brought in for a patrone of friers? I answer, first, as before, that the∣se examples are onelye brought to proue, that differēt

apparell, dyet, or straite order of lyfe, doe not make se∣ctaries, as you haue affirmed, and now can not defend: and therfore hauing nothing else to say, you make the∣se vaine and idle interrogatiōs, in steade of proofes. For you aske agayne, vvhat vvas there in Elias, Elizeus or Da∣niel, that may liken them to Iesuits? I answere, there was (to our purpose now in hand) different maner of lyfe from the common sort of men, whiche notwithstanding ma∣de them no sectaries, as you wold haue the Iesuits to bee, for that cause. To this I add (which is more than I nede) that S. Ierom. proueth plainlie that Elias and E∣lizeus were the beginners, * 1.59 captaines, and patrones of Monks, and monasticall lyfe, whome he calleth (for that cause) Monachos veteris testamenti: monks of the olde testa∣men: * 1.60 The same, hathe Sozomenus of Elias L. 1. Hist. cap. 12. Now deale you with these men (M. Charke) about the matter. And as for the number of two thowsand ye∣res, whiche you cite so preciselie, as though antiquitie should lett these prophetes to be examples of monasti∣call lyfe: It is an argument woorthie suche a diuine as you are: for by that reason, nether Adam could be a patrone of maried men, nor Abell of Shepheardes, nor Cain of husbandmēne, nor Enoch of citizens, nor Iabell of dwellers in Tents, nor Iubal of Musicians, nor Tu∣balcain of smithes: for that they liued twise as long a goe as Elias dyd. And yet the scripture sayth they we∣re begynners and patrones of all these things: Genes. 2.3.4.

2 1.61To the example of S. Iohn he answereth: Iohn Ba∣ptist that may seeme to make moste, maketh nothing at all for you: for that it is to be thought he vvas an extraordinarie & a perpetuall Nazarete, & therfore his calling vvarranted hym for hys austere & extraordinarye attyre, & die••, vvhi∣che restraint, or the like, is not novv layd vpon those vvhiche teache in the church. You alwayes do willfully mistake the question, M. Charke. For we affirme not that extraordi∣narie austeritie of lyfe, is layd vpon any man of necessi∣tie, but onelie that it is, lawfull, and maketh no sect, when it is voluntarie taken and vsed. Moreouer yf we

graunt S. Iohn were a Nazaret, yet that proueth not, that all his austeritie of lyfe was layd vpon hym by necessitie of that vocation, as may appeare in the booke of Nu••bers: * 1.62 where the lyfe of a Nazaret is described: and Plinie with Iosephus describing the lyfe of Esseans muche harder than the Nazarets, doe mention no such great austeritie, as the scriptures doe in the lyfe of S. Iohn Baptist. * 1.63 VVherfore though he were a Nazaret, yet moste of his austeritie was voluntarie, and so might be an example, & platforme to Monks, especially seing Nazaretes also dyd make a religious vowe, for theyr dedication to God (as our religious people also doe vse) as appeareth in the booke of Numbers. * 1.64 And final∣lie that S. Iohn was a Monke of the new testament, and a paterne of Monasticall lyfe, (though this be more than I am bound to proue, all these fathers foloweinge doe testifie with one consent. * 1.65 S. Gregorie Nazianzen: orat. de S. Basilio. S. Chrisostome, ho. 1. in Marc S. Iero∣me ep. ad Eustochium Cassianus, collat 18. cap. 6. Sozo∣menus li. 1. hist. c. 12. Isidorus li. 2. de diuin. offic. ca. 15. Theophilact in cap. 1. Luc. Nicephorus, li. 8. Hist. c. 39. and others.

Next after these examples he reprehendeth my description of a sectarie, 3 1.66 sayeing: that it bevvrayeth great vvant of learning, for that it confoundeth heretiques vvith se∣ctaries, and maketh no distinction betvvene the generall and the speciall: for all heretiques are sectaries (sayeth he,) but all sectaries are not heretiques. For learning heere I stri∣ue not: lett the opinion therof fall where it best lyketh the reader to place it. But in matter of truthe M. Chark is greatlie ouer seene in this place, and doeth vnwoor∣thelie chalenge the credit of a learned man for this an∣swere: hauing incurred two grosse errors in the same. For first among diuines & Ecclesiasticall writers, * 1.67 an he∣retique and a sectarie is all one, & there is no generall and speciall betwene thē, as he imagineth. VVhich ap∣peareth also by the scripture it selfe. For act. 28. where bothe the latin translation and their English hathe a secte, the greek hath heresie, So likewise gal. 5. the same

you may reade act. 24.26. & 2. pet. 2. And if in olde time there were anie differēce betwene these woordes amōg the gentiles: heresie was the more generall: cleane con∣trarie to that M. Charke imagineth. * 1.68 For that heresie (si∣gnifyeing an election of some priuate opinion) was the generall name to all the particular sectes of philo∣sophers. As to the secte of Stoikes, platonikes, peripa∣tikes and the like: as moste learnedlie doe note S. Ie∣rom: in cap. 3. ep. ad Tit. And Isodorus l. 8. etym. cap. 3. Theophilact, in ca. 2. ep. ad col. And Tertulian. l. de pre∣script: So that this was a great ouer sight in M. Charke.

The second argument whiche M. Charke vseth to proue a difference betwene a sect and an heresie, and so to ouerthrowe the definition, is, * 1.69 for that yf one man (sayeth he) cutt hym selfe of in opinion, he shall not be called a sect except there be manie. But he shalbe called a sectarie M. Charke: as also for the same cause, he shall be cal∣led, not an heresie, but an heretique. I maruaile where your witt was, when you deuised this differēce without a diuersitie. But you adioyne to this, two examples of scripture: the one of the Corinthians sharplie rebuked of Schisme by S. Paul, for that, one sayd he was of Paul, an other of Apollo, an other of Cephas, an other of Christ: * 1.70 who notwithstanding dyd not differ in matters of faith (saye you:) but therein by your leaue, you are greatlie deceyued. For albeit S. Paul doeth vse the greeke woord Shisme in that place, * 1.71 which (in his proper significatiō) is but a degree to heresie, (as S. Augustine proueth by example of the donatists, * 1.72 first shismatikes & after heretiques:) yet schism in his large & ample signi∣ficatiō (whereby it signifiethe all diuision) cōprehēdeth not onelie, heresie, but also all error of faith, whereby men are deuided in beleefe, * 1.73 which is not alwayes here∣sie, except it be defended against the churche with ob∣stinacie. And such schisme o•• diuisiō in beleefe was the schisme of the Corinthiás, (as S. Austen well noteth) for that they erred in a point of faith, * 1.74 esteming the vertue & power of Baptisme, not to depend onelie of Christ, but of the dignitie of the Baptiser. * 1.75 And therfore, one

bragged, as baptized of Paul, an other of Apollo, an other of Cephas: & some (folowing the trueth in deede) sayd, that by what minister soeuer they were baptized, yet held they onelye their Iustification & sanctificatiō of Christ, as cōcurring equallie with all his ministers in Baptisme. This is S. Augustens Catholique exposition, & besides this, * 1.76 the woordes of the text doe manifestlie proue the same. Is Christ deuided (sayeth S. Paul?) that is, doeth he impart hym selfe more in one mans baptisme than in an others! or doeth he not equallie and whollie concurre in euerie of his ministers baptisme? Agayne: vvas Paul crucified for you? to witt, thereby to be able to sanctifie you of hym selfe, by his baptisme? Or vvere you baptized in the name of Paul? No: but in the name, power, and vertue of Christ, who onelie sanctifieth in euerie baptisme. I thank God that I haue baptized none among you, but Chrispus, and Caius, and the house of Steuen, lesse anie man might say that you vvere baptized in my name. By this it appeareth plainlie that the Corinthiās were deuided in matter of faythe, about baptism. VVherfore, as this example maketh nothing to the purpose, for whiche it was brought: so is it fondlie and malitiouslie applied by you against Catholiques, whoe say, I folovv the rule or order of lyfe of Benedict, I of Augusten, I of Basil, I of Fran∣cis: wherein there is no difference of faith at all: * 1.77 No more to this purpose (thoghe the matters be vnlyke) than yf yow ministers should saye among your selues in the contrarie sense of libertie, I will liue vnmaried after the order of my Lorde of Canterburie: I will take a wyfe after the platforme of my Lord of London. I will haue two wiues together, after the fashiō of M. Arche∣deacon of Salesburie: I will haue a wyfe and a wenche besides, after the custome of some other archedeacon and preacher in England.

Your second example is of the phariseys, vvho vvere a notorious sect (saye you) and yet dyd not cut of them selues by heresie from the churche. * 1.78 VVherein agayne you ouerslipp fowlie. For in that they were a notoriouse sect, they held particular heresies, as the passing of sou∣les

from bodie to bodie, & the like, whereof you may read in Ioseph: L. 2. de bello Iudaico, cap. 7. & in phila∣strius in his catologe of heresies vpon the woord phari∣seus. * 1.79 And this is to be vnderstoode of some of the pha∣rises. For other wyse I confesse that the pharises were sometime called a sect or heresie, in good parte, for that they defended the immortalitie of the soule, and were deuided therby from the Saduces, * 1.80 who denyed the sa∣me: act. 23. And in this sense spake S. Paul, when he sayd before the Iudgement seat (towching his lyfe past be∣fore his conuersion) I lyued a pharisey, according to the moste certaine sect of our religion. VVhere is to be noted, against M. Charke againe: that S. Paul in greeke vseth the woord heresie, whiche in his generall signification, importinge onelie a choyse of any opinion (as I haue noted before) might be taken in good sense, euen as this woorde Tyrannie, * 1.81 might, and was taken of the olde writers, though now by vse and appropriation, bothe the one and the other be taken in euell part. And (to the ende M. Charke may confesse his ouersight in this mat∣ter) I will alleage hym the woordes of one of his owne doctors, M. Fulke by name: who of this matter sayeth thus. * 1.82 S Paul hym selfe openlie acknouleged that he vvas a pharisey, vvhen nothing vvas vnderstoode by the name, but one that beleeued the resurrection of the dead, although the tearme of pharisey vvas othervvyse the name of a sect of he∣retiques, vvhiche maintained many damnable errors, from vvhiche the Apostles vvere moste free.

By this nowe is defended the definition of se∣ctaries geuen by the Censure: and ouerthrowne that fond new definition deuised by M. Charke, and called by hym a truer definition, according to the true etymologie of the vvord: * 1.83 to witt, A sect is a cōpagnie of men that differ from the rest of their religion, in matter or forme of their pro∣fession. Touching the true etymologie, whiche he spea∣keth of, I can not tell what he meaneth, nor (I think) hym selfe. For in greke the scripture vseth the woorde heresie for i•• (as hathe bene shewed) whiche can yelde no etymologie, to maintaine this definition. And in

Latin, Secta muste nedes come, ether a secando or a se∣ctando: bothe whiche being referred to matters of the mynde (as necessarilie they must) doe include alwaye a diuersitie of opiniō, as hath bene shewed: & M. Charke can not geue one example to the cōtrarie, for the main∣tenance of this absurde definition of different forme in profession &c. VVhereby he wold make all them secta∣ries, 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. * 1.84 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 prea∣cher, doe professe one religion, and yet is there no dif∣ference in the forme of their profession? is the mini∣sters 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, * 1.85 that professeth lear∣ning, 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 opi∣nion is a companie of men: or a frencie is a companie of frentike men. VVhen S. Paul saieth: I liued a pharisey accor∣ding to the most certaine sect of our religion: * 1.86 will ye say, he meant, according to the moste certaine number of men of his religion? or rather according to the moste certaine de∣uided opinion of his religion? for the number of pha∣riseys were not certaine. Againe, when S. Paul sayeth: * 1.87 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, * 1.88 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 absur∣ditie, 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 na∣ture of eche woorde is declared.

* 1.89After this new definition set downe, M. Charke pro∣ueth the Iesuites to be a sect, by the same, for whose dis∣grace 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 prea∣che 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: * 1.90 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 morty∣fyeing

our members: of crucifyenge our flesh, * 1.91 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, * 1.92 of chasteyning the bodie with whippes.

S. Ierom. testifyeth of hym selfe (by an occasion gyuen) to a secret frende, * 1.93 of his: * 1.94 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: * 1.95 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 contri∣sting 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 bo∣dies, but sensible, as yours are.

And as for the last reason you add, of their fo∣lowing Loyolas his rule of lyfe, and that they are de∣uided from others: & made schismatikes therby: I haue

shewed before, that being but a particular direction of lyfe and maners, grounded on the scripture and pra∣ctise 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.

* 1.96And this now may be answered, supposing that all were true that you report in this place of the Iesui∣tes lyfe and vocation, which is not so. But as well heere, as commonlie in all other places, you lay downe some inuention or addition of your owne malice•• against thē. As for example: In this place, it is moste false that you affirme of thē: that they take a peculiar vowe to whip∣pe and torment them selues. There was neuer any such vowe eyther taken or talked of, muche lesse is it true, that they take that vovve to doe it (as you saye) after the example of a sect called by the name of vvhippers, condemned long agoe. You are a greate enemye to whippers (M. Charke) and you think yt good sleepinge in a whole skynne. I doe not blame you for it. Nether are you a greater mislyker of all whippers in generall, then I am in particular, of those whome you heere name: * 1.97 for they were heretiks, (as you may reade in prateolus and Ger∣son) teaching that the baptisme of water had nowe ceased, & the baptisme of voluntarie bloode, by whip∣ping, was ordeined in place therof: without which no∣ne coulde be saued: and therfore they whipped them∣selues opēlie: teaching also many other heresies beside: for whiche they were cōdemned. And what doeth this make against the sober & moderate chastisemēt, which good men vse in secret, vpon their owne bodies, at such time as they esteeme them selues (for mortification) to neede the same? was there euer honest man but your selfe, wolde haue obiected so impertiment a thing in print? but you make me laugh when you say a sect con∣dēned long agoe. How long agoe I praye you (M. Charke) or by whome were they condēned? the storye is euidēt:

they beganne in Italie about the yere of our Lorde 1273. * 1.98 vnder pope Gregorie the tenthe, and were con∣demned bothe by hym and his successors. And is this condemnation authentical with you? yf it be: you know Luther & Caluin were condemned by lyke authoritie. And thus for lack of matter, you lay holde on any thing though it make neuer so muche against your selfe.

The last point is about the name of Iesuits, 4 1.99 against whiche, for that you quarelled muche, the Censure did shew that the name was not taken to them selues of ar∣rogancie (as you obiected) but geuen them by common speeche for breuities sake, where as theyr true name in deede, by foundatiō of theyr order, was, societas nominis Iesu: a societie dedicated to the name of Iesus. Now against this you replie, that I doe call them Iesuits in" my booke. But what is this to the purpose? is it not lawfull for me to folow the common phrase of speeche? or because I call them soo, doeth that proue that they chalenge that name to them selues? Secondlie you say that Turrian a Iesuit calleth them soo: and what yf he dyd, foloweing the common maner of speeche? doeth that conuince that they appoint that name vnto them selues? but yet you are too too impudent to attribut this to Turrian, especiallie with suche vehement asse∣ueration as you doe. * 1.100 For I haue reade the two chapiters by you alleaged tvvise, and that vvith as greate diligē∣ce as I coulde: and albeit he doeth call them by the name of the societie of Iesus fyftie times in the same: * 1.101 yet doeth he not once name them Iesuits. VVherfore this shevveth vvith vvhat conscience you vvrite. And this beinge so: let the reader iudge what cause you had to crie out in these vvoordes: VVhat blasphemie is this, to abuse the most blessed name of Iesus, for a coulour to their bla∣sphemous practises? Euerie thing is blasphemie vvith this angrie gentleman, though it be but the mouinge of a stravve but heare his reason: They dravv to th••m selues alone (sayeth he) the confortable name of Iesus, vvhich is cō∣mon to all: No, (Syr vvilliam) you may haue your parte, yf you exclude not your selfe. For vvhen any men leaueth

all other cares and businesse to serue the Quene onelie: * 1.102 (for examples sake,) and professeth the same by some speciall name of her Maiesties deuoute seruant: doeth he iniurye other subiects hereby? or doth he take from them theyr interest in her Maiestie? But the truthe is, that malice wold haue you say somevvhat against Ie∣suits: mary theyr good lyfe and vertue excludeth you from matter: you might haue done vvell to haue con∣sulted with Eldertons * 1.103 ryme, vvhoe proueth that they can not be called Iesuits, for that they can not rayse the deade, cure the lame, restore the blynde, nor vvalke vppon the vvater, as Iesus dyd. VVhiche proueth also, that they can not be called Christianes: for that Christ dyd the same things, and they can not: Nor yet old El∣derton (I thinke) hym selfe.

OF religious men, and their vocation.

THE CENSVRE

[ 1] Secondlie you seeke to deface the Societie by cō∣temptuouse deprauing of all (1.) religiouse men: calling them, Base & beggerlie monkes & fryars, popish orders, * 1.104 and the like: vvherein you folovv the (2.) olde he∣retiques [ 2] of the primatiue Churche, vvhose propertie hath bene from time to time, to hate and depraue those kynde of men aboue all others, as S. Austen testifieth of the Manachies, * 1.105 and Rufinus of the Arians. And pe∣tilian the donatist, folovving the same spirit, scoffed at S. Austen for being a fryar, as S. Austen hym selfe vvriteth in these vvordes. * 1.106 After this, Petilian proceded on with his slaūderouse mouth, to speake euill of mo∣nasteries, and of monkes, blaming me also for that I had set foorth this kynde of lyfe, the which lyfe ether he knoweth not, what it meaneth, or else feigneth him selfe not to know it, though it be notorious to all the world. S. Austen saythe this kynde of lyfe (of monkes and fryers and other religiouse men) vvas notoriouse and

knovvne to the vvorlde in his time, both in respect of the famous men, that had liued in the same, as An∣thonie, Paule, hilarion, Basill, Nazianzen, Martin, Austen hym selfe, and others: as also of the infinit bookes and treatises vvhich holie fathers of the pri∣matiue Churche had vvritten in defence and commē∣dation of that kinde of lyfe: * 1.107 as Athanasius in the lyfe of S. Anthonie the Abbote: beside a peculiar treatise intituled: An exhortatiō to mōkes or to Monasticall life: S. Basill also vvrote a great volume intituled, Cōstitu∣tions or lawes for monkes: beside diuers other treatises of that argument, vvritten both by hym selfe, and by Gregorie Nazianzen. S: Chrisostom hathe fouer homi∣lies extant in commendation of the lyfe of monkes: and tvvo vvhole bookes, of the comparison betwene the Mounke & the king, vvherin he preferreth the lyfe of the monke, before that of the king. Also he vvrote a booke against you (M. Charke) intituled: Against the blamers of Monkes and Monasticall lyfe. Iohannes Cassianus a litle after, vvrote 12. bookes intituled, Of the lawes and ordinances of Monkes. Seuerus Sul∣pitius vvrote a dialogue contaynyng the notable con∣uersation of the Esterlie monkes, vvith S. Martin Ab∣bot of eyghtie monkes. And finallie, S. Austen (for I vvill come no lovver) hath vvritten manie treatises of Monkes, commending highly that excellent kinde of lyfe, and defending it against the detractions of here∣tiques of his tyme.

Let any man reade his hundred thyrtie seuen epistle, vvherof the title is, That for a few euill monkes we should not infame all monkes. In vvhich epistle hee shall see all the slaunderous argumentes of all here∣tiques,

against this kind of mē, ansvvered. VVherfore M. Charke and his felovves in condemning and de∣prauing the lyues of monkes and fryers, folovve their auncestours, and make vvarre vvith all the Saintes of Christ his holie Churche, vvho haue soe much reuerē∣ced and commended the sayde lyfe. In like maner, by calling them soo often, Base and Beggerlie, he shevveth vvhat, spirit he is of:* 1.108 that ys, farre differing from the spirit of Christ, vvhose voluntarie pouertie is noted in the scripture, and the same moste highly commended by hym, to all his folovvers.

THE DEFENCE.

1 1.109To this in effect is replyed verie litle, beside a vayne cauyll or two, and certaine ordinarie euasions. for first, he misliketh greatly, that Monkes, Nounes, and the like, are called religiouse people, as though they one∣lie (sayeth he) had religion in them. But this is a meere cauyll. For these vvere not called religiouse by antiqui∣tie, for that they onelye hadde religion in them, but for that they made profession of more perfect folo∣vveing of Christian religion, than others, by remouing vvorldlie impedimentes, according to the counsayle of Christ touching perfectiō: * 1.110 Mat. 19. & 16. & Esa. 56. whe∣re chastitie, voluntarie pouertie, and abnegation of our owne vvill, are commēded and counsailed to perfectiō, and the countraries thereof in other places of scriptu∣re shevved to be great impedimentes. Novv the vanitie of this olde hereticall quarell against religiouse, may be shevved by a thovvsand examples. VVhen vve say, learned men, vve meane onelie such as make profession of more excellent and deepe learning, than the rest: and yet, vve mynde not thereby to exclude all other men from all learning and knovvlege, besides them. VVhen vve call ecclesiasticall persons, the clergie, that is, (accor∣dinge to the signification of the vvorde) the lott or inhe∣ritance of God, * 1.111 as all antiquitie hathe called them, name∣lie

the first councell of Nice, almost in euerie Canon: And Origen and S. Ierom. proue the vse thereof out of the tvvelueth chapiter of Ieremie: * 1.112 vve meane not he∣reby, to exclude other Christians from all inheritance of Christ (as suche a vvrangler as Sir vvilliam, might ca∣uyll:) but that these men are more peculiarlie, dedica∣ted to gods seruice than other. The like, when vve call onelie tvvelue Apostles: (vvhiche signifieth sent) vve meane not that none were sēt by Christ but they onelie: For we read of diuerse others sent by him also Math 6. & Luc. 10. vvhich in that sense are trulie also Apostles: but vve meane that those tvvelue vvere principallie sent, and therfore by a certayne excellencie, onelie cal∣led Apostles. By vvhiche examples and infinite more it appeareth, that this man vveygheth not vvhat he sa∣yeth, so he say somevvhat.

The second thing whiche he answereth is, 2 1.113 that he is not like the olde heretiques, for that they dispraysed the good, and he onelie spake against the badde religious people: As also S. Augustin hym selfe & Barnard doeth. VVhich I cōfesse: and yf M. Charke wold stand to this his sayeing: we should quicklie be at an ende for this controuersie: For we all speake against, and cōdemne euell monkes, as we doe also euell pryests, euell byshops, euell prin∣ces: And we say that their damnation shalbe farre grea∣ter than the rest. But yet, we neyther condem••e all to be euell, and muche lesse (for the wickednesse of some) doe we condemne the whole state, and order of lyfe. And in these two points we dyffer, aswell from the olde heretiques (as may appeare by S. Augustine alleaged in the Censure,) as also from M. Charke and his felowes: who bothe condemne all religiouse people, of our ti∣me to be lewde, (which is wicked presumption cleane contrarie to the scripture forbydding to iudge, Rom. 2. & 1. cor. 4.) and for their supposed euell life, doe also cō∣demne their whole vocation: * 1.114 which is an hereticall so∣phistrie, as S. Augusten proueth ep. 137. I confesse (sayeth M. Fulke) there vvere colleges of virgines and Monkes vvithin the first six hundred yeres, after Christ, but they diffe∣red

as muche from your Nonnes, as these from honest vvomen: and as muche from your popishe boars, as Angels doe from: deuils. If I had not named this doctor: you might haue knowne hym, by his tongue, especiallie yf you haue any skill in ruffianlie speeche: But by this you see that these mens last refuge against Monkes and Nonnes, is to saye they are not like the olde monkes and Nonnes of the primatiue churche: and the differences you shall nowe heare out of M. Charke: It is a plaine iniurie (saieth he) ••o matche those auncient monkes of the primatiue churche vvi••h those of the popish orders. For the olde Monkes liued in their houses vvithout vovves, as students of diuinitie in col∣leges: they vvere ho••ie, painefull, and learned: ••hey laboured vvith their hands: their societies vvere Nourices of good learning and godlie lyfe, to furnish aftervvard the churche: vvhereto being once called they ceased to be Monkes, and left their Monasteries.

* 1.115Heere are in effect, fowre or fyue differences gy∣uen betwene our monkes and those of the primatiue churche, to proue that their states of lyfe are not the same. All whiche (except onelie the first) yf they were proued or graunted as they lye, doe not proue one iote of diuersitie in their state of lyfe, thoughe somewhat in their manners. As we may easilie graunt, that the men of no state doe liue so perfectlie now, in their vocation, as they dyd in the primatiue churche: and yett this doeth not alter their state or vocation. For example: Yf I should reason against the byshops of England, as M. Charke doeth against Monkes: * 1.116 our byshops are not so learned painefull and holie as they of the primatiue churche were: ••hey doe not labour with their hands, as the first byshops dyd, they doe not goe a foote, preache of free-cost, watche, praye, & fast, as they dyd: therfore they are no byshops, or their vocations is not the same that the others was: is this a good argument? no surelie, nor you shall neuer fynde it vsed by a Catholique man. For by this means we might ouerthrow all states, seing that they lyue not so well as man of their calling in the primatiue churche dyd. VVe can distinguish betwene

the lyfe of men and their vocation or state of lyfe. And though we mislike the one, yet we can permit the other. Onelie troublesome heretiques from the begynnyng (to engarboyle common wealthes) haue impugned the states of lyfe, * 1.117 for the vitiouse manners (ether true or supposed) of some priuate men: as for that some pope lyued euell, therfore no popedome, no authoritie to be graunted hym. For that some monks or Nonnes haue liued wickedlie, and contrarie to their vocation: there∣fore no monks or Nonnes are to be permitted.

And this is now vpon supposall, that all were true which M. Charke sayth of these differences: * 1.118 whiche is nothing so. For with what modestie, or conscience can he, sitting in England, gyue sentence of all the monkes and friars in Christendome abroade, that they are vn∣learned, vnpainfull, and vnholye, hauing neuer had expe∣rience of all theyr lyues hym selfe, and seeinge so many learned woorks writen by them daylie? he might heare (yf he were in these places) infinite preachers of them (throughe out Europ and further) with great example of vertue, to labour painfullie in gods churche: argueth not this an intollerable and indiscrete malice then, to condemne them all so peremptorilie as he dothe? And as for labouring with their hands, though it be not ne∣cessarie ••o any, yf they be occupied in greater matters: yet there is no monasterie where in some doe not exer∣cise that function also: those I meane, whiche are not otherwise employed in seruice of the churche, prea∣ching, or ministringe of the sacramentes. And for the last point, of not yeelding ministers to serue the churche: It is too open and apparent a slaunder. For as I haue said of preachers: so may I saye of byshops, chosen euerye where out of monasteries to gouerne in gods churche. And Pius Quintus within the space of fiue yeres, chose 70. learned men for byshops, out of one onelie order of religious men, besides all other. VVherfore this man (as you see) talketh of all Christendome, from his poore benefice by London, as barbers are wont to doe, of cō∣mon wealthes, by reporte onelie of such as frequēt their

shopps to be trimmed.

* 1.119But in deede the first difference whiche he put∣teth is to the purpose, and of great importance: (I mean touching vowes) yf yt were true, that is, yf he were able to proue that the monkes of the primatiue churche, made no vowes as he affirmeth. For I doe confesse, that the making of those thre vowes, of pouertie, obedien∣ce, and chastitie, are the essentiall points of a religiouse lyfe. And therfore yf olde monks dyd not vow: I con∣fesse theyr state of lyfe, was not the same with that of our religious people at this daye, And therfore M. Chark should haue proued this point substantiallie: and then in deede he had done some what. But he brin∣geth not so muche as one syllable for the proofe the∣reof besides his owne credit, which is not woorthe hal∣fe a sillable in this matter against monkes, whome he hateth so insatiablie. But yet marke his subtilitie. S. Au∣gustin doeth make mention of some things by him na∣med, * 1.120 as for example, of the holye conuersation and la∣bour of monkes in his time: vnder pretence wherof M. Charke q••otethe him in the margent, and placeth the quotation ouer right against the matter of voweinge: that vnder that shadow, he might tell a lie or two, with some credit, as he hath done. For S. Augustin hath no one woorde against the voweinge of Monkes in his ti∣me: but cleene contrariewise he testifieth the same mo∣ste plainlie. As for example, * 1.121 where he sheweth a reason to a monke whie he could not lyue out of his monaste∣rie, as other doe, without damnation, he sayeth to hym: * 1.122 Illi non vouerunt, tu vouisti: they haue not vovved, thovv hast vovved., And S. Basil before hym confirmeth the same sayeing, that Monks in theyr profession, solenni se voto obligabant Deo: Dyd bynde them selues to God by a so∣lemne vowe, whiche to breake, was, sacrilegii se sce••ere obligare: To inwrappe them selues in the haynous sinne of sacrilege. * 1.123 The same doeth S. Christsostom teache, writinge to a monke that wolde gladlie haue take a wyfe, and alleaged for hym selfe S. Paul, (as our men doe) that mariage vvas honorable in all men. But S. Chri∣sostom

answereth: honorabiles fateor nuptias at vero in te adulterii nomen a••cip••et, si volueris vnquam (quod abs••t) nuptias cogi••are.

I confesse, that mariage is honorable in others, (sayeth he:) But in thee it shall be adulterie, yf euer (whiche God forbyd,) thow showldest thinke on mariage. Nay, he addeth further: Adulterio illud peius aff••rmo: I doe affirme it to be worse than adulterie.

The like haue they of Sanctimonialls or Nonnes, * 1.124 in respect of their vowe. Sanctimonialis si nupserit (sayeth S. Augustin) Christi adultera reputabitur: * 1.125 Yf a Nonne ma∣rie she shalbe esteemed as adulteresse to Christ And S. Ierō. sayeth, * 1.126 damnationem habebit, quia primam fidem irritam fe∣cit: she shalbe damned, for that she hathe broken her first fayeth. And S. Cypriā sayeth. She committeth incest. * 1.127 Chri∣sostom sayeth: Intolerabili scelere se astringit: she byndeth her selfe with an intolerable wicked deede. S. Ambrose sayeth: she committeth spirituall adulterie, for punishement vvhereof no deathe can be deuised seuere enough. Finalie, S. Augustin saieth. Etiamsi non nubat, velle nubere damnabile est: Albeit she marie not, yet is it damnable vnto her, to haue but a will of Mariage. VVherfore he geueth this counsaile generallie to all, Proinde quae se non continent, nubant antequam continentiam profitean••ur, antequam Deo voueant: quod nisi reddant, iure damnantur:

Therfore, they which can not cōtaine, lett thē marrie before they pro∣fesse continence, before they make theyr vowe to God: the whiche vow except they kepe, they are iustlie dam∣ned.

VVhat will M. Charke say now to this, and to muche more that might be brought for this matter? may not he blushe to haue made (in sayeinge that the religiouse of the primatiue churche made no vowes) so open and manifest a lye? but he cacheth holde of a hē∣me of my garment, sayeing, that how soeuer the matter goe otherwise, yet all the vvisdome of your Censurshipp can not make our Augustin a friar. VVhich is your Augustin (M. Chark) I can not tell, but yf you meane S. Augustin the holie doctor, that I last alleaged: me thinke (by that he sayeth) you haue small cause, to call hym yours. Yf

you should aske my lorde of hereforde, or any other cuppled frier in England: I thinke he vvolde skarce call hym hys. But I know you saye this in disclaming of the other S. Augustin, whiche vvas our first Apostle, and planter of Christian faithe in England. * 1.128 VVhom M. Fulke tearmeth a proude, cruell, and vnlearned Monke that per∣uerted the Saxons, and corrupted the sinceritie of our coun∣trey, by vvorkinge of lyeinge and false miracles And S. Bede a credulouse and fabulouse man vvhich comm••nded Austen so muche. A smale rewarde for so great a benefit. But I wolde fayne knowe of you (M. Charke) that are a prea∣cher, whye you doe gyue out this difference and di∣stinction to your folowers of Augustin the doctor, and Augustin the Monke: were they not bothe Monkes? doeth not S. Augustin the doctor confesse it of him sel∣fe here in the Censure alleaged? yf that doe not suffice: reade the same confession of hym selfe in diuerse other parts of his workes, as in ep. 89. and tract. 1. de com: vita clericorum: and read Possidius in his lyfe, whoe liued 40. yeres with hym, and addeth, that diuerse of S. Au∣gustins Monkes, instituted many monasteries in his ly∣fe time. * 1.129 But (say you) he vvas no friar. In deede the en∣glishe names of friar or Monke were not then extant, for that we were not yet Christians. But the Latin names frater and monachus were attributed to hym, as may ap∣peare in the places alleaged. VVhiche, ioyned with the vowes, whereof I spake before, doe proue the thinge, what soeuer you may wrangle of the Englishe name. But what require you more to make hym a friar after the englishe fashion? yf you will haue me gesse at his apparell, it were hard; and nothinge pertinent, for that onelie the vowes make the vocation, as hathe bene she∣wed. yet S. Ambrose maketh mention de nigro cucullo, & c••ngulo ex corio: * 1.130 Of the blacke hoode, and the girdell of leather, that S. Augustin dyd weare. Now they whiche know the habit of Austen fryars, let them consider how nighe this goeth to that matter. Albeit (as I sayd) the weede litle importeth, when we haue the substance of the vocation.

The last woordes of the Censure touching Christs spirit of voluntarie pouertie, * 1.131 offēdith greatlie our replyer. The example of Christ (sayeth he) is alleaged moste blasphe∣mouslie against his Maiestie. Still the woorde blasphemie, must be one. But what is the reason? vvhen dyd Christ euer vvhipp hym selfe sayth M. Charke? Yet the choler of whipping is not past from M. Charks stomacke. But I answer: he had no rebellion in his fleshe as we haue, by reason of the conflict of concupiscence left vs: for re∣sisting whereof we vse mortification of our bodie, ac∣cording to S. Pauls counsaile, coloss. 3. Neyther is it ne∣cessarie that we should doe nothing in this kynde, but what we reade expresselie Christ to haue done: Albeit, to geue vs also example herein, * 1.132 we reade of his great fasting, and long prayeing, with lyeing all nyght on the ground, which not withstanding I think you ministers will not imitate. But you adde: Christ frequented publike assembleys, & vvas sometimes entertained at great feasts. Yea marie, this is for good cheer: this is more pleasant than the doctrine of the whippe. And dyd you neuer heare (Syr) of religiouse men inuited also to a feast or assem∣blie? You are wont to call thē bellie gods for that cause: and how is this ••tile so soone chaunged? O malice, how blynde and frantike art thou? But you aske agayne. * 1.133 VVhat vvorldlie blessings gyuen hym by his father dyd he at ••ny time abandon? hovv doeth his example recommend vo∣luntarie pouertie? I aske you (M. Charke) yf he that was Lord of all, chose to lyue of almes, and of such things as were sent hym:* 1.134 as the scripture signifieth Io: 12. Luc 8. was not this voluntarie pouertie in hym selfe? And he that counsailed men to renounce all they possessed, for his seruice, and to gyue all to the poore, that would be perfect: dyd not he recommende voluntarie pouertie to other, thoughe he comaunded it not? Yf the Apostles left all proprietie, and dyd lyue in common, * 1.135 as the scri∣pture noteth: and many good Christians chose to sell all they had, and to offer it to that communitie (though not vpon constraint as S. Luke testifieth:) And yf Ananias and Saphira for breakinge their vowe of pouertie,

made with the Apostles (as S. Basil and S. Ierom, * 1.136 and other auncient fathers doe testifye,) were so terriblie punished by death, for the terrour of all vowe breakers: then no dowt, but this was done eyther by the example, or by the recommendation of Christ, whiche you make so straunge, as yow sticke not to affirme it, Anabaptisti∣cal condemning of proprietie. Good God, how farre may fond furie dryue a man, that hathe no guyde? * 1.137 I pray you reade but S. Ierom, vpon the woords of Christ, goe and sell all: Also S. Basil vpon the same woordes: As also S. Chrisostome vpon the wordes of S. Paul. Sa••utaete pris••am: and perhaps you will alter your iudgement, espiciallie yf you will credit S. Augustin, who proueth out of the same chapiter, that the Apostles them selues votum paupertatis vouerunt, made a vovve of pouertie.

But as for the worldlie blessings which you talke so much of in this and other places of your booke•• I know that all creatures are blessings of God, but yet all vse of all, is nether commaunded, nor commended to all. You know whoe sayeth: All things are lavvfull, but all are not expediēt. * 1.138 The carnall Iewes were much entysed by those blessings in the olde testament: but in the new testamēt, you shall neuer fynde Christians eyther allured to thē, or dandled and smothed in them, as you doe your fo∣lowers: but rather to the contrarie, many threates and hard sayeings are vttered against richemen, * 1.139 and such as liue in pleasures and ease of this woorlde. And therfore your often repeating, and tickling fleshlie harts with naming carnall and worldlie blessings, proueth you (yf I be not deceiued) to be one of them, whereof the Apo∣stle sayeth: they serue not Christ, but their ovvne bellye, and doe seduce innocent hartes by svvete vvoordes and blessings.

THE CENSVRE.

Thirdlie, you endeuour to bring the Iesuites in cōtempt by their obscure conception (as you tearm it) from one Loyal as a Spanyard, and had not their fulll creatiō and commission vntill about thirtie yeres past,

from pope paulus quartus. VVherein you erre: for it vvas frō Paulus (1.) * 1.140 terti{us}, the third pope before Pau∣lus quartus, and the third pope after leo decimus, in vvhose time Luther began. Soe that there is not muche difference, betvvene Iesuits and protestants, in their antiquitie of name, marie in matter verie greate: for the protestants faythe and beleefe began at that time: but the Iesuites, folovving vvith humilitie the fayth vvhich they fovvnd in the Catholique Churche, one∣lie beganne a strayter kinde of lyfe in maners and be∣hauiour, * 1.141 than the common sorte of people vsed: for re∣formyng of vvhose vices, they dedicated them selues to God, and to all kinde of labour, paines, trauaile, and perill, vvith abandonyng all vvorldlie pleasures, and all possibilitie of prefermēt in the same, so farre furth, as none of that Societie hath, or may take any spiri∣tuall or temporall liuings, or cōmodities vvhat soeuer, though diuers greate princes haue pressed them often times vvith the same, but of free cost they preache & teache in all places vvhere they are sent, vvith all humilitie of spirit, and vvithout intermedling vvith matters of estate, as shalbe shevved more hereafter. VVherefore M. Charke offereth them the greater vvrong in charging them vvith the contrarie. * 1.142 And M. Hanmers impudencie is the more to be vvondered at, vvho blusheth not to put in print so notoriouse an vntrueth in the sight of all the vvorld, and to repeat, vrge and amplifye the same so often in his booke, sayeing, that one (2) * 1.143 Theatinus a Iesuit hypocriticallie got to be Cardinall and pope, * 1.144 meanyng thereby Paulus quartus, called before Iohannes Petrus Caraffa of the order of Theatines, and not of Iesuits, vvhiche all the vvorlde knovveth to be tvvo seuerall and distinct or∣ders

of religion. And therefore M. Hanmer vvith fryer Bale, vvhome he cyteth in the margent, may be ashamed of so false a slaunder, bothe tovvardes the man, and also the religion.

THE DEFENCE.

Litle defence needeth heere, for that the replyer hathe nothing in effect to say, beside a rayling sentence or two against the Iesuits: saieing, that they eate the sinnes of the people. * 1.145 Whereas these mē, nether taking any char∣ge of soules vpon thē, nor receauing any tithes or other cōmodities for the same, (bothe which things M. Chark doth) the reader may easilie Iudge, whether her or they stand more in daunger of that sentence. His error of taking Paulus quartus for Paulus tertius, he excuseth by sayeing, that kemnitius writeth so. But this rather accu∣seth thā excuseth the fact, adioyning also wilfull malice to the error, whiche might haue seemed before of igno∣rance onelie. For he had read kēnitius reproued for the same by Andradi{us}, * 1.146 (as he cōfesseth) which was sufficiēt, beyng in so manifest a matter, as all christendome can beare witnesse of the same. And he easilye discouereth his conscience of kemnitius his false and absurde wri∣ting of the Iesuits, in that he passeth ouer, as vnanswe∣rable, the lye obiected to M. Hanmer, taken owt of kē∣nitius also, about the sayd Paulus quartus whome he calleth Theatinus. But M. Hanmer, * 1.147 for sauing his hone∣stye, answereth it, mary with such successe, as men that take in hand to amende olde tubbes by knockinge, wherein often in steade of stoppinge one hole, they make manye. For first he sayeth, that in denyeinge Paulus quar••us to be a Iesuit, I confesse hym to be an hypocrit. Behol∣de a new crack. For my answere in the Censure sheweth the contrarie. Secondlie he sayeth, that I vvill haue one∣lie Andradius payua a Iesuit and a partiall vvriter, to be of more credit in this matter, than many other learned men. Beholde an other breache & that a great one. For payua was no Iesuit, nor coulde write partiallie in this matter,

being a matter onelie of fact, and that publike to all the worlde. For it is as euident and well knowne that Pau∣lus quartus was neuer Iesuit, as it is, that the king of Fraunce was neuer franciscan frier. And although di∣uerse Lutherans of germanie foloweing kemnitius his error, and theyr owne blynde hatred against Popes, ha∣ue writen the contrarie: yet (the matter being so appa∣rent) it litle importeth, seing there may be alleaged ten∣ne sor one, to the cōtrarie, yf the thing were doubtfull, or woorthie dicussing.

THE CENSVRE.

But because M. Charke obiecteth against the Iesuits, * 1.148 their fyrst father Loyolas, vvhome contem∣ptuouslie he calleth a souldier: And M. Hanmer, a cryppled souldier, vvhiche lyued in the same tyme vvith fryer Luther, progenitor of the protestants: Let vs cōsider in tvvo or thre vvoordes, the differēce be∣tvvene these tvvo men: vvhereby it may appeare, vvhich of them had the better spirit, and vvhether of them may more iustlie gyue credit and commendation to their folovvers. The lyues of them bothe are extāt, vvriten by men of their ovvne times, vvhiche knevv them and lyued vvith them, and therfore I shall ea∣silie discharge my credit, for that vvhich I shall out of these vvriters reporte of them.

IGNATIVS DE LOYOLA vvas a gentlemā of a no∣ble house in spayne, * 1.149 vvhich yet remayneth, vvho being cheefe captaine of Pōpeiopolis, & d••fending it against ••he frenshmen, in the yere 1536, vvas hurt & taken ••ris••ner by the same. But aftervvard being perfectly ••ealed, and curteously restored to libertie agayne, and ••ovv in great possibilitie of honour and preferment in ••is countrie, resolued hym selfe to serue God, onelie

for the tyme to come, and to take paynes for the gay∣ning of heauen. VVhereupon leauing all his frendes, & distributing all that he had to the poore: stole avvay from the Court, and be tooke hyms••lfe to a maruailous straite lyfe, and after he had vvith continuall labour of many yeres, gotten learnyng, & gayned many sou∣les from synne, vnto vertue, and from the deuill vnto allmightie God, by his example of austere life & god∣lie persuasions: there adioyned them selues vnto hym, nyne others of diuerse nations in the vniuersitie of Paris, to the like trauelsome lyfe for gayning of soules. VVhiche kinde of lyfe vvas aftervvard (after diuer∣se examinations and probations of their spirit & pur∣pose) alovved and confirmed by pope Paulus ter••ius, and soe consequentlie (diuerse vvhorthie men leauing the vvorlde, and taking vpon them that order of lyfe) vvas made a distinct order, of religious men, in the vvhiche this Ignatius bothe liued and dyed vvith singuler example of all humilitie, vertue, & holynesse, but especiallie in zeale of gayning of soules and recal∣ling men from synne, & his posteritie after hym hath by imitation of the same vertues, brought furth infinit fruite into the vvorld.

* 1.150 MARTIN LVTHER vvalking in his youth in a certain medovve, vvas stroken vvith a thunder boolt, & therupon sodaynlie for verie feare made hym selfe an Austen fryer, vvhere after in the Abbay of Er∣ford, seruing in the churche vpon the third sonday in lent, vvhen the gospell vvas read of the deafe and dumme deuyll throvven ovvt by Christ, he sodenly fel•• doune on the pauement, and the deuill cryed horriblie out of his mouthe, sayeing:

I am not, I am not dumme, I

will speake yet vnto the world.

After this, vpon a cer∣taine emulation and contention, betvvene hym & the fryers of S. Dominiks order, he left his religion, cast avvay his habit, broke his vovves, maried a Nonne, and by litle and litle began to preache straunge nevv doctrines, especiallie tending to all libertie and carna∣litie, as for example sayeing.

There is no sinne but incredulitie: nether can a [ 1] man dāne hym selfe, doe what mischeefe he can, except he will refuse to beleeue. * 1.151 In his booke de capt. babil. ca. de bapt.

The ten cōmaundements appertaine nothing to vs. [ 2] Serm. de Moys.

It is a false opinion, and to be abolished, that there [ 3] are fower gospells. For the gospell of Iohn is the onelie fayre, true & principall gospell. In prefat ad nouū testā. And this he sayd, because the other three gospells spake too muche of good vvoorkes.

If any woman can not, or will not proue by order [ 4] of lawe, the insufficiencie of her husband: let her re∣quest at his hāds a diuorse, or else by his consent, let her lye priuilye with his brother, or with some other man. lib. de matrim. in epithal super 1. cor. 7.

If the wyfe will not come, let the mayde come. [ 5] Serm. de matrim.

Matrimonie is much more excellēt than virginitie. [ 6] lib. de vot. euang.

Christe and S. Paul dyd not counsaile, but dissuade [ 7] virginitie vnto Christians. lib, de vot. Monast.

It is as necessarie for euery man to haue a wyfe, as [ 8] it is, to eate, drynke, or sleepe. lib. de vot. coniug, & in assert. art. 16.

All Christians are as holy, and as iust, as the mo∣ther [ 9,] of God, and as the Apostles were. Serm. de Tri. de B. Maria, & com. ep. 1. pet.

THE DEFENCE.

M. Charke, as wantinge matter of iust replie i•• this place, wriggleth at the begīning to & fro, to auoy∣de the force of this comparison betwene Ignatius and Luther, sayeing: That it is impertinent: But the reason thereof is layed downe, in the Censure: And as for the fond argumentes whiche he wolde enforce out of my meaninge, to proue, that Ignatius might beginne a societie, and Luther distayne their gospell. (VVhich notwitstanding he graunteth not to be sett downe expresselie in the Censure,) I leaue to M. Chark, as poore deuises to solace his owne miseries with all in this his distresse, when taking vppon hym to make a booke, and his promise being past to his frendes of the same, he now fyndeth nothing to fyll vpp pages, except he wander out, to su∣che Idle imaginations, as neuer came in the Censurers heade to thinke vpon. But at lēgthe, yet, let vs hale hym to the matter, and see what he sayeth. For Ignatius, (he saythe) I vvill passe ouer. For Martin Luther (before he cometh to the matters obiected) he exclameth greatlie against me for alleaging Coclaeus, Hosius, Lyndanus, and Sainctes, as witnesses in my reportes, beinge (as he sayeth) of our religion, and enemies to Luther. But con∣sider (I beseeche you) the equitie of this complaint. Yf I did alleage these mens Iudgements against Luther in matters of controuersie: his exception might seme to haue some reason, but seinge I alleage them onelie in matter of fact, knowne to other men aswell as to them selues: why should M. Chark take the matter so greuou¦slye? by this reason no storie should be credited, yf the reporter were of a contrarie religion. I saye not this to Iustifie all histories. * 1.152 For it is well knowne of the eleuen thousand lyes writen by Sleidan in fauour of the pro∣testants, and refuted by Bartholomeus Latomus, euen by the testimonie of them, whiche were present at the doinges, as shall be shewed after. But when there is no reason, nor proofe, to denie a fact reported by suche men, as now I haue named, whereof the moste were Germans, and knew Luther well, and the first of them

lyued with hym, * 1.153 and tooke vppon hym selfe to write the particular storie of his lyfe, while Luther lyued, & to sett it furth, when all Germanie coulde reprehend hym, yf it had not bene true: And the other being reue∣rend and learned byshops, and had great meanes and occasions to know the truthe of the factes they write: why should M. Charke take it so impatientlie, and think it suche vniust dealing, to alleage theyr authorities, not in matters of iudgement and doctrine (as I haue sayed) but onelie in report of facts, which they coulde not de∣uise of them selues, without dānable wickednesse, nor report to the worlde without open shame, and reproo∣fe, yf the thinges had bene false?

But let vs examine the reportes them selues, per∣happes they will yealde some occasion of Iustyfieinge their reporters. And first (to discredit myne Authors with all) M. Charke beginneth with a report of his ow∣ne, and not of myne: * 1.154 sayeinge, that I left out for shame the report of Prateolus, that Luther vvas begoten of a deuill. But yet this is nothinge to the discredit of the other fower Authors named before, yf Prateolus had reported amisse of Luther, and I concealed or passed ouer the sa∣me. For nether could I in that litle booke, nor was it ne∣cessarie for me to recite what soeuer I found writen of Luther. Secondlie, M. Charke greatlie bewrayeth his falseholde in this point, and iustifieth our true dealing. For Prateolus foloweth not the fashion of protestantes in affirminge absolutelye, * 1.155 what so euer they heare, or can imagin against vs: but rather the good conscience of a Catholique man, whiche ys to lay downe things as in deede they are, without adding or amplifieing the same. He sayeth then, that diuerse men had writen this thinge of Luther, and a matrone of Lipsia in Germanye dyd affirme yt. * 1.156 But he hym selfe neyther affirmeth nor denyeth it. His woordes are these:

Sūt qui Lutherum scri∣būt ex incubo natum, qui eius ma••rem balnei publici seruulam oppressit••sed nescio cuius sit fidei: fides sit penes lipsicam illam Matronam, cui mater eius fuit notissima:

There are, that write Luther to haue bene borne of an Incubus (that is

of a filthie spirit abusing women in place of man) whi∣che oppressed his mother, when she was a seruant in a common bathe in Germanie: but I know not of what credit it is: the credit dependeth of that matrone of ly∣psia, which reported yt, and knew well his mother.

Here now yow see the modestie of Prateolus his report, and the bolde impudencie of w: Chark; in sa∣yeing that he auoucheth that, whiche (as yow see) he auoucheth not. But yet, whether M. Charkes impudē∣cie or folye were greater, I can not tell, in making men∣tion of this thing, being so fowle a matter against their first prophet. For what will he saye? that it is false? yet at least there remayneth a shamefull suspition, vpon the reporte of diuerse writers, and the asseueration of a Matrone, which belike had it of the cōfessiō of Luthers mother her selfe. And the probabilitie of the thing see∣meth not haue bene so great in those dayes, as Erasmus beleeued yt, whiche yet, by M. Charkes Iudgement, was no papist. For in his purgation ad epistolam Lutheri non sobriani. That is, to Luthers dronken epistle, he allu∣deth to the same, sayeinge, Mirum est impio & blasphemo sermoni non addidisse de ineubonibus &c. It is maruayle that Luther had not added somevvhat of Incubons, or filthie spi∣rites that abuse vvomē, to the rest of his vvicked and blasphe∣mouse speeche.

But now yf M. Charke will stand vppon the de∣niall, not so muche of the fact, as of the nature of the thing it selfe, as impossible, that spirits can so abuse lew∣de women that will consent to theyr lusts: I will oppo∣se S. Augustine against hym, * 1.157 who sayeth, it vvere impu∣dencie to denie yt, and proueth it by many wayes, as also Ludouicus viues doeth vppon the same place of S. Au∣gustine. VVhat then hathe M. Charke gayned by men∣tioning of this whiche I left out?

* 1.158Touching the matter of the Thunder bolt, though M. Charke denieth it stowtely, and (as Lyndans reporte onelye) wolde seeke to discredit the same by obiecting certaine things against Lindā, which are not true: yet is it not B. Lyndan onelie that doth report it (as he well

knoweth) but the consent of other writers besides. * 1.159 Pra∣teolus his woordes are these. Martin Luther after the stu∣die of lavve, vvhen he had bene strycken dovvne in the feeld vvith a blovve of lightnyng, and terrified by the deathe of his companion, professed hym selfe an Austen fryer. Heere are touched two things: his stryking downe, and the deathe of his companion: whiche could be no ieste. And albeit there appeared in his bodie no wounde of the thun∣der bolt (as M. Chark cauyleth:) yet might he be stry∣ckē downe with the feare thereof. And Melācthon him selfe, who otherwyse dissembleth moste diligentlye all matters turninge to the dishonour of his Maister: yet maketh he mention bothe of this feare, and also of the deathe of his companion, and graunteth it to haue be∣ne one principal motiue of his entraunce into religion. * 1.160 His wordes are these:

Hos terrores seu primum, seu accerri∣me sensit eo anno, cum sodalem nescio quo casu interfectum amisisset:

Luther felt thes terrors & feares, eyther first, or moste sharplie that yeare, wherein he lost his compa∣nion, slayne, I know not by what chaunce.

Nay, Martin Luther cōfesseth the matter him selfe, * 1.161 in an epistle to his father Iohn Luther, to whome he yeeldeth a reason of hys runninge owt of religion, by his vnlawfull entrance thervnto:

Memini nimis (sayeth he) praesente cum iam placatus mecum loquereris, & ego de coelo terroribus me vocatum assererē. Neque enim libens & cu∣piens fiebam monachus, sed terrore & agone mortis subitae circumuallatus voui coactum & necessarium votum.

I doe remember too well when yow beinge pacified, talked with me present, & I affirmed that I was called by ter∣rours from heauen to enter into religion.

For I was not made a friar willinglie, and of my owne desire, but be∣inge enuironed with terrour, and with the agonie of suddain deathe, I made a vow vpon necessitie and en∣forcement. Heere the matter is euident by Luther hym selfe, whiche M. Charke so confidentlie denieth, and cryeth out against bishope Lindan for reporting the same: * 1.162

sayeing:

That he vvill not beleeue Lyndan in this, no more than he vvill beleeue his reporte that the Caluinistes doe

vvorship the Image of the deuyll. * 1.163

In deede he sayeth that Caluinists doe adore theyr owne imaginations sugge∣sted by the deuyll, aboue all authoritie or proofe be∣sides, (as all other heretiques doe) and in that sense doe honour the deuyll. Againe, he sayeth that in the yeere of our lorde 1572. when Caluinistes went to ouerthrow a monasterie at a towne called Leyden in flaūders: they erected the signe of the deuyll in theyr publique ban∣ner, whiche neuer Christians dyd before. Yf M. Chark could haue refuted any of these particulars: he should haue done well. But by his generall reporte, though he seeke to bring Lyndan in hatred: yet it turnethe to his owne discredit, & releeueth nothing his cause in hāde. * 1.164

For the deuyll crieing out of Luthers mouthe, thoughe M. Chark woolde seme to denye yt: yet brin∣geth he not one syllable in disprofe thereof: & so many particulars are put downe by Coclaeus, whoe liued with hym: as euerye man may see that the matter was euidēt. And no protestant in Germanie (where the matter was done, as where also (being Lutherans) they doe esteeme Luthers honour more than Caluinistes doe) neuer yet hathe bene able to reproue the same. But now come we to the doctrines of libertie and carnalitie, whiche the Censure affirmeth Luther to haue taught, after he had once coped with a Nonne. * 1.165 VVhiche M. Charke after his ministeriall phrase expresseth in these woordes. VVhen the lorde had opened hys eyes, thinkinge hym selfe no longer tyed to hys vnaduised and superstitiouse vovv, he ma∣ryed in the lorde, and all this vvas laufull. But how soeuer you name the lorde (M. Chark) to couer this lasciuiouse lecherie of a renegate frier with his vowed ladie: yet I haue shewed before, out of the auncient fathers, that this pretended mariage, on bothe partes was esteemed worse than adulterie in the primatiue churche: whe∣reof he that will see more, lett hym read. S. Basil de mo∣nast. const. cap. 22.34. & 35. Also quest. 14. fuse explicat. Also S. Augustin in Psal. 78. & 99. also Concill. Chal∣ced. cap. 26. Also fulgentius de fide ad Pet. ca. 3. And fi∣nallie S. Leo. ep. 92. ad Rusticum.

But now to the doctrines them selues, * 1.166 in whiche I will be as short as I may in defence of my reportes, being moste true, as shall appeare by luthers owne wordes, and that in those books of his, and editions whiche are to be had in England publiquelie: So that the aduersarie shall haue no more refuge to saye he can not finde the booke. And as M. Charks vntrue dealing hathe bene indifferentlie discryed by that which went before: so shall it be muche more by these doctrines of Luther. And because bothe M. Hanmer and M. Charke haue taken vppon them seuerallye to answer the same: I will couple them together, where soeuer they haue any thing woorthe the notinge, aduertising the reader by the waie, that whereas Luther hathe diuerse editiōs of his woorks, and diuerse of them diuerslie trāslated, * 1.167 out of duche into latin: he must not maruayle yf the same booke some tymes haue diuerse titles, though I meane now to cyte them vnder such names (as nighe as I can) as they are to be sene, in the editiō of wittenber∣ge sett furthe, and as I haue seene them my selfe in En∣gland by melancthon Anno 1562.

The first doctrine.

Fyrst then, * 1.168 I affirmed Luther to teache, that there is no synne but incredulytie: neyther can a man damne hym selfe, (do vvhat mischefe he can) except he vvill refuse to be∣leue. M. Hanmer denieth not this doctrine: but defen∣deth it: * 1.169 onelye addinge, that I haue racked Luthers vvoor∣des vpon the tentors of preiudice: and then sheweth at large how all synnes doe lye sooking in the roote of incredu••itie. VVhiche is some what too fine for me to vnderstand. M. Chark goeth further, sayeing: * 1.170 I may plainlie pronounce that in this place you doe in vvoords and matter reporte an open vntruthe: For M. Luther hathe no suche doctrine. Heere is no agreemēt in the deffēders, the one graūtinge it, & the other so flatly denyeynge the same. But who wolde think M. Charke could answer thus without blushing? * 1.171 heare Luthers owne woordes: Ita vides quàm diues sit homo Christianus, siue Baptizatus, qui etiam volens non potest perdere salutem suam, quantiscun{que} peccatis, nisi nolit cre∣dere.

Nulla enim peccata eum possunt damnare nisi sola in∣credulitas: So thou seest how riche a Christian man is, who can not leese his saluation (though he wolde) with neuer so great sinnes, except he will not beleeue. For no synnes can damne hym but onelie incredulitie.

Again, in the same tome he sayeth: * 1.172 Infidelitas sola turbatio est conscientiae: onelie infidelitie is a trouble of conscience. Is not heere now as muche as I haue sayed? If nothing must trouble a mans conscience, but onelie vnbeleefe: then nothing is sinne but onelye vnbeleefe. Again, yf a man can not leese his saluation yf he wolde, neuer so fayne, (by committing neuer so greate sinnes) except he will not beleeue: then may a man doe what he will, so he fall not into incredulitie. But yet to shame these shamelesse men; a litle further, and to shew the wicked licentiouse doctrine of this loose apostata: heare more what he sayeth in an other place. Nihil prauum facit praeter infide∣litatem. Nothing maketh a man euell besides infidelitie. * 1.173 And a litle after he concludeth thus: Ex hiis omnibus se∣quitur, {quod} nullum vs{que} in terris sit peccatum preter incredu∣litatem:

Of all this that I haue sayed, enseweth that there is no sinne any where vpon the earthe besides incredu∣litie.

Now lett the world iudge whe••her I haue repor∣ted Luther amisse, or whether M. Chark be a true mā, in denyeinge the matter so absolutely & with suche vehe∣mencie as he dothe, affirming that Luther nether in woordes or matter hath anye such thing. VVill you be∣leeue hym in other things which faceth a lye so open∣ly in this. But a lacke the poore man must saye somwhat, for credites sake in their broken cause.

The second doctrine.

* 1.174Secondlie I reported Luther to say, the tenne com∣maundemēts appertaine nothing to vs: VVhich verie woor∣des bothe M. Hanmer and M. Charke doe graunt to be in Luther. Marie they make long discourses vpon his meanyng, whereby it is easie to putt on a colourable defence or excuse vpon any thing. But lett the reader consider•• how these woordes doe sownd in the eares of the people, especiallie being ioyned with the doctrine

goeing before, of onelie vnbeleefe to be sinne. And al∣beyt it be true which M. Chark sheweth out of S. Paul that we are not vnder the ceremoniall lawe of the Ie∣wes any longer: Yet this can not verifye luthers woords that the tenne commaundements appertayne nothing to vs. No, nor that which M. Hanmer alleageth out of Luther as interpreting hym selfe, sayeing, that the tēne cōman∣dementes appertaine to all, but not for that they vvere com∣maunded by Moyses: but for that they are vvriten in the na∣ture of euery man: For that by this means they should no more appertaine to vs than vnto g••ntiles, into whose nature also they were writé. But S. Augustin doeth pro∣ue that the ten commaundementes doe appertayne to Christians, * 1.175 not onely more than vnto Gentiles, but also more than vnto the Iewes them selues, to whō they we∣re prescribed by Moyses. And Christ saieth, talkinge of this part of the law, called Morall: * 1.176 I came not to breake the lavv, but to fullfill yt. And S. Paul sayeth: VVe doe not de∣s••roye the lavv by faithe, but doe establishe the lavv therby.

The third doctrine.

Thirdlie, * 1.177 I reported of Luther that he sayd: It is a fal∣se opinion & to be abolished, that there are fovver gospells. For the gospell of Iohn is the onelie fayre, true, and principall gos∣pell. This report M. Hanmer graunteth wholie. M. Chark graunteth the effect of the first and cheefe vvoordes, but the latter, concerning S. Iohns gospell he findeth not: And there∣vpon thinketh that Luther neuer wrote any suche pre∣face to the new testament as I cyte, and therewithall inueigheth against me, as citing at large, and often times bookes vvhiche are not found: as that de missa angulari: Also as layeing downe one title for an other, and the like. For answere whereof & other suche cauylls of our ad∣uersaries against vs in citing of Luthers woorkes, * 1.178 yt is to be noted, that Luther wrote not all in latin, but many things in duche, whiche are notwithstanding alleaged by many men in latin, skillfull in the duche tougue•• Af∣ter this, diuerse men translated diuerse partes of Lu∣thers woorks, & gaue them titles accordinge as yt see∣med good to them, as may appeare by the diuerse ti∣tles

alleaged here by M. Chark and me, of the selfe same woorke. Beside this, there be diuerse prints and editiōs of Luthers woorks, whiche doe greatlie varie. VVhe∣reupon hathe ensewed greate quarell in Germanie be∣twene the roughe and the softe Lutheranes, about the false and corrupt edition of Luthers vvorkes. And this trea∣tise, * 1.179 whiche M. Charke dowteth of, de Missa angulari so printed, and alleaged by all learned men hitherto, is now come furthe (except I be deceaued) in the edition of wittenberge (thoghe muche altered) vnder this title de Missa priuata, & vnctione sacerdotum. Mary yet Ges∣nerus a Caluinist maketh mention of fyue treatises de Missa priuata, whiche are not to be gotten in England, as I imagin: and yet it were no reason to say therfore, that no suche treatises were euer writen by Luther, as M. Charke dothe. Further more, Luther hym selfe often chaunged his owne woorkes: as the same Gesner testi∣fieth that the book whiche he wrote against kyng hen∣rye in latin, was nothinge lyke that he wrote before against the same in duche. Besyde this, dyuerse other did alter Luthers woorkes, bothe Suinglians and luthe∣rans euen in Luthers owne tyme, therby to draw hym to theyr deuises, and partes. * 1.180 And of Suinglians, Luther hym selfe complaineth greuouslie, against Martin Bu∣cer. And of Lutherans, it appeareth not onelie by the contention aboue named, abovvt the corrupt edition of Lu∣thers vvoorkes: But also by the often altering of the con∣fession of Augusta, writen by Luther and Melancthon, and accounted as a Gospell amonge the Germane pro∣testantes, yea preferred before the Epistles of S. Paul, * 1.181 as Alasco a Caluiniste dothe write, but yet many tymes altered, as ye may see in Andrevv fabritius, which hath putt furthe all the editions from the beginning, muche differing & repugning one from an other: by all which appeareth, that heretiques doe prepare them selues starting holes for all needes.

But now to the matter: Albeit M. Charke and M. Hanmer doe glose vpon the woordes of Luther, & wolde haue hym say onelie, that the fower gospels

were but one gospell, and the lyke: yet the matter is playne to hym that is not partiall, that Luther speaketh in detraction of the three former gospells: for whiche cause he sayeth in the place by M. Charke alleaged, * 1.182 you may more rightlie call the epistles of Paul a gospell, than those things vvhich Mathevv, Marke, & Luke haue vvritten. VVhiche signifieth some toothe against these three gospells. Now for the last point touching S. Iohns Gos∣pell, it is to be seene ī the preface by me alleaged: which yf you can not finde: it is not my fault. * 1.183 For that such a preface is extant, & that in latin: yf you will not beleeue me: reade but the Index of Luthers latin woorkes in Coclaeus, where you shall finde it named: As also in Ges∣nerus (one of your owne religion) in the Cataloge of Luthers woorks, fo. 504. suae bibliothecae. And in that preface you shall reade, not onelie so muche as I haue affirmed: but also these woordes: The epistles of Paul and Peter doe farre passe the three gospells of Mathevv, Mark, and Luke: * 1.184 VVhich yet more proueth Luthers euell opi∣nion of those three gospells. And immediatlie it fo∣loweth: Iacobi autem epistola, prae illis straminea est: The epistle of Iames is of straw, in respect of those of Paul and Peter: which I haue added, * 1.185 to shew the intollerable impudēcie of you & your felowes in the Tower against M. Campian: for that he could not presentlie shew out of your bookes, where these woordes were written by Luther: especiallye of M. VVhitaker: who (to the admi∣ration & laughter of all other natiōs) hathe set foorthe in latyn, that Luther neuer called the Epistle of S. Iames Stramineam, a stravven epistle: this is that (I say) that ma∣keth men to think, that you are gyuen ouer to a despe∣rate resolutiō, to mayntaine an euell cause, euen against your owne consciences, when you blush not to auow suche open vntruthes. * 1.186 For I am sure that whitaker being a reader in diuinitie could not chuse but haue redde those woordes alleaged by learned men, aboue an hundred times against Luther: and yet he denieth them as confidentlie, as yf he had neuer heard of the matter. VVhat may be sayd to suche men?

* 1.187For my anotation, anexed to Luthers woordes: expounding them as vttered against the former three gospells, for that they speake to muche of good vvoorks: though you affirme it to proceede of want of exercise and iudgement in scripture, (wherein you think your selfe onelie to excell:) yet is it moste true and discried by Luther hym selfe in the place alleaged, and argueth in you some ignorance ioyned with more pride, in not knowing, or dissembling that these three gospells haue many things touching good woorkes, (contrarie to Luthers bare faythe and credulitie,) whiche are not set downe in S. Iohn expresselie: as of the necessitie of the commaundements, and lyfe euerlasting, gyuen for ke∣ping the same Math. 19. Of the paye due vnto good woorks Math 20. Of the retribution whiche they shall haue in the resurrection of the iust Luc. 14. Of the re∣warde of euery cuppe of water gyuen for Christ: Math. 10. Marc 9. And many other the like, whiche are not sett downe expresselie in S. Iohn: though I know, he wri∣ting with the same spirit, could not but haue many thinges to the same effect.

The fovvrthe doctrine.

* 1.188The fowrthe doctrine of Luther was, Yf any vvo∣man can not or vvill not proue by order of lavve, the insuffi∣ciencie of her hus••and: Let her request at his hands a diuor∣se: or else (by his consen••) let her priuilie lye vvith his brother, or vvith some other men. This M. Hanmer vtterlie de∣nieth, and calleth it my shamel••sse reporte, with other most bytter woordes, as yf their had neuer bene any suche things writen by Luther. * 1.189 Mary M. Charke taketh an other way in answering. For he * 1.190 confesseth the whole matter, but seketh to returne the shame thereof to vs. True it is (sayeth he) Luther gaue this euell counsaile, but as he ansvvereth hym selfe, he dyd it vvhē he vvas yet among you But novv (sayeth he, speaking of the tyme after his con∣uersion) my mynde is to geeue other counsaile. And then M. Charke (as hauing taken a great aduātage against me) exclaymeth with all his force: VVhat holie vvritings can be free from your foule reproches, yf you vvill thus reade a

peece of a sentence against the manifest purpose of the vvri∣ter? * 1.191 You haue reason M. Chark: and yf the matter goe so cleare against me, as you make yt: I ask no perdone, but let me be discredited for euer. But yf you haue shewed here suche a peece of willfull and shamelesse dishone∣stie, as can not be excused: how will yow looke your owne freends in the face hereafter? Let vs then exa∣myne the matter. First I graunt that Luther sayeth, that he vvrote this counsaile for confessors, or such as heard con∣fessions, vvhen he vvas yet in feare of the pope. For so are his wordes. But yet that this was after his Apostacie frō the Catholique Religion, or (as you terme it) after his con∣uersion to your Gospell, (for many yeres after he stoo∣de in feare of the pope, and sayd nothing against con∣fession): * 1.192 yt appeareth euidentlie by his whole discour∣se in the place alleaged: where he sayeth plainlie (be∣side other things) that the papists dyd seeke aduaunta∣ge against hym for this opinion of his, and to that ende dyd misreporte his woordes (as he sayeth:) besides, you knowe that papists teache no suche doctrine, but the plain cōtrarie, & therfore he coulde not mādare literis as his woordes are that he did: that is, he coulde not put in vvriting & publishe suche a doctrine among vs, but he wol∣de haue bene resisted presentlie, yf he had bene of our churche at that tyme. So that this shyft of youres is euidentlie false: that he wrote it when he was a papist, For albeit, he being not yet sufficientely fortified wi∣th fryndes to defend hym stood in feare of Antichrist, as he tearmeth him, and consequentely durst not brea∣ke any further to the open execution of this beaste∣ly doctrine, as afterward he dyd: yet had he left papi∣strie, as you call it, a good whyle before, as appeareth by his owne wordes; and by computation of the tyme wherin he wrote this booke.

But now to the second point, whiche is the chee∣fest. Yow affirm (and I confesse) that Luther sayeth: But novv I vvould gyue other counsaile: But what? wold he re∣uoke that he had sayde? speake M. Chark, or else you are shamed. VVolde he reuoke his sentēce (I say) being

now out of the feare of the pope••no: * 1.193 but he will doe muche worse. For whereas before he dyd but counsai∣le the husbād to permitt his wyfe to lye with an other: Now being pope hym selfe of Germany, & owt of feare of the pope of Rome, he will compell hym to yt. And how, trow yow? as the pope of Rome doeth compell mē, by excommunication? No, but by taking hym by the locks (for those are his ruffianlie woordes) he wolde towze hym except he dyd yt. I will recite luthers owne stile, that you may see where true and false dealinge ys.

Thus then he gyueth the wyfe counsayle and au∣thoritie to speake to her husband. * 1.194 Ecce marite, debitam mihi beneuolentiam praestare nō potes, meque & iuuenile cor∣pus decepisti &c. Faue quaeso vt cum fratre tuo, aut proxime tibi sanguine iuncto, occultum matrimonium paciscar, sic vt tu nomen habeas, ne res tuae in alienos haeredes perueniant: ac sine vt spōte tua a me decipiare, quemadmodum & tu prae∣ter voluntatem meam imposuisti mihi. Perrexi porro, maritum debere in ea re assentiri vxori: quod si renuat, ipsa clandestina fuga saluti suae consulat, & in aliam profecta terrā, alii etiā nubat. Consilium tale iam tum impertii, cum adhuc me deti∣neret pauor antechristi: nunc verò secus longè consulere ani∣mus esset, talique marito, qui adeo mulierem deludat dolis, vehementius lanificium (immissa manu) conuellerem, vt vul∣go dici solet.

Idem de muliere iudico, quàmquàm id rarius sit quâm in viris. In english thus: Beholde husband, you cā not performe the frendshipp you owe me, and you ha∣ue deceiued bothe me and my youthfull bodie: be cō∣tent (I pray you) that I bargaine a secret mariage with your brother, or with some next of your kynne, in suche sorte as you may still beare the name, to the en∣de your goods may not passe to straunge heyres: And permit your selfe to be deceyued willinglye of me, as you haue deceyued me against my will. And I went yet further (sayeth Luther) and affirmed that the husband ought to geue consent to his wife in this matter: and that yf he refused: then shee might prouide for her he∣althe by secret flyeing from him: and goeinge into an

other countrie, might marie an other.

This counsaile I gaue when I was yet in feare of Antichrist. But now my mynde should be to geue farre other counsaile, * 1.195 that is, layeing my hands vppon the locks of suche a husbād that should so craftelie deceyue a woman, I wold shake hym (as the prouerbe is) and that vehementlie: and the same is my Iudgement of the woman also: albeit it fal∣leth out more seldome in women than in men to nee∣de this counsaile.

Now let the reader Iudge, whether M. Charke be a true man or no, in cutting of the woordes that folowed immediatlie in Luther, after the sentence by hym allea∣ged: * 1.196 and notwithstandinge, with a moste impudent face to crye out, and insult against me, as reading a peece of Luthers sentēce, against the manifest purpose of the vvriter? can this be excused from extreme impudencie, and moste willfull falsehoode against his owne cōscience? Lett hym defend this yf he can with all the helpes and deuises of his felowes: or else lett the reader by this one point of open dishonestie discouered, Iudge of the rest of their dealings with vs, & of their slaundering of vs without all cōsciēce, in their sermons, where they are sure not to be controlled. Luthe•• goeth on to inueigh against that * 1.197 husband, that wolde not in this case per∣mitt his wyfe to lye with an other, he being not hable to serue her turne hym selfe, & cōcludeth egregie deberee solucre eiusmodi imposturam: that he ought to pay sweetly for deceauing her so. And in an other place he sayeth: * 1.198 that yf a man haue tenne vvyues or more ••ledde frō hym vpon like causes, he may take more: & so may vvyues doe the lyke in husbands. VVhereupon Alberus (one of your owne religion) noteth, that IOHANNES Leidensis tooke many wyues, and one KNIPPERDOLLINGE tooke thirtene for his parte. So that this doctrine was not onelie taught, but also practized vpon Luthers authoritie.

The fifthe dostrine.

Fyftlye, Luther is reported to teache, * 1.199 Yf the vvyfe vvill not come: let the mayd come. To this M. Hanmer an∣swereth: You ••ather vpon Luther an impudent slaunder

being not in deede his ovvne vvordes, but alleaged by hym as spoken by an other. M. Charke graunteth them absolu∣telye, to be Luthers owne woordes, but seeketh an in∣terpretation for Luthers meanyng: sayeing, In this place Luther speaketh of a thyrd cause of diuorse, vvhen the vvomā shall obstinatlye refuse her husbands companie. So that these men doe litle care what they answer, so they say some∣what: and we may see how trymlye they doe agree. But the truthe is, they are Luthers owne wordes deliuered to the husband to vse to his wyfe: as the woordes be∣fore were for the wyfe to vse against her husband: and they can not be excused eyther by M. Hanmers shame∣lesse deniall, or by M. Charks impartinent interpreta∣tion: thus they stand in Luther: * 1.200 Hic nunc oportunum est, vt maritus dicat: si tu nolueris, alia volet: si domina nolit, adueniat ancilla.

Here now is oportunitie, for the hus∣bande to say to the wyfe: yf you will not, an other will: yf the mistresse will not, lett the handmayde come.

And that this was practized in Germanie, * 1.201 (to all kynde of lasciuiousenesse) yea among the ministers them selues Sebastian flaske (a preacher once of Luthers owne fa∣milie) doeth testifie. And when you are not a shamed to defend the doctrine: you are more bolde than the Lu∣therans them selues, who for verie shame doe suppresse the Germane booke, * 1.202 wherein it was written, as Cro∣merus a Germane testifieth. And Smideline hathe no other waye to answere it against Staphilus, but to aske, vvhy Luther might not retract this, as S. Austē dyd mani•• thinges? but yet proueth not that euer he offered to recant it. Now whereas you seeke to couer this disho∣nest doctrine of your prophet, by alleaging two posi∣tions of the Catholiques about deuorse in mariage, as absurd in your sight as this: the one, that a man may de∣uorce hym selfe from his vvyfe, for being a bondvvoman, yf he kuevv it not before the mariage: the other, that he may do the same for couetousnes in her, by Peter lombards: opinion the first is true: & allowed by all lawes of nature, Ciuill, and Canon, & that vpon great reason: for that he which marieth a bondwoman vnwittinglie, leeseth his free

choyse by ignorance, * 1.203 nor can not haue power ouer her bodie (as mariage requireth,) she beyng in bondage to other. Also he can not beget childeren but bonde, cum partus sequatur ventrem: And cōsequentlie can not bring them vpp, at his pleasure, nor instruct them necessari∣lie: which things doe repugne to the state of mariage. The second, albeit it be but the sayeing of one man, yet his meanyng is, that yf this couetousnes, or other no∣toriouse vice of the wyfe, should break out to the hus∣bands notable dammage, or daunger, (as yf she should fall to stealing, or the like:) then he might dimittere eam (as lombards woordes are:) that is, dimisse her from his companie: but not dissolue the knott of wedlock: as bo∣the S. Thomas doeth expounde it 3. p. q. 59. art. 6. and Dominicus Sotus in 4. sent. dist. 39. art 4. But yet what are all these things to the lasciuiouse doctrine of Mar∣tin Luther?

The last fovver doctrines.

The other fower doctrines foloweing, for that you graun•• them as they lye, & think them sownd enough to ••tand with your gospell: I nede not to repeat, in par∣ticular, or alleage other places, where Luther holdeth the same. By your Censure they are currāt, Catholique, and good. But yet in the first where you preferre matri∣monie before virginitie, * 1.204 yt may be noted of the reader for examples sake, how farre you differ from the spirit of the primatiue churche, whiche condemned this posi∣tion, as an intolerable heresie, in IOVINIAN and others, onelye to make equall matrimonie with virginitie: as appeareth by S. Ierome in his two moste learned and vehement bookes against Iouinian: and by S. Augustin, recounting the 82. heresie of his time.* 1.205 And by S. Am∣brose also in his epistle to Syricius the pope, and by other fathers. And yf this auncient churche, (whiche our aduersaries in woordes will graunt to be the true and pure churche) dyd detest this heresie in IOVINIAN, HELVIDIVS, & BASILIDES:

I mean, to affirme matrimo∣nie paris esse meriti cum virginitate, as their woordes are: that is, to be of equall meritt with virginitie: what

wolde the same churche doe to M. Luther, & M Chark, for preferringe mariage before virginitie?

And yf (to omitt all others) S. Cyprian, Athanasius, Basil, Ambrose Chrisostom, and S. Augustin,* 1.206 did write whole books in commendation and preferment of virginitie aboue all other states of lyfe, comparing it to the lyfe of Angels, and affirming the dignitie thereof, to be incomparable: what wolde they haue sayd, yf they had heard the ba∣se scurrill, & impiouse woordes of M. Luther de natura statuum in sese, * 1.207 as his owne explication ys: that is, of the verie nature of these tvvo states in them selues, with out re∣spect of abuse or good vse: to affirme (I saye) matrimo∣nium esse velut aurum, the state of matrimonie to be as golde: and the other state of virginitie and continencie to be vti Stercus ad impietatem promouens. Like stinkinge dung promoting to impietie. * 1.208 Can any thing be spoken more abiect, or more cōtradictorie to the scriptures, & fathers than this? can hell be more opposit to heauē, thā the carnalitie of this apostata to the spirit of all saincts?

Againe in your second doctrine, where you affir∣me that Christ & S. Paul dyd not counsayle but dissuade vir∣ginitie to Christians: * 1.209 can any thing be more contrary to Christ and S. Paules sayeinges, or the auncient fathers interpretation of their woordes? I haue no precept from Christ, but I geue counsaile (sayeth S. Paul:) he that marieth his virgin doeth vvell, but he that marieth her not, doeth bet∣ter: Is this to dissuade or to counsail, M. Chark? There be Eunuches vvhiche haue gelded them selues for the kyngdo∣me of heauen: he that can take yt: Lett hym take yt, sayeth Christ: doeth this dissuade or rather prouoke to virgi∣nitie & cōtinencie?

Quasi hortantis vox domini est (sayeth S. Ierom) & milites suos ad pudicitiae praemium concitantis, qui potest capere capiat, qui potest pugnare pugnet, superet ac triumphet. * 1.210 It is the voyce of our lorde, as exhortinge and styrring vpp his soldiours to the rewarde of chastitie: he that can take it, lett hym take yt, he that can fight, let hym fight, conquer and triumphe.

VVith S. Ierome do agree all the holy fathers in this exposition: And william Charck can not bringe me one in this case to

the contrarye: that is, to speake for preferment of hym and his wyfe before virgins.

The thyrd doctrine, * 1.211 touching the necessitie of a vvo∣man to euerie man, to be as grea•• as the necessitie of eating: drinking or sleeping, (whiche also importeth that he may not well misse her fower and twenty houres to gether,) I maruaile you were not a shamed to maintaine: espe∣cialie yf you add that other sentence of Luther to it: * 1.212 verum est profectò eum lenonem esse oportere qui matrimo∣nium fugiat, post{que} marem & faeminam cōmixtionis & mul∣tiplicationis causa deus condidit.

It is true verilie, that he must nedes be a bawde that flyeth matrimony, seing God hath created man and woman for copulation and multiplications sake. A wyse reason of a lecherouse apostata: for by this, euery man must eyther couple and multiplie, or else be a bawde.

How say you then of your present superintendētes of Canterburie & Salesburie? will you saye they are bawdes? Nay, how saye you to all those true holye byshops named before, of the prima∣tiue churche, as Athanasius, Cyprian, Ambrose, Chriso∣stom, Basil, and Austen, whoe, bothe lyued without wo∣mē them selues, and wrote seuerall bookes in the pray∣se and commendation of that lyfe, were they all baw∣des without exception?

For your last doctrine wherby you holde your sel∣ues, and all Christians, to be as holie and iust as the mother of God and the Apost••es vvere: * 1.213 I maruaile not. For yf you had not this badge of intolerable pride, you should not be knowne to be as you are. And albeit you wold seeme to mollifie the matter, by sayeing, * 1.214 all are aequall in res∣pect of Christ, notvvithstanding there may be inequalitie in their guysts.

Yet Luthers woordes are plaine: omnes Chri∣stiani aeque sancti sunt ac mater dei: all Christians are as holie, as the mother of God. And (to exclude your glose of inequalitie of guyfts) he addeth, * 1.215 pares sumus Petro & Paulo & deiparae virgini, bona{que} omnia habemus tā largiter {quam} illi: vve are equall to Peter and Paul, & to the mother of God, and we haue all goodnesse as plentifully as they had.

Yf all (M. Charke) then was there no inequalitie in

measure, * 1.216 as vnder hand for a mollifycation you would seeme to graunt: but yet in deede you may not, in this our case. For we talke of the measure of those thinges onelie, whiche make men more iust and holie: that is, of grace and merit: The whiche yf you graunt to be mo∣re in measure in the saincts, than in your selues: then graunt you them to be more holie, and so, flatt against your owne position here defended. Yf you denie yt: & make them no more holy thē your selues, or any other Christians (as in deed you doe:) then (besides the appa∣rent absurditie of the thinge,) haue you against you S. Ciprian de disciplina virg. S. Ierom. li. 2. cont. Iouin. S. Augustin de S. virg. cap. 26. And Theodoret in c. 15. ep. 1. ad cor. whiche proue of purpose bothe by scriptures, examples, and theological reasons, that the merites of men and revvardes are vnequal. Also S. Ambrose in ca. 6. Luc. S. Chrisostom hom. 22. in ep. ad hebr, S. Augustin l. 22. de ciuit. ca 30. And S. Gregorie hom. 15. in Ezech: whiche proue expresselie, the in equalitie of grace geuen to men in this lyfe, and different glorie correspondent to the same grace, in the next. Also you haue against you all the primatiue churche, whiche condemned your opinion for a flatt heresie in Iouinian as S. Augustin testifieth in heresi 82. and S. Ierom. l. 2. cōtra Iouin. which church also condē∣ned the same heresie in a Councell of Aphrica called Thelense, almoste twelue hundred yeres gone, appro∣ued by S. Ambrose in an epistle of his to Siricius the pope: * 1.217 where also he addeth: agrestis vlulatus est diuersorū gradus abrogare meritorum: yt is a barbarouse howling to abrogate the degrees of diuersitie of merits. And the same Ambrose answereth your friuolouse obiection, that God is no acceptour of persons, * 1.218 thus Acceptor deus per∣sonarum non est, sed meritorum at{que} virtutum: God is no ac∣ceptor of persones, but yet an acceptor of merites and vertues. Finallie, albeit you rayle at Dionysius Areopa∣gita for this matter, calling hym, bastard Denice, whose legitimation (besides infinite other testimonies) was acknowleged in two generall councels: not muche lesse than a thousand yeres gone: * 1.219 yet the matter is playne by

experiēce, yf not otherwise. For yf he be iust and holie according to S. Iohns definition, qui iustitiam facit: * 1.220 that workethe rightuousnes: (which comprehendeth all ma∣ner of vertues and iust lyfe:) then your neighbours (I wene) will beare witnesse, that you ministers are some∣what behinde S. Peter and S. Paul, and the mother of God, in holynesse and rigtuousnesse of lyfe, what so∣euer you say in your owne commendation, to the con∣trarye.

And thus now haue you seene these nyene points alleaged (for examples sake) owt of martyne Luthers doctrine, which M. Charke calleth, diuine and cleare do∣ctrine &, defended by hym faithefully, as he saythe, against my slaunders. But whether I haue iustified my reportes or no, so often named false and intolerable slaunders by M. Chark: I leaue to the iudgement of my verie aduer∣saries them selues. But whether M. Charke haue defen∣ded fai••hefully or no: the former disco••rses haue de∣clared. And finallie, whether the doctrine be diuine and cleare, as M. Chark affirmeth: I referre it to the consi∣deration of the discrete and godlie reader. For cleare∣nesse I will not stryue: for you see yt is vttered with full mouth (according to his fashion) from Martin Luther: but surelie for diuinesse I see lytle therein, except M. Chark meane black diuinitie, suche as Martins familiar could teache hym: whereof we shall haue presentlie more occasion to entreate.

Marie to call it licentiouse and carnall doctrine (as the Cēsure dyd) me thinketh there was great reasō. * 1.221 For yf a Christian man can not damne him selfe with any sinne except he will refuse to beleue: And yf the ten commaundementes appertaine nothing to hym: Again, yf to kepe virginitie & resist the pleasures of the flesh be neyther commendable (for that mariage is far bet∣ter:) nor possible, seing a wyfe is as necessarie as meat drinke or sleepe: beside this, yf when he hathe tasted one wyfe, he may vpon causes, lye with her sister, or the next of her kynne: and yf these wold be obstinate, he may take the mayde in steade of the mistresse: and

with all this, may be (notwithstandinge) as holie, and as iust as euer was Peter, or Paul, or the mother of God her selfe: yf all this (I say) be true, as Martin Luther warran∣teth vs, * 1.222 & william Chark defendeth: who can complay∣ne of the hard waye to heauē? who can saye iustelie, the gate is straite, seing this good frier, and his frende ha∣ue eased yt so fauorablie? but now lett vs heare the rest of the Censure.

Other doctrines of Luther, and of Caluine and Beza.

THE CENSVRE

I Leaue other infinite beastlie (1.) * 1.223 doctrines vvhiche he taught: for the inuention vvhereof he had much conference vvith the 2.) * 1.224 deuill hym selfe, vvhom byshoppe Lindan, * 1.225 and diuers others vvrite•• to haue bene seene talke bodyly vvith hym, by men of verie great credit. And Luther hym selfe cōfesseth in his vvorkes, that he had often and familiar speeche vvith hym, and that he vvas first moued by hym to vvrite against the Masse, in the yere 1534. He also de∣scribeth his voyce, sayeing, that it vvas so terrible, huge, and dreedefull, that he vvas lyke to dye diuers times, after the nightes conference vvith hym. And that diuers men vvere slayne by such conferēce. Not∣vvithstanding it vvas his chaunce to escape, albeit (as he sayeth) he dyd eate more than a bushell of salte together vvith this deuill. But yet neuerthelesse he vvas deceyued in the end, as all men are that deale vvith suche Marchantes (3.) * 1.226 For Luther goeing one night droūke to bed (as Hosius vvriteth) vvas founde there the next day dead, * 1.227 slayne (as it thought) by this familiar deuil. For he vvas a pitifull creature to looke on (as Sainctes describeth) all blacke, vvith his tongue lyeing out, as a man strangled And this vvas the end of Luther after almost thirtie yeres lyuing in all

kinde of sensualitie, pryde, and dissention, not onelie vvith the Catholique churche (4) * 1.228 but also vvith his ovvne broode, * 1.229 and ofspring Carolostadius, Oecolam∣padius, Bucer, and Zuinglius, parents of the protestāts religion, vvhom he persecuted, cursed and cōdemned, to the very pytt of hell, for damned heretiques, as yet appeareth in his bookes vvriten against them. VVhe∣refore, vvhether the protestants, or the Iesuits, may be more a shamed of their first father, let the indifferent reader iudge (5.) * 1.230 There is the lyke lyfe or vvorse, vvritten of Caluin by a fenshe man that lyued vvith hym, of the same religion at that time, and vvas trās∣lated into English by a countrye man of ours, & had bene put in prynt ere this, had not my Lord of Lōdon, by an euill chaunce, gotten the copie in to his handes.

THE DEFENCE.

M•• Charke wolde haue men think that I vse but a Rhetoricall figure, in sayeing, that I passe ouer many other absurd doctrines of Martin Luther: whereas in dede (by his sayeing) I haue cited all I can. But I am su∣re, he is not of that mynde hym selfe, hauynge read so∣me part of Luthers woorkes, as appeareth by his replie: wherin are to be seene; so many grosse absurdities, * 1.231 as ne∣uer the like in any man that euer wrote. VVhiche hathe happened by the speciall prouidence of God, to disco∣uer the spirit wherby this new prophet was directed. For matter of licentiouse libertie the examples before recited may suffice, for a taste. In matter of ribauldrie I coulde alleage more: of scurrilitie infinite: of shamelesse falsehoodes, without number. But I will note onelye one or two thinges of impietie, as they lye together in one treatise, that you haue in England, and defended [ 1] by hym obstinatelie, after they were condemned by the churche, being in deede certaine positions, whiche cut the very synowes of all vertue, & doe opē the highe

waye to all dissolutiō, As for example, * 1.232 when he holdeth that the verye iust man in euerye good vvorke doeth synne mortallie: How doeth he discourage all men from do∣einge good? when he sayeth, A man hathe not in his po∣vver to do euell: how doeth he encourage all lewd peo∣ple ••ō wickednesse, deliuering them from the fault the∣reof? VVhen he teacheth, * 1.233 that to fight against the Turke is to resist god hym selfe: what a pathe maketh he to the Em∣pire of infidelitie? VVhen he reprehendeth the pope for defining beside scripture animam esse immortalem: * 1.234 that the soule is immortall: and calleth it portētum sterquilinii Ro∣mani: A monstre of the dunghill of Rome: what ground of impietie dothe he not laye? when he affirmeth and maytaineth, * 1.235 that neyther man nor angel on earthe can lay anie one lavv vpon anie one Christian, further than he vvill hym selfe: VVhat foundation doeth not he ouerthrow of all Christian common wealthes?

[ 2] For the bodilie and sensible conference whiche Martin Luther had with the deuill: * 1.236 it is a wonder to see with what face M. Chark can denye it, (as he doeth) and rayle at the reuerend byshopp Lyndan for repor∣ting the same: seyng the Tigurine Caluinistes (as I haue shewed before) do giue testimonie of it: and Luther also confessethe it hym selfe, in the places alleaged in the Cēsure. And albeit M. Charke hathe a shyft to saye, that he can not fynde the booke of Luther cited de Missa angulari, alleaged (as he confesseth) by all the lear∣ned of our age against Luther: yet can not his impudē∣cie be couered: for that he quoteth hym selfe an other booke of Luthers, * 1.237 intituled de Missa priuata & vnctione sacerdotum yf it be not the verie same, somewhat alte∣red:) wherein (though translated by Iustus Ionas, Mar∣tin Luthers owne cooke, * 1.238 and consequ••ntlie sawced to his maisters toothe:) yet might he see the principall points of this conference set downe (at leastwise at one tyme,) where Luthers woordes are these Con••igi•• me semel sub mediam noctem subitò expergesieri. Ibi Sathan m••cū coepit eiusmodi disputationem: Audi (inquit) Luthere * 1.239 do∣ctor perdocte & ce. It happened that once I awaked about

mydnight (sayth Luther,) and then Sathan began this disputation with me: Harken (sayeth he) right learned doctor Luther. And then the deuyll layeth downe fyue long argumentes against the masse, adding in the ende: * 1.240 Age, prome, vbi scriptum est, vbi iussit aut praecepit hoc deus? Goe to now, shew me, where is the Masse wri∣ten in scripture? where hathe God commaunded yt? After this, Luther putteth hys owne answers to the de∣uyll, and the deuilles replies: to whiche in processe, his being not able to answer, finallie yeelded, to banishe the masse vpon the deuils appointement. And this was the honorable beginning of Luthers conuersion, * 1.241 and of all protestancie, by the expresse woordes and confession of the first beginner hym selfe.

But heere william Charke hathe a shyft for this fowle matter, sayeing, that this conference of Luther vvith the deuyll, vvas no other than suche a temptation or conflict, as Christ and Saint Paul had vvith Sathan: that is, it vvas no bodilie conference, but a spirituall fight in mynde, sayeth this minister. O fond and blasphemous euasion. Suppose it had bene onelie a spirituall temptation in mynde, suche as the conflictes of Christ and S. Paul were: yet the cō∣parison is impious: for nether Christ, nor S. Paul dyd euer yeelde to the persuasions of the deuill, as Martin Luther dyd in banishing the masse. And this is the diffe∣rence betwene euill and good men in this lyfe: that bo∣the beinge assaulted with persuasions from the deuill: the one yeeldeth to them, * 1.242 and the other resistethe.

Secōdlie, it is euidēt, that this cōferēce of Martin Lu∣ther was more than spirituall: as appeareth by the deuil∣les preface, wherein he calleth the fryar, right learned doctor, according to the veine of pryde wherwith he saw hym puffed vpp, and therby redye to receyue his im∣pressions. The same appeareth also, by the sound of Sa∣thans voyce described in the place alleaged in the Cē∣sure: but especiallie, * 1.243 for that in this place Luther con∣fesseth some of his felowes to haue bene slayne by this conferēce. For these are his woordes: Et ego plane persisa∣sus sum Emserum, & Oecolampadium, & similes, ••iis actions

horribilibus & quassationibus subitò extinctos esse.

And I am plainlie persuaded that Emserus and Oecolampadius, and the like, were killed sodainlie with these terrible blowes and shakinges of the deuill.

Finallie, * 1.244 the bushell of salt, whiche Luther confessethe hym selfe to haue eaten together with this deuill, proueth that he had bodilie conference with hym: And that this Sathan was become now verie gentle and familiar to Luther, albeit he was churlish and kylled other hys companions.

[ 3] Towching M. Luthers dronken deathe from his deceitfull deuell (as is coniectured) M. Charke thinketh it lacke of discretion in me to publishe the same from so insufficient witnesses, * 1.245 as he callethe them: the cōntra∣rie being writen by men more indifferent, as he sayeth. And in the margent (in counterpease of all my witt∣nesses) he quotethe onelie Iohn Sleidan, a lutheran, and the protestants historiographer. * 1.246 But what reason is the∣re whie one Sleydan should be preferred before so ma∣ny learned men, and reuerend byshops, that haue auo∣wed the matter, whoe lyued in Luthers time, and many of them were Germanes, and dyd know bothe his lyfe and his deathe? especiallie, seynge of all the historio∣graphers, that euer toke penne in hād, Iohn Sleydan is the moste infamous for lyeing, as may appeare in par∣ticular by Fontanus and Pontanus, that haue discoue∣red the same: as also by Gaspar Genepaeus, whoe ha∣th done the same most substantiallie, and of purpose. And more than all the rest, * 1.247 Bartholomeus latomus, a singular learned man, hathe set furth a book of the Ele∣uen thovvsand lyes of Iohn Sleidan: And Gropperus (one of the rarest men that euer oure age had) commonlye cal∣leth Iohn Sleidans storie das lugen buck: that is, the book of lyes. The fame thereof cōming at a time to the eares of Charles the Emperour, (whiche had best cause to know how matters passed, being cheefe agent therin hym sel∣fe,) caused diuerse partes thereof to be redde ī his hea∣ring, and in the presence of his captains: whoe hearing so infinite vntruethes reported, could not contayne, but often wolde interrupt the reader, sayeing, there the

knave lieth: And a litle after againe, * 1.248 there the knave lyeth. And so finalie reiecting the booke, he commaunded one Gulielmus Mule••aeus a moste eloquent man to re∣fute the same. So that Sleidan alone is not sufficient to ouer-beare so many witnesses in this case, wherein he was moste partiall, that is, touching Luther: he beinge luthers scholar, and writing purposelie bothe at his ap∣pointement, and in his commendation.

But yet because you shall not want a sounde te∣stimonie also in this matter: I will alleage you IVSTVS IONAS, Luthers deare freend and cooke, as partiall to∣wards hym as Sleydan hym selfe, but onelie that being at his deathe, and writinge a booke of the same, by the prouidence of God, he vttered this point among other. For thus Pontacus writeth. * 1.249 Martinus Lutherus, quem ter∣tium Eliam quidam ausi sunt vocare, cum bene potus & H••∣laris in lecto cubuisset, manè repertus est mortuus. Iustus Ionas eius coquus, libro de eius vita & obitu, refert cum Paulo ante mortem. sibi & Caelio & aliis qui tunc aderant dixisse: Orate deū pro domino deo nostro & eius euāgelio.

That is: Martine Luther, whome some dare call the thyrd Elias, goeing to bed well typpled, & merye, was found dead the next morning [being the first day of Marche, the yere of our Lorde 1544, * 1.250 and the 63. yere of his age] Iustus Ionas his cooke affirmeth in a booke written of his lyfe & death, that he sayd to hym a litle before his deathe, and to Ce∣lius and others that were present, do you pray to God, for our lord and God, and for his gospell. Heere now by Iustus Ionas his reporte, Luther praied for Christ at his deathe, which ether you must a-scribe to dronkennes, or to s••me worse affection, he being in his perfect wit∣tes, as the author affirmeth.

And this shalbe sufficient touching the deathe of doctor Martine Luther.

And now we come to Luthers disse••tion with his owne broode, as the Censure sayeth: that is, to his dea∣dlie warre with his owne folowers, and to the discorde betwene Lutheranes & Zuinglians, which our English protestāts doe beare men in hand, to be all one in faith, and of one churche: and M. Charke heere in this place,

(with the same foreheade, as in other matters) affirmeth moste confidentlie that they had alvvayes a singular care of vnitie in the gospell: And citeth for proofe thereof) an acte of cōcorde agreed vpon at Marpurge Anno 1529. But this is intolerable impudencie. * 1.251 For Brentius hym selfe, (whoe was present at yt) writeth that the Zuin∣glians were there vanquished, & demaunded with tea∣res to be called brethren of the lutheranes, onelie the∣reby to colour a concorde. But yet Luther wolde not graunt it. * 1.252 The verie same (touchinge luthers hardnesse) confesseth Caluin to westfalus, superintendent of ham∣borough, and Boquinus a Zuinglian, confesseth the sa∣me, as Brentius proueth in the place before alleaged, by the testimonie of lauatherus also a Zuinglian: so that I should maruayle (M. Chark) that you were not asha∣med to alleage this acte of concorde of Marpurge: * 1.253 but that I consider, you must nedes say somewhat. No (M. Charke) not onelie in this meeting of Marpurge, dyd your men disagree, and become more enemies than be∣fore: but also in all other conuenticles after, euen vnto this day, haue they dissented in opinions more & more: as is euident to them vvhiche doe reade the stories, and acts of theyr meetings set out in print. So that in verie deede, this one marke of disagreement is sufficient to shew what spirit they are of.

After this synode of Marpurge they mett toge∣ther at Swabache, and after that againe at Smalcald, the 12. of December, * 1.254 but without any effect of vnion or agreement, as bothe Sleidan and lauatherus doe testi∣fie. After that, they had diuers meetings, talkes, confe∣rences, disputations, synodes, conuenticles, at diuers places and times, but alwayes departed more enemies than before, * 1.255 as you may see in particular sett doune by vadian in his aphorismes. After this, in the yere 1557. vpon the fowerth day of September there mett at wor∣mes in Germanie 12 Catholiques, & 12. ministers, * 1.256 ap∣pointed by the former Councell or dieta of Ratisbone, to treate of certaine conditions to be obserued on bo∣th parties, in practise of theyr religion. And when the

first question was proposed, what articles of faithe eche parte wolde haue allowed by publique authoritie: the Catholiques agreed presentlie: marie the ministers fell out, and therupon a daye or two was allowed them to agree, but they grew further and further in dissention for sixtene dayes together, * 1.257 and the seuententh daye, they were further of than at the beginninge. For then had seuē of the twelue excommunicated the other fy∣ue for heretiques, and as vtterlie disagreing from the Confession of Angusta. * 1.258 Mary yet those seuen could in no wyse agree among them selues, what articles onelie were to be receyued, and what to be excluded, and so, that meeting was brocken of, without effect. This storie doe write bothe Amsfordius, and Gallus, Lutherans: & Lauatherus a Zuinglian. And Surius a Catholique.

After this agayne in the yere 1564. in the moneth of April, there was a solemne meetinge or sinode be∣tweene the Lutheranes and Caluinists, at Mulbrune in Germanie. * 1.259 And on the Lutheranes parte the duke of wittenberge was president for the temporaltie, & Smi∣delyne prolocutor for the cleargie. For the Caluinistes was president the Countie palatine of Rheine, & Bo∣quinus was speaker. But after diuers dayes spent in di∣sputing, chafing, & chiding, they departed lesse agreed than before, one parte calling the other sectaries, and heretiques, as you may reade in the actes of that mee∣ting set furth in print, * 1.260 aswell by the one partie, as by the other, but eche side notwithstandinge reportinge the thinge for theyr owne vantage, and blaminge the other. And thus muche for solemne meetings and pu∣blique actes of concorde, declaring the singular vnitie of protestants in the gospell.

Now for the intercourse of louing letters and godlye vvritings betvvene lutheranes and Caluinists, (whiche M. Charke nameth, but citeth none) for proofe of their singular vnitie. Yt shall appeare how trewe it is, by that whiche I will heere alleage out of their owne writings one against an other. And first, I haue alleaged before the louing woordes of Luther towardes Caluinists by

the verie testimonie of the Tigurines thē selues, * 1.261 who∣me he calleth, an exec••able sect. replenished vvith the deuyl, insathanized, supersathanized, and persathanized And they call hym againe, an archeheretique, and a ••urious deuyll, vvhiche hathe no communion vvith the saincts of God. Lu∣ther againe calleth Bucer, a blasphemouse monster of the sacramentarie spirit: and all sacramentaries miserable and blasphemouse heretiques: adding further: I doe protest befo∣re God and the vvorlde, that I doe not agree vvith them, nor euer vvill, vvhile the vvorld standeth, but vvill haue my hāds cleare from the bloode of those sheepe, vvhich these heretiques doe dryue from Christe, deceyue, and kill. And againe in the same place, cursed be the charitie and concorde of sacra∣mentaries, for euer and euer, to all eternities. Againe, in an other place he pronounceth of them: H••ereticos serio cē∣semus, we censure them in earnest for heretiques. And after that, he pronounceth them as moste certainlie to be damned, hovv soeuer they beleeue some articles a-right, and doe pronounce them truelie, vvith their lyeing and blasphe∣mouse mouthe, as his woordes are. And finallie, two yeres before his deathe, he denounced an open excommuni∣cation against them all, sayeing, * 1.262 vvho soeuer vvill not be∣leeue the breade to be the true and naturall bodie of our lorde, lett hym abstayne from me, bothe by letter, vvriting, and spee∣che, neyther let hym expect anie communion vvith me, for he shall but leese his labour. And this was the agrement of this holie and learned man Martin Luther (as M. Charke calleth hym.) And this was his entercourse of louynge and godlie speeche and vvritings towardes the Zuinglians: that is, towardes M. Charke and his felowes in England.

* 1.263But now yf a man wolde speake of the entercourse of louinge letters betwene the Lutheranes and Zuin∣glianes after Luthers deathe: it were infinite. But yet he that desireth to know somewhat thereof: let hym reade but Brentius against Bullinger: westfalus against Cal∣uine: Caluin against Stankarus: Heshutius against Beza. Also the seuerall bookes of Sneppius, Alberus, Timan∣nus, Stolzius, Kemnitius, Marbachius, Vigandus against the Zuinglians. And the vehemēt treatises of Ochinus,

Alasco, Boquinus, Clebitius, Bullinger, and Peter Mar∣tyr against the Lutheranes. * 1.264 Bullinger calleth Brentius puffed spirit, slaunderer, scurril, iester, Mome, impure, impu∣dent and furiouse Eutychian, light and brainelesse sophist. Caluine writing to the ministers of Germanye, and ho∣ping to gaine them to his parte against westfalus, called them, honorable brothers, & most faithfull seruants of Christ. But when he sawe they tooke part against hym: he cal∣leth them, Knaues, Gyants, Monsters, Beastes, Asses, Deuylls. Heshutius writing against Caluine, calleth hym cruel tyrant, crastie, perfidiouse, and contemptuouse Epicure, reche∣lesse lyar, vvanton and impudent sycophant, one that handled the scriptures as other men doe Ouids metamorphosis. * 1.265 The same heshutius called Beza, a Beast, a Cyclops, a Harlot set to sale: and generallie all Caluinists, impudent knaues. Stankerus of a thyrde sect, wryteth thus: I doe set more by one Peter Lombard, (whiche notwithstanding he con∣temneth) than by a hundred Luthers, tvvo hundred Melan∣ctons, three hundred Bullingers: fovver hundred Peter Mar∣tyrs, and fyue hundred Caluines: All vvhiche yf they vvere pound together in a morter, and aftervvard prest neuer so hard, you coulde not vvringe ovvt one ovvnce of true diuinitie from them all.

It were infinite (as I sayd) to prosecute this matter of the protestants singular vnitie in the gospell: * 1.266 and of their louing and godly speeches one to an other. But the pra∣ctise doeth better declare it than woordes can. Looke therfore into the states where they beare rule: and see how one doeth imbrace the other: or rather how one doeth persecute the other. In Germanie where one is superior, the other maye not liue ••ferior. VVithin the∣se eight yeres all were Caluinists in the Countie Pa∣lantins Dominions, while he was so hym selfe: and a Lutheran could not be suffered to lyue quietlie there. As appeareth by the example of doctor Heshutius, a Lutherane, who after his disputation in the vniuersitie of Hidelberge, was thrust owt by head and shoulders, and the Catechismes of Luther & Brentius floung out of the Church, * 1.267 as Lauatherus a Zuingliā dothe reporte.

But now this prince beinge come backe to Lutherisme again: out are thrust the Caluinists, aswell there, as also in other places of Germanie, where the Lutheranes are gouernours. The yonger princes of Saxonie and Earles of Mansfeild (being Lutheranes) made a publique de∣cree against all Zuinglians, the yere 1559, condemning them by the name of execrable heretiques, as lauatherus also writeth. And it is well knowen that the duke of Sa∣xonie, that now is (named Augustus) about eight yeres gone dyd cutt of the head of his cheefe counsailer cal∣led Cracouie, for that he was conuicted secretlie to fauour the Caluinists, and to practize their brynging into Saxonie. Also the banished Caluinists of fraunce being retyred to frankeforde in Germanie (a free Citie, and of Lutheran religion) hoped to haue license to li∣ue, according to their cōscience, in that place. But they could not, (with all the entreatie and frendshipp they might vse) obtaine the same: but were by bublike edict (bearing date the two & twentith of Aprill, in the yere 1561) cōmaunded to depart the Citie, or els to abstaine wholie from all exercise of their religion, seing it was heresie, and differing from the confession of Augusta. This whole storie is set furth by one Franciscus Phi∣lippus, where you may reade it at large.

And to gyue you yet an exāple more neare home, our Englishe Marchant venturers had great traffik at Hāborough, & profited (no doubt) the citie much, whe∣reof VVestfalus was superintendent. But yet by all the meanes and fauour that euer they could procure, they could neuer obtaine of the Lutheranes, free exercise of Caluines religion in that citie: No, nor so muche as to keepe a * 1.268 minister of their owne sect at home in their house priuatlie. And (that which is more) the prelates of Saxonie, dyd so muche detest our mens religion, as whē any English men were sick, they wolde not come at them, beynge requested: nor (beinge deade) wolde allowe them anie Christian buriall, in their churches or churche yeardes, but caused them to be * 1.269 cast owt in other places and hydde vnder grounde, without the

presence of any one Lutherane, that wolde come at yt. And finallie our English men haue lost their pryuilei∣ges there, and haue abandoned the citie, and are chan∣ged now to Emden. This is euident and true: and all Marchants in England (of that companye) can tell the∣reof. And therfore what soeuer M. Charke writeth of their singular vnitie in the gospell: the reader may see how he is to be credited.

Touching the lyfe of Caluine (whome M. Charke calleth a holie Sainct, and aduaunceth with a long, large, [ 5] and copiouse commendation) he sayeth, * 1.270 it vvas the lor∣des good vvill, that the translation of his lyfe shoulde fall into my Lorde of Londons hands, and so be supressed. But (M. Charke) it maye come yet in time: not as a libell (as you terme it) but as a true testimonie from hym which knew the man, and lyued with hym, bothe in Geneua, Berna, and Lausanna thirtie yeres gone and more, whose name is M. Ierome hermes Bolseke, doctor of phisik: whiche science he practized in Caluines time, * 1.271 at Geneua and other places there aboute, and of late yeres in lyons, fowre and twentie myles of Geneua, where he yet li∣ueth in great credit of wisdome, learning, and honestie, and is most readie to iustifye any thing that he hathe written to the woorlde. * 1.272 His booke of Caluines lyfe was written in the yere of our Lorde 1577, and dedica∣ted to Monsieur of Epinac, archebyshop and Earle of lyons: And in the begynnyng he hathe this protestatiō. I am heere for loue of the trueth to refute Theodore Beza his false and shamefull lyes in the prayse of Caluine, his Maister, protesting before God and all the holie court of heauen, before all the vvolde, and the holie ghoste it selfe: that neyther angre, nor enuie, nor euell vvill, hathe made me speake, or vvrite any one thing against the truthe and my conscience.

First therefore this reuerend man sheweth how Iohn Caluine was borne at Nouiodunum, * 1.273 or Noion in Picardie, the yeere of our Lorde 1509. In his youth he was an execrable blasphemour of God: and cōmyng at length by shyftes to be a preest, and to haue the cure of a certaine chappell in Noyon, he was taken and con∣uicted

of the horrible sinne of Sodomie: and vvas in great daunger to haue bene burnt a lyue for the same, * 1.274 but that the Byshope of Noyon, taking compassion of the man, procured the punishement to be moderated: and so in steade of deathe, he was burnt with a hoote Iron in the showlder, whiche yron had in it the prynt of a lylly, which is the marcke of the crowne of france. VVhereupon for verie * 1.275 shame, (hauing solde awaye his benefice) he departed from Noyon into Ger∣manie and Italie, chaunging his name from Cauuin to Caluin, as Luther dyd from Luder to Luther. Thus muche the whole citie of Noyon, dyd testifye vnto M. Bertilier, Secretarie of the Councel of Geneua, vnder the hand of a publique and sworne Notarie. And the testimonie is yet extant to be sene, as the author sayeth, whoe hathe read it, with many others.

After he had wandered a while in Italie, being assisted with some almes of the duches of ferrara, he returned back to Basil, Strausburge, and Lausanna, and beganne to play the minister and preacher: And from thence, he came to Geneua: and there ioyning with two moste seditious ministers, named * 1.276 FAREL & CAVRALD, beganne by a thowsand deuises, to woorke great tu∣mults, and innouations in the citie. And albeit, not one∣lie the magistrates of Geneua, but also the Lordes of Berna (who haue some superioritie ouer Geneua) were greatlie against hym at the begynning, (though Zuin∣glians them selues) yet Caluin ceased not to vse suche excitation of the people against thē, as they were fayne to banish hym oute of their terretorie: And so they dyd and pronunced the same sentence of banishement, bothe in theyr priue coouncell of two hundred, & also in their generall councell: and caused it to be registred in their recordes called the Rouge, with the true causes of the same, the yere of our Lorde a thousand, fyue hundred thertie seuen, the two and twentith of April, being Easter monday. * 1.277 Of whiche sentence Caluin vn∣derstanding, by frendes of his, where he lay secret in the towne, chaunged his apparell and fledde pryuilye the

same daye from Geneua to Strawsburge. And this is extant vnder the publique recordes of the citie (as I haue sayed) though Beza hath not bene a shamed to publish the contrarie.

But in processe of tyme, by infinite practyzes that the vsed, and by the earnest sute of some noble men, bothe duche and frenshe, whome he had made Caluinists: he was recalled to Geneua againe. And thē, layeing a surer plott than before, (by bringing in many straungers into Geneua,) he made his partie so strong, as he became as absolute lorde of the towne, while he lyued, cutting of all his enemies by deuises & sleights: * 1.278 as Castellio, Caroly, Bernardin Ochin, and Peter Mo∣rand, Ministers, whome he caused to be banished: as also diuerse of the nobilitie: and among them, Perrinus, chefe gouernour of the citie with Petrus VVandalus, the Balthasars, and others, whome he made to flye for safegarde of their lyues: for that he (by forged letters & infinite other inuentions) had brought them in suspi∣tiō of betrayeing the citie, first to the king of fraunce, then to the duke of Alvay, gouuernour of Millan. But the noble men goeing to Berna cleared them selues before the Councell there: * 1.279 and by good happe got the Italian, which, suborned by Caluin, had accused them of treasō in Geneua, affirming that he was sēt as a spie frō the Duke of Alvay, to vewe the citie, & to treate with those noble men, for the takyng therof: and hauing affirmed thus muche, he was sent awaye pryuilie into Italie againe, disguised in apparell, and his rewarde payde hym in his purse. VVhereof these noble men hauing intelligence by their secret frendes of Geneua, caused the way to be layd for hym, and (by gods proui∣dence ••ooke hym at Vienna in Dolphine, and caused hym to be brought back to Berna: where he plainlie & trulie cōfessed all the matter to be forged, and by who∣me he was induced, and by what rewarde, to doe yt. VVherevpon the Lordes of Berna gaue furthe a publi∣que testimonie, (vnder their common notaries hand) of the whole matter, and of the innocencie of these men.

But yet Caluins faction of straungers was so strong in Geneua, as they could neuer be restored during his life.

* 1.280Diuerse suche examples are shewed of the tyran∣nie and crueltie of Iohn Caluin, against those that any waye offended hym. As against Montouset a Lutheran, (Almner to the Queene of Nauarra,) Caluines cheefe benefactrix,) whome he made to flye Geneua, for spea∣king a woord or two against his partiall distribution of the Queens almes, * 1.281 sent in great quantitie to the poore protestāts of that Citie, & for the moste parte, imbeze∣led and deuoured by Caluine hym selfe, as this man a∣vowched. Also against one Peter Ameau, whome he ma∣de to walke throroughe the citie naked in his shirt, with a torche in his hand, and to aske hym openlie for∣giuenesse, for that he had spoken at a supper certaine woordes in his dishonour, sayeing, that he dyd not see why Caluin should be so muche estemed in Geneua, as he was, and preferred before all other that euer wrote. Also against Seruetus, otherwise called Michaell villa∣nouanus, doctor of phisik in Vienna of dolphinie, an heretique, but yet enuious of Caluins glorie: vvhere∣vpon he wrote from vienna to Geneua, thirtie epistles directed to Caluin, together with a litle booke in writ∣ten hand, the yere of our Lorde 1546: wherein he had gathered together certaine faultes escaped Caluin in his institutions. VVhiche thing Caluin tooke so gre∣uouslie, as presētlie he beganne to purpose his deathe, (as hym selfe openeth in a secret * 1.282 letter to his deare fre••de Petrus viretus, minister of Lausanna) And there∣vpon beganne to accuse hym of heresie: bnt yet dissē∣bling his intention, allured hym to come to Geneua, as he there confesseth. But Seruetus not trusting his woor∣des, kept hym selfe thence, vntill the yere of our Lord, 1553: at what tyme, meanyng to goe into Italie, he thought to passe secretlie throrough Geneua, & to staye there but one night, which was Saturday. But yet being wearie, and knoweing the lawes of Geneua to be, that no passingers may be molested for three dayes, resolued to stay there Sonday. VVhereof Caluin by chaunce ha∣uing

secret intelligence, presentlie sent his man Nicho∣las to arrest hym: & the next daye, he sent his brother Anthonie Cauuin to enter an action of deathe against hym: * 1.283 which action Iohn Caluin folowed bothe by hym selfe and by his frendes so vehementlye, as within few dayes after, he caused Seruetus to be burnt alyue in the marquet place, with a soft fyar for his greater torment. VVhereat many protestants were offended and gre∣uouslie skandallized: for that Caluin had set furthe a booke a litle before, to proue that no heretique ought to be put to deathe for his religion.

Now for other behauiour of Caluin, * 1.284 as for his intolerable ambition and pryde, there are many exam∣ples geuen: as that, to make hym selfe famouse he deui∣sed diuerse letters, and other woorkes in prayse of hym selfe, and published them vnder the name of one Ga∣lasius & others: and sending them to PETRVS VIRETVS minister of Lausanna to be spread abrode by hym: he being well acquainted with Caluins style, espied the deuise, and was greatly offended therwith, and wrote to Caluin, that he wolde discredit hym selfe by suche doeings. But Caluin answered, that it was expedient it should be so done, for-the credit of theyre cause: and that he meant to vvrite shortlie as muche in the com∣mendation of VIRETVS hym selfe, and FARELVS also, VVherwith VIRETVS was pacifyed. These letters with one and fowertie more were found in the studdie of viretus (after his runnyng away from Lausanna) and shewed to the Lords of Berna: who coulde neuer abyde Caluin after warde, for this manifest declaration of his vainglorie and pryde. The same Caluin, after he had brokē downe the images, & rased the pictures of Christ and all Saints in Geneua: he caused his owne picture to be drawne, and set vp in diuerse places of the citie: and vsed also to gyue litle pictures and images of hym selfe to gentlewomen, and gentlemen to carrie about their necks. And when one tolde hym, that some thought muche of this: * 1.285 he answered: he that can not abyde yt, let hym brust for enuye.

* 1.286An other example of his intolerable pryde & vain-glorie is this that foloweth. One called Brulle of the towne of Ostune, being made a protestant, came with his wyfe to dwell at Geneua, and for that he was but poore, he procured many letters in his commendation to Caluin, for his releefe of the common purse, which he obtained. And being therby, made a fast frende vnto hym, and verie familiar: Caluin on a time bracke with hym and his wyfe, in a matter of great secrecie, whiche might turne the gospell to great credit, and them selues to great gaine, if they wolde doe it faythfullie. And this was, that the husband shoulde feyne hym selfe sicke, & so to dye, and that he wolde seeme (by the woord of the Lord) to rayse hym agayne. VVhiche they were cōtent to doe And so all circunstances being agreed vpon, and the daye appoynted for his death, yea and the verie howre: Iohn Caluin that day inuited of purpose, many gentlemen to dynner, & after dynner walked owt with them, and kept hym selfe alwayes neare the doore of that feined sick man, * 1.287 for whome he had caused muche prayer to be made in the citie. At last when the hower was come, the good wyfe came owt cryeing, that her husband was deade. VVhervpon Caluin requested the gentlemen to goe in and see hym. And there, he falling downe on his knees, as rapt with zeal, begāne to praye vehemently, and to trouble hym selfe in spirit, after the imitatiō of Christ, * 1.288 desiring the rest to praye with hym, whiche they dyd. And then Caluin breaking owt in great feruour, desired the Lord for more manifestation of his gospell, to restore that man to lyfe againe, & ther∣with in great vehemencye tooke the man by the hand, and willed hym agayne, & agayne, in the Lords behalfe to ryse. But he moued not, vvherat the good wyfe mar∣uailing, remoued quickely the clothe from his face, and fownd hym bothe deade and colde: at which sight she beyng greuouslie astonished, cryed owt, that her hus∣band was murdred, and falling into a rage, ranne vpon Caluin, exclaming that he was a deceyuer, & so opened the whole matter to the standers by: whoe remayned

muche amazed to heare her tell suche particulars, as she dyd, but yet for not discrediting the cause, they rebu∣ked her: but shee continued cryeinge owt still. Caluin sayde, she was madde, or else the deuyll was entred vpon her, and so left bothe her and the house. But yet soone after, he caused her to be banished the citie, and to stoppe her tongue the sooner, she was maryed to a minister, named Cowldrye, abowt Ostune. But yet all that sufficed not to staye her speeche, but that euer more she continued in the same tale.

The lyke euent almoste had he in coniuring an euell spirit owt of the bodie of a certaine gardener, * 1.289 be∣longing to a citizen of Geneua, called Domen Faure, in whose house, the sayd Gardener being greuouslie pos∣sessed (as I haue sayd:) Monsieur Caluin wolde needes goe to the house after his accustomed proude fashion, accompanyed with many gentlemen and others, and wold presume, as the preacher and seruant of the lord, * 1.290 to cast owt the sayd deuyll: But god refusing to geue testimonye to fashoode, suffered the deuyll to beare the man possessed, with great violence vpon Caluin, and to beate him with his fyst, to scratche hym with his nayles, to byte hym with his teeth, and to torment hym in moste terrible maner. Nor all the people present were Able to resist hym: and in the ende Caluin hardlie, and with much a doe escaped a waye with hys lyfe, all bea∣ten, scratched, and moste pityfullie handled, he beyng, besydes the hurt, almoste owt of his wyttes withe fea∣re. This was done in the presence of many people, whereof dyuerse are yet a lyue, and doe testifye the same, that Monsieur Caluin wolde neuer after goe againe to cast owt deuylls.

* 1.291Touching the lasciuiouse dealing of this prophet, there be many examples put downe in the booke, gy∣uing open signes of his loose behaueour, and importing great suspitiō of fowle dishonestie, bothe with man and woman kynde, thoghe he had alwayes a wenche of his owne. His dyet was verie dayntie, bothe for rare meates, choyse wynes, varietie of dishes, and furniture of ser∣uice. * 1.292 And when he wolde shew so muche fauour to any man, as to goe furth and dyne or suppe with hym a brode, alwayes a siluer pott of his owne wyne must be caryed with hym, for his owne mouth. He had also a baker that made breade of purpose for hym onelye, of fine flower wette in rose water, & myngled with sugar, Cynomome, and Aniseseeds, beside a singular kynde of Biskette made for hym selfe alone. And this was so knowne ower all Geneua, that, all excellent bread was cōmonlye compared to the bread of Monsieur Caluin. VVhereof the Lordes of Berna hauing good informa∣tion, * 1.293 were greatlie scandalized and offended, thinking that neuer any of the olde prophets tooke such care of their bodies as this new prophet dyd. By which means he came to be so wanton with woman kynde, as many scādalouse things fell owt, * 1.294 which I passe ouer, referring my reader to the foresayd booke it selfe. As the gentle∣woman of Mongis which stealyng from her husband at lausanna, went & made residence at Geneua with Mon∣sieur Caluin, whether her husband durst not folowe her. Also the yonge straunge gentlewoman that tooke a howse nigh Geneua, wher Caluin vsed to lye when her husband was from home, and the seruāt found his place in his mistresse bedde, and the like: Yet one prank I can not lett passe, touching a verie noble man called Iames Bourgongne Lord of fallaise, * 1.295 vvhoe for religion came & laye at Geneua, with his ladie, a goodlie gentlewomā whose name was Iolland of Bredrode. This man being verie sicklie in Geneua, and muche in the Phisitians handes, wolde haue Monsieur Caluin come and visit hym often, which he willinglie dyd, but more for the wyues sake than for the mans, as appeared after: for

besides many significations of his good will towardes her: in the ende he opened hym selfe fullie vnto her, telling her in great secrecie, that this man vvas but a bur∣den vnto her novv, and coulde doe her no more seruice, being rather as a dead man than alyue. VVherfore (sayeth he) yf you vvill folovv my counsail, lett hym goe (ladye Iolland,) and he beyng dead, vve tvvo, vve tvvo, vvill marry together. VVhiche the ladye tooke in great disdayne, and for auoyding of further inconueniēce persuaded her hus∣band to forsake Geneua presentlie, and to goe to Lau∣sanna: where they being arriued, she opened the whole cause and matter vnto hym, & to many other her fren∣des besides. And the Author sayeth, that he heard all this from the mouthe of the same ladye her selfe, in the presence of her sayde husband, and of many other honorable personages then present.

I leaue infinite matters of other qualitie, as of his singular cosonage, especiallie towards the Queene of Nauarre, by diuers feygned and contrarie letters, and the like: which the reader may see at large in the book. * 1.296 But yet at last after all this Ioylitie and shysting for the time, death came on hym in the end, & payd hym home for all. Beza confesseth (sayeth our Author) that he was greatlie tormented before his death with all these disea∣ses together: the ptisick, the cholik, the Astma, the stone, the gowte, the hemoroids, and the megrim in his head. But he leaueth owt that which was the principal: & that is, the horrible disease of lyfe and wormes, whiche dyd eate his whole body ouer: * 1.297 & the moste lothesome vlcer in his fundamēt and priuie members, which dyd stynck so outragiouslie, as no man might abyde to be neare hym. And this they doe testifye whiche were about hym euen vnto the last breathe in his bodye. And they add (sayeth our author) and doe confirme yt by di∣uerse witnesses, that he dyed swearing, and cursing, and namyng the deuylls, through desperatiō of his extreme paynes•• and moste pityfully bewayling the tyme that ••uer he had studyed or writtē booke. And all this hathe this author published with muche more touching the

lyfe and deathe of Iohn Caluin.

* 1.298The same author hathe set furth this present yere, 1582. an other historie of the lyfe and māners of Theo∣dore Beza, successour of Caluin in his chayre of Gene∣ua: and hathe dedicated the same booke to the hono∣rable Magistrates, counsailers, and other gouuernours of the sayd citie, of Geneua, for that they can best tell whether most of the reportes be true or no: or at least∣wyse, may learne the same, as moste of all it behooueth them. And he sayeth, that he hathe done it in the time of Beza yet lyuing, to the ende he may refute it, yf any thing be sayd amysse. * 1.299 First therfore, to lett passe other insinite things: he sheweth how Beza was borne at ve∣zels in fraunce, whose father was lyeuetenant for the king in that citie, and when he came to dye, seyng the moste wicked disposition of his sonne, gaue to hym his curse, and vnder the hand of a publique notarie, and in presence of many witnesses, dyd disinherit hym, and disclame hym for his sonne. Yet had he brought hym vp in studye of learning, bothe at Paris and Orleans, & had procured hym to be made prior of Lōgiumey. But he sawe that he turned all to wickednesse, without hope of amendement. * 1.300 And albeit he abounded in all kynde of vice: Yet the excesse of carnall synnes dyd passe all other in hym, wherwith he dyd not onely offend God hym selfe, but infected also all other whose company he vsed. This appeareth (beside other testimonyes) by an infamouse Epigrame reade in comparison of the two sinnes, of adulterie and Sodomie, and betwene a boye which he abused, and a mans wyfe of Paris that he kept in dishonestie: the boye he calleth AVDEBERTVS, & the harlot CANDIDA, * 1.301 though her true name were Clau∣dia. The Epigram begynneth thus: Abest Candida, Beza quid moraris? Audebertus abest, quid hic moraris? And then he goeth on, examinyng which sinne he may loue best, & in the ende preferreth the horrible sinne of Sodomie with his boye, before the pleasure of his harlot Cādida. And he dyd not onelie make these fylthie verses, but also dyd put thē in print, the yere 1548 vnder his owne

name, and Robert Stephanus of Paris dyd prynte them.

VVhereat the Councell of Paris was so much offen∣ded, that an arrest was graunted furthe to apprehend Beza. * 1.302 VVhich he vnderstanding of, fyrst of all, solde his Priorie for redye money in hand: and then presentlie (before the matter was knowen,) dyd lett out the same to other fermers for fyue yeres, taking also money be∣fore hand. VVhen he had done this: he stole awaye, and came secretlie from vezels to Paris, & there agreed with Cādida (which was a Taylers wyfe, dwelling in Calēder streete) & she stealing what she coulde from her husbād ranne with hym to Geneua: where they were receyued by Caluin, and much made of, and Beza soone after pla∣ced by hym, as cheefe minister and publique reader of diuinitie in Lausanna.

VVhen this was knowen, the parties to whome Beza had solde and leased his priory, fell together by the eares, who shoulde haue it, and muche money was spent about the sute, in the court of Paris. The poore Tailer, whoe had lost his wyfe, (and some goodes besi∣des) coulde not tell which waye to looke, nor where to complaine. Afterward, in the yere 1561, when the kyng of Fraunce had graunted a free disputation to the pro∣testants at Poysie, * 1.303 and safe conduct to all them that wol∣de come, (whereat Beza was also as one,) bothe the fo∣resayd Tayler & the buyars of his benefice, came thi∣ther to meete with their Marchant: But by reason of the kinges safe conduct, the poore Tayler (hauinge no freendes) was prohibited to ps••cute the matter against Beza, so that he was fayne to lett goe his wyfe: & Beza keepeth her for his wife at this daye. But the fermers making more freendes, thē the tayler could, got a hun∣dred crounes delyuered them, by the handes of one MATHEVV LAVNOY a minister, & one of their cheefest disputers at that tyme, but sence returned to the Ca∣tholique faithe, hath opened their dealinges, in many bookes.

Monsieur Beza beyng now in credit in Geneua, and reader of diuinitie in Lausanna, folowed his olde

manners still, in seekinge newe and freshe baytes, not∣withstanding the presence of Candida: for hauyng be∣gotten his seruant with childe, * 1.304 (whiche was yong and fayre, called Claudia,) & fearing leste the matter should come to the magistrates ••ares, feigned bothe hym selfe and the mayde to be sicke of the plague, whereby none should dare to come vnto them, and so obtayned, of PETRVS VIRE••VS minister also of lausanna, that they might bothe be placed in two chambers of his in an vtter gardyne, which was graunted. And then he caused a poore yong man that was a barboure to come vnto hym, and persuaded hym to take a grosse quantitie of bloode from Claudia the mayde, and moreouer to gyue her a strong purgation, whiche he dyd: and therevpon she was soone after delyuered of her childe deade, whiche they buryed in that gardyne, as the same bar∣bour afterward confessed, * 1.305 and the authour hearde it from his owne mouthe. But in this meane space, whilest those, things were in doeinge, Beza (to couer matters, and to deceyue the people the more,) made certayne spiritual songs of the great paynes, whiche he suffered by vehemencie of the plague, and sent them to be prin∣ted at Geneua, where as in deede he was not syck at all.

After this trouble of Child byrth vvas past, Beza with his maister Caluin, as long as he lyued, and after his death, he alone, imployed hym selfe to all kynde of wickednesse, not onelie at home, but also abrode. And first the conspiracie, for taking the yong king of Frāce at Amboise was contriued from Geneua, and one Ville∣mongis a noble man (fledde from digieon in France a litle before, for counterfaiting the kings brode seale) was sent from Geneua, as cheefe in this matter. And after that, infinite treasōs appeared from Geneua: as for the taking of Lions, Orleās, Poytiers, and other Cities: * 1.306 whiche all, or the moste part, came from Beza his heade, as diuerse parties executed haue confessed. Also sone after, he deuised the death of the noble Duke of Guise, and committed the execution thereof to one Pultrot, whoe dyd it in deede, at the onelie motion and persua∣sion

of Beza, as he openlie protested at his deathe. And at the verie same tyme, to styrre men vp the more to sedition, he putt furth diuerse moste poysoned bookes, intituled by diuerse names as for example, one called the frensh furies: * 1.307 an other, The trueth. An other: The VVat∣che: An other, the uvaking bell. All vvhiche tende dire∣ctly to moue troubles, seditions, warres, rebelliōs, mur∣ders, and the like. Also, the lyfe of S. Katheryne of Florence, whiche in shew, is onelye an infamouse Libell against the Queens mother of fraunce, but in deede is a defa∣cing, and most opprobriouse infaming of the king, and all the nobilitie, that are not Caluinists.

And as this man was busie a brode, so was he not Idle at home, in establyshing his owne dominion, in Geneua. For which respect, he caused Merlyn, the chee∣fest learned minister of that citie, and in deede farre better learned than hym selfe, * 1.308 namely in the tongues, to be deposed from his ministerie, & to voyde the citie. The like he dyd by an other called Gaigneur, and for the same purpose, he caused the Lord of Pacye (though a protestant) to leese his head, without all cause, fo∣loweing herein his Maister Caluin, whoe had a facilitie in cutting of all them which any way resisted hym. For this ende also he ioyned gladlie with all straungers, that fledd to that citie, for the same or lyke causes as he had done him selfe: that is, for horrible wickednesse. For that he was sure, that suche men durst neuer goe home againe, and therfore must nedes be fast freendes vnto hym: that is, as he calleth them Zelous folowers of the ghospell. So the fore named Ville-mongis flyeing to Geneua for hauing counterfayted the kyngs seale (as I haue sayd) became most Zelous vpon the sodaine: * 1.309 So one Nicholas hanuoyre, marchant in Anwerp, runninge away with three thowsād poundes of other mēs goods, fledd to Geneua, and was receiued ioyfuly, and assoyled from restitution, and his daughter maried to Anthonie Cauuin, Iohn Caluins brother. So the Ladye of Clells in Dolphinie runnyng awaye in her husbands absence, with one countie Iulio of Atien, an Italian, whoe had

bene naught with her before: she came to Geneua brin∣gyng with her as muche goodes of her husbands as she coulde gett, and although her husband, the Lorde of Clells, pursued her and claymed iustice at Geneua, both against her, and the adulterer: yet coulde he gett none, but onelie the consistorie of ministers, vpon delibera∣tion determined that he might marye againe, when he coulde gett an other wyfe, for that he was neuer like to haue this, being now more fytt for Countie Iulio than for hym.

The like happened in one Contour, a notable adul∣terer, whoe toke awaye the wyfe of one Pise, a Citizen of Mascon, and brought her to Geneua, and nether the Citizen nor anye freends that euer he coulde make, could gett anye iustice or restitution of that wyfe: but that vnder pretence of zeale to the gospell, bothe were maintayned in Geneua, against all reason, conscience, & honestie, she hauing left many childrē with her former husband, desolate by her departure. And all this is done by the counsaile, doctrine, and authoritie of Monsieur Beza now in Geneua: whoe hauing entered there with his maister Caluin for refuge of their fylthe, (as hath bene declared) haue reformed the Citie to their owne humours, & haue made yt a receptacle for all desperat and monstruouse malefactors in the worlde.

* 1.310And thus (M. Charke) vpon occasion gyuen by your selfe, you haue heard somewhat of the fyrst be∣gynners or restorers of your gospell, whome you call holy men and sainctes of God. And surelie they ought to haue bene so. For we neuer reade synce God had first a churche, that he made reformation in the same, (such as you pretend,) but by rare & singular vertuouse men. But now yf these your late reformers, whome you must nedes affirme to haue bene endewed with the holi•• ghoste, aboue other men, were but meanlie or cōmonlie honest, and that in externall behauyour at least: we coulde be content to lett it passe. But yf (as it is euident) they were so lewde, and notoriousely euill, as they may contend euen with the very worst, and owt cast of the

world: then is it harde for any sensible man to beleeue, that they were endewed with the holie Ghoste aboue other, and that God wolde chuse them so singularlie, to controle and r••fourme the whole churche besyde. And to make a breefe recapitulation of this matter: Six men onelie haue bene the begynners, * 1.311 increasers, and perfe∣cters of all the reformation whiche now you haue in England. The first of all, was Luther: whose vocatiō lyfe and doctrine hathe in part bene touched before: and he cōfesseth expresselye hym selfe, * 1.312 withoute glose, that the first motion thereof came from the deuill hym selfe in proper person. Luther had three first and principall schollars: that is, Corolostadius, Oecolampadius, and Zuinglius, which first began the religion of Sacramen∣taries, and are accursed by Luther: as damnable hereti∣ques for the same.

The first of these three beinge archedeacon of wittenberge was thought so euell a man by Luther hym selfe, * 1.313 as was vnworthie to lyue amongest Christians, and so by his procurement, he was banished out of all the dominions of the Duke of Saxonie, * 1.314 and so ended his lyfe miserablie in labouring the grounde, * 1.315 as your owne historiographer Sleidan writeth lib. 5. The secōd was so lewde a man, as by Luthers affirmation he was slayne by the deuill hym selfe. * 1.316 Lib. de missa priuata & vnct. sacer. or as (some other thincke) kylled hym selfe with his owne handes: * 1.317 Lindan. dial. 3. dubit. The thyrd hauing receyued the proofes of his newe doctrine of the sacrament, from a spirit in the night (as hym selfe writeth, & confesseth that he knew not wether he were blacke or white) liued in suche sort as he was detested by Luther, and finally stirring vp the Zuisars, his coun∣trie men to warre, one against the other, (that is, the Tugurines against the fyue pages) was slayne hym sel∣fe in the fyeld, * 1.318 and after his body burned: against who∣me Luther made many inuectiues after his deathe. Sleidan li. 8. Surius in histor.

The fyfthe reformer was Iohn Caluin, * 1.319 whereof ca∣me the Caluinists: whoe, how good a man he was, the

storie before of his lyfe declareth. * 1.320 And that he differeth from Zuinglius in religion, (whiche M. Fulke in all his writings most impudentlie denyeth) maye appeare by the 15. articles of heresie whiche Andreas Zebedeus, preacher of Nion, and Iohannes Angelus preacher of Burtin, bothe Zuinglians, dyd take vpon them to proue against Caluin before the Magistrates of Berna (Caluin hym selfe being present) vpon payne of burnyng, yf they proued them not. VVherevpon proceded the de∣cree of those Magistrates the yere 1555, and thyrd of Aprill, that none of their dominions should go to c••∣municate with Caluin at Geneua. Pontas••in Anno, 1555. The last of your reformers whiche hath brought your doctrine to perfection, that is, to puritanisme, is Beza, * 1.321 of wose singular vertues you (M. Charke) aboue others haue greatlie to reioyse, for that you shew your selfe in your replie a moste zealous Puritane.

But now after all these matters discussed, M. Char∣ke, to discredit all that hitherto had bene sayde, brin∣geth in a false reporte of Lyndan (as he sayeth) tou∣ching the fowle deathe of Martin Bucer, * 1.322 in Cambrige. And for proofe hereof, he alleageth a sentence of M. Carre (then a protestant) in his epistle to M. Cheeke (a protestant also) contayning some commendation of the death of M Bucer. But I ask you (M. Charke,) why doe you accustome to belye men so? haue you no conscien∣ce in so doyngs? For shame reporte as you fynde, and no otherwyse. Lyndan auoucheth it not as you saye: But onelie he reporteth as he had heard: for his woordes are these: * 1.323 M••rcatores quidā Coloniae, non ignobiles, narrant: certaine woorshipfull marchantes of Colen doe report. you see he auoucheth it not: whie showld you him belie so falselie as you doe? I haue noted now this in you diuers tymes: I hope yt will doe you good against you write agayne: And this of the report. But for the mat∣ter, yt is of small importance, how soeuer yt be. For as Lyndans authoritie were litle auaylable against you, yf he had affirmed yt, as he dothe not: so M. Carrs autho∣ritie writing at suche a time, and vpon suche occasion,

and for suche an end, and to suche a man as he dyd: * 1.324 is not of great weight with me, for the deniall. Lett the matter be as it will, it litle importeth vs. Yet one histo∣riographer of our tyme doeth wryte, that some of Bu∣cers owne disciples haue reported, that he dyed a Iewe denyeing Christ to be the Messias.

VVhat soeuer his deathe was, Martin Luther writeth that he was a verie vntrue and wicked man: * 1.325 yea, (more then that) that he was a verie Monster. And for his constancie in doctrine, you haue litle cause to bragge so of hym. For first, of a Dominican fryar he became a Lutheran. After that, he bacame a Zuin∣glian, as appeareth ep. ad Norimb. ep. ad Essingenses: And thirdlie, in the Sinod Holden at Luthers house in wittenberge the yere 1536, he came backe agayne to be a Lutheran, recantinge openlie bothe the article of baptisme of infants to be vnnecessarie: (as he had writ∣ten before vppon the third chapiter of S. Mathewes gospell) and also the article of the supper, as he testi∣fieth of hym selfe, vpon the sixt of Iohn: and 26. of Ma∣thew, VVhere he asketh pardon also of God and of the Churche, for that he deceyued so manye with the he∣resie of Zuinglius, as he calleth yt: and yet notwitstan∣ding, a litle before in his epistle to them of Norimber∣ge, he affirmeth the doctrine of Zuinglius to be moste diuine, and deliuered immediatlye by Christ from hea∣uen: * 1.326 and Luthers doctrine to be new, and repugnant to the scriptures. Also in his epistle ad Essingenses he cal∣leth the Lutheranes, fanatical and furiouse teachers. But dyd this thyrd or fowerth recantation holde, thinke you? no surelie. For cōming into England, he bacame a Zuinglian agayne, (as you will not denye) and in that opinion dyed, as you saye: but I thinke he might dye a Iewe well enough, as pontacus writeth, for any reason I see to the contrarie. For he, whiche had so many times chaunged his faythe, seemeth to haue had no religion at all (by lykelyhode) in his harte, and therfore might easilie bothe dowt and wauer, not on••lie in pointes of the Catholique, Lutherane, and zuinglian religion,

but also of the Messias and Christ hym selfe: as diuerse wryte, that some of his scholars haue reported. VVher∣fore, thoughe I passed ouer this man as scarse worthie mentioninge: yet haue you gayned litle by bringinge hym in, as farre as I can see: And therfore lett vs now returne to the Censure againe.

Of the Iesuites doctrine.

THE CENSVRE.

Fourthlie, you vvill needes bringe the Iesuits in discredit by certaine blasphemous doctrines, vvhich yovv saye they holde, in a booke vvritten by common consent, called Censura Coloniensis: out of vvhich you haue, for example sake, put dovvne thirtiene blashe∣mies, in their ovvne verie vvordes (as you say) noting the leafe, and adding the cleane contrary doctrine out of the vvoorde of God. * 1.327 And that men should knovve that you deale playnlie, and bring their verie vvor∣des, and no sillable of your ovvne, you haue put their sayeings dovvne, in a differēt Romane letter. But (M. Chark) in brotherlye charitie, let me reaso the ma••ter a litle vvith you. Are you not ashamed of this false∣hode? dyd you not think that this your booke might be examined by some man or other? in dede you haue all the printes to your selues, and your searchers are so vvatchefull, as nothing cā passe their hands, to the di∣scoueryng of your doeings, & therefore you may bo••h saye and print vvhat you vvill. And our eares may vvell burne on this syde the sea, & our harts revv, at the shameles vntruthes vvhich vve heare & see vtte∣red there among you dayly: But vve can not remedye it, & this that I vvrite novv, I make accompt, yt may asvvell perishe, as diuers things of greater importance haue done heretofore. But surelie me thynketh a vvyse

man, that had care of his soule, might see the light at a litle hole, & descrie the cōclusion by a fevv premisses. If you in so short a pamphlet vtter so many, so mani∣fest, so inexcusable vntruthes, as I vvill novv shevv, vvhich notvvithstanding you might reasonablie doubt least perhaps they might be disclosed: vvhat vvill you, and your felovves dare auouche in your sermōs, speeches, and discourses, vvhich you are sure shall ne∣uer come to examination? But novv l••tt vs consider these vvicked blasphemies of the Iesuits: vvith vvho∣me yf you haue dealt truelie and honestlie, then let all be beleeued vvhich you speake dayly of vs. Yf you ha∣ue done othervvyse: then the same malice vvhiche droue you to abuse your selfe tovvardes them, may also iustelye be suspected in the rest of youre doeings, and sayeings tovvards vs.

THE DEFENCE.

Sir william, in this place as a byrd taken by the legge for lyeing, & a fether or two pulled of his pryde, by exaggeration of the ••ame, beateth hym selfe great∣lie to gett out, and thrusteth his head in euerie hole to be gone. And first he sayeth, I haue reported moste intole∣rable slaunders of Martin Luther vpon the credit of three or fovver vvitnesses: And why then might not he reporte these things of the Iesuits, vpon the credit of one Got∣uisus? But the differēces of these matters shall appeare after: And how I haue iustifyed bothe my selfe and my Authors in my reportes about Luther, the reader hathe now seene. Yf M. Charke can discharge hym selfe so, he shall passe blamelesse. Secondlie he sayeth. I haue made fovver lyes vvithout shame in one sentence. * 1.328 For (sayeth, he) vve haue not all the printes to our selues, as may appeare by this your booke imprynted. Our searchers are not so vvatche∣full as nothing can passe: for this your booke hathe passed. VVe can not saye or prynt vvhat vvee vvill: for it muste be

vvith examination and pryuilege. You are not beyonde sea, as you vvolde haue vs beleeue: for it is novv knovven this booke vvas vvritten in England. These are fovver manifest lyes, this is the Iudgement of God against you. Doe not you take pit∣tie of this poore minister, that stowpeth to so miserable helpes for his releefe?

But this doore not seruing his turne to gett ou••, he runneth to an other. You charge the magistrates & lear∣ned byshopes (sayeth he) as yf they vvere carelesse, vvhat doctrine is deliuered vnto the people. Yea marie, this is to the matter, for yf you cā make the state to answere for your doeings, you may lye by authoritie, & no mā with safetie shall dare to controll you•• I haue seene a gentle∣man named M. Pasye, whoe had a custome, that when he went after his Lorde, and had played some pranke with his companions, in suche sorte as he feared a blow cōming towardes hym againe: he wolde steppe before his maister and say: beware Sir, there is one that will strike you. * 1.329 Euen so deale you ministers in your gene∣ration, with vs that are of the Catholique part. VVhen you haue excited vs, by demaunds, offers, chalenges, & prouocations: when you haue styrred vs with lyes, sla∣unders, reproches, and other iniuries: yf you see any litle rebuffe draweinge towards you againe: you steppe with facilitie behynde the clothe of estate, putting her Maiestie, her Magistrates, and the whole realme betwe∣ne you and vs, sayeing, that we offer at them, and not at you: we impugne them, & not you: whereas in dede, in many things, there is nether woorde, nor thought that toucheth them: And in the matter of religion it selfe, wherein they are amisse, we seeke to doe them good, by discryeing of your falshoode. But yet you, as not able to defēd any one thing youre selues, drawe them alwayes as principall to euery matter, though neuer so farre of from their affaires. Shall I geue an exāple besides your selfe (for you doe it almost in euery leafe?) M. Howlet complaynethe of theese our wicked and loose times: * 1.330 whiche is common (as you know) to all that lyue in thē. Doctor Fulke to scrape a litle fauour from the courte,

and to make the other odiouse: cryeth out against hym, * 1.331 for that he had not consideration of her Maiesties singu∣lar vertues, and others of high estate vnder her. VVas there euer parasite that flattered so palpablie? vvhen men accuse the times, must they except princes, by name, or else be accounted traytours? what Apostle, what aun∣ciēt father dyd euer so? but we pardone your necessitie: extreme pouertie dryueth you to these shyfts: whiche I thought good once to note to the reader, that I may not trouble my selfe with them in euery place where they are vsed.

The third hole where at this afflicted byrde seeketh to wring out, is by layeing all his lyes vpon one Go∣••visus, from whome (as he sayeth) he tooke these repor∣tes against the Iesuits: * 1.332 adding notwithstanding for pre∣uenting of after clappes, that he promised not to myn∣gle no sillables of his owne: nor to delyuer the scriptu∣re, in precise wordes as it lyethe, but rather as he sayeth, in full weight of true sense and matter. And thervpon he maketh a solemne protestation of his true dealing. But I will shew and proue, (notwithstanding this hypo∣crisie,) that, admitting this libertie whiche M. Charke requireth, of chopping and chaunging in his reportes: yet, that he is a false man, and malitiouslie meant to de∣ceyue in the same: And yf I proue not this, let me be taken for false my selfe. And I doe moste willinglie stand to my offer made before, which M. Charke taketh holde of, that yf these reportes, as they are here layde downe, and denyed by vs, can be verified, eyther in woordes or true sense against the Iesuits: lett all be beleued which they speake dayly against vs.

And that you may take some foresight of M. Charks vntrue meanyng euen now at the begynning: his fal∣shoode appeareth first in that, * 1.333 he citing his reports owt of an other mā, against the Iesuits, without seing their book, (as he sayeth,) dyd not in all the whole discourse so muche as once name, or quote his author Gotvisus, eyther in text or Margent: the cause whereof shall ap∣peare after. And albeit he now sayeth, that Gotvisus

was quoted in most of his bookes: yet I dare scarse be∣leeue hym, for that I coulde neuer yet happen vpō any that had hym quoted: And yf some had it, whye not all? Secondlie, * 1.334 he had seene the most of these reportes set downe by kēnitius against the Iesuits, (from whome it seemeth that Gotuisus borowed them) and refuted by Payuas a learned Portugall, and conuinced of so ma∣nyfest forgerie & falshoode, as kemnitius to my knou∣lege durst neuer to defend them agayne, nor anie other for hym. How then coulde M. Charke without shame∣les false meanyng, laye downe the verye same reportes againe without namyng his authour, or seing the booke whēce they were cited, especially hauing (besides many other) Canisius a Iesuit before his eyes in England: * 1.335 whiche teacheth the verie contrarie, as after shall be shewed? Thyrdlie, his author Gotuisus in the moste of these reportes citeth not onelye the Censure of Colen, but also the large Catechisme of Canisius for his proo∣fe, whiche was common in England to be seene, and wherby M. Charke muste nedes know that Gotuisus slaundered the Iesuits most impudentlie. For couering whereof M. Chark not onelie suppressed the quotation of Canisius, and cited onelye the Censure of Colen (whiche he knewe was not to be had in England) but also supressed his cheefe Author Gotuisus hym selfe (which no writer vseth in suche matters of importāce) to the end the reader might not by hym learne out the quotations of Canisius, and thereby discouer the fal∣shoode. And this was the true cause of the omission of Gotuisus his name. And is not this moste willfull trea∣cherie? Lastely, M. Charke, as not contented with this, doeth help out often tymes the reportes of Gotuisus (being but short and breef sentences) with new falsifi∣cations, of his owne, or with fraudulent recitall, when they seeme not of them selues to sounde absurdlie enough against the Iesuits. And can this be excused frō malitiouse and false meanyng? Now thē let vs see whe∣ther these things be so in deede or no.

Of the nature and definition of sinne. * 1.336

THE CENSVRE.

First therfore, you report the Iesuits to saye: It is not sinne what soeuer is against the woord•• of God. Censura Colon. leafe 44. (1.) These voordes are guy∣lefullie [ 1] reported, peeced and culled out for your pur∣pose of a large discourse, and yet most true in their sense. The occasion vvhereof vvas this. One Monhe∣mius a Lutheran, against vvhose Catechisme this Cen∣sure of Colen vvas made, vvolde nedes proue Concu∣piscence, remayning after baptisme, to be a mortall sinne, albeit no consent of hart vvere gyuen vnto the same: & for proofe therof, he brought in this definition of sinne: * 1.337 Sinne is what soeuer repugneth to the lawe of God, The vvhich definitiō, the Censure of Colen affir∣meth uot to be in all respectes perfecte, but that diuerse vvordes should be added to the same: as for exāple, in steade of that he sayeth (Sinne is vvhat soeuer &c.) (2.) He should haue sayd, Sinne is an action: for that [ 2] there be diuerse things vvhiche repugne against the lavv of God, as euill men, euill lavves, the deuills, and the like, vvhiche not vvithstanding are not properlie sinnes: for that they are not actions. (3.) Secondlie he [ 3] s••ould haue sayd, not onelie, (Sinne is an action) but (Sinne is an humane or reasonable action.) For yf a mad man, a foole, or a beaste, should committ an acte prohibited by gods lavve (as for example kill a mā:) it vvere properlie no sinne (4.) Thirdlie he should [ 4] haue added (voluntarie:) for yf a man should doe a naughtie acte against his vvill, as the virgins vvhi∣che vvere rauished by violence in the primatiue Churche dyd, it vvere not synne. Lastlie, he s••ould haue added (5.) (done vvittinglie.) For although [ 5]

Iacob lay vvith Lya, * 1.338 vvhiche vvas not his vvyfe, yet because he knevv it not, but thought her to be Rachel his vvyfe, he sinned not. Soe that, the perfect definition of sinne, is not that vvhiche Monhemius dyd putt dovvne, and the protestants folovve: but rather that vvhiche the Iesuits, together vvith S. Augustin, and other learned fathers haue sett dovvne: * 1.339 to vvitt, Sin∣ne is a humane acte, voluntarilie and wittinglie com∣mi••ted against the lawe of God. And this to be vnder∣stoode of actuall sinne properlie.

THE DEFENCE.

* 1.340That these wordes are guilefullie reported out of the Iesuits doctrine, maye appeare by this example. A learned counsailer hauing discoursed vpon the lawes of our lande, and shewed that albeit, all breache of publique lawes doeth tende against the Prince and cō∣mon wealth (as in dede it doeth:) Yet euery suche trās∣gression is not treason, but some felonie, some trespasse, some no offence at all, being done without malice, will, or knoulege: wolde you not think hym a maliciou∣se wrangler, that should come and frame this odious proposition vpon the others large discourse, it is not treason, vvhat so euer is against the Prince and common vvealthe? For, albeit these woords may be verifyed in a good sense (as the Censure sayeth of M. Charkes report) yet, being layd downe barelie without she∣weing the occasion and discourse, they sownde odious∣lie, as though what soeuer were done against the Prin∣ce and common wealthe were no treason. In like sorte deale these heretiques with the Iesuits, who doe shew, that albeyt euery synne doeth repugne the lawe of God: yet euery thing that so repugneth is not equally synne, but some veniall, some mortall synne, and some no synne at all, yf it be without will or consent: as the first motions of concupiscende are. VVherevpon our aduersaries come and frame this odiouse proposition,

before sett downe: to witt, it is not synne vvhat soeuer is against the vvord of God: without expoundinge how and in what sense it was spoken.

And to lett you see M. Charks nypping and shuf∣ling in this one litle line to make it sownd more odious, * 1.341 thā ether kemnitius or Gotvisus (frō whome he tooke it,) doe delyuer the same: The Iesuites wordes are re∣ported by them thus: the Iesuits (say they) in their de∣finition of synne, do saye, Peccatum est, non quicquid legi dei repugnat, Sed &c. Synne is, not what soeuer repu∣gneth the lawe of God, but &c. And then foloweth the rest of the Iesuits definition, towched in the Censure. And thus is it reported by M. Charks Maisters. But he, to make it seme more absurde in ignorant mens eares, layeth it downe absolutelie thus: yt is not sinne vvhat so∣euer is against the vvorde of God. As thoughe the sentence ended there. Also as though it were no parte of a defi∣nition. Againe, he chaungeth the place of the negation, whiche in framing of propositions altereth often the sense. * 1.342 So: for peccatum est, non quicquid &c. he sayethe non est peccatum quiquid &c. And lastely, for repugneth the lavve of God: he putteth, It is against the vvoorde of God. And all this to helpe out a litle suspition of absurde do∣ctrine in the Iesuits: whiche argueth in hym a dishonest intention: thoughe for the doctrine it selfe in the Ie∣suits meaning, I thinke the Censure hathe sufficientlie defended it: and what soeuer M. Charke hath therto replied, shall now be examined: notinge by the waye, that M. Charkes common, and onelie refuge of cre∣dit, to saye, vve muste eyther absolutelie graunt, or absolu∣telie deny all these propositions (fathered on the Iesuites) is ridiculous and moste vayne. For we admitt so muche of them, as ether in woorde or sense the Iesuits euer vttered: and the rest eyther coyned, falsified, wrested, or otherwise abused by you, we turne home agayne with shame vpon your selues.

But now to the defence of the Iesuits definition of sinne, against whiche M. Charke hathe dyuers imper∣tinent obiections, whiche serue to spend tyme, but yet

they must be answered (2 1.343) First then, to proue that sin∣ne is no acte, he obiecteth, that iniustice is a sinne, and yet no acte To whiche I answer, that iniustice maye be∣taken for an acte, and so properly a sinne, as yf a man wolde saye yt was great iniustice to putt to deathe so innocent and learned men, as M. Campian was, & tho∣se that dyed with hym: heere iniustice signifieth an in∣iust acte. But yf you take iniustice for an habite onelye: that is, onelie for a procliuitie, or facilicie to an iniust acte: * 1.344 then you must learne, that aswell this, as all other euell habits are called by diuines vitia, non peccata, vices and not sinnes. For that an euell habit may be in a man without sinne, except by consent to yt he bringe furth an euell acte: as S Augustin proueth in the habit or pro∣cliuitie to dronkennes, contracted before a mans con∣ue••sition, and remaining after the same, it is no sinne except it bring furthe some acte of dronkennes, ethe•• in consent or operation. And the lyke is to be sayde of all other euyll habites or inclinations, whiche may re∣mayne in the mynde, without any acte: and consequ••••∣lie without sinne, * 1.345 as experience teacheth: and as S. Au∣sten also proueth in an other place. For in a good man after his conuersion, there may remayne euyll habi∣tes, called vitia, as procliuitie to lye, to steale, to carnall sinne, or the lyke: and yet are they no sinnes, except they bring furthe some acte, ether of consent in harte, or of operation in worke. So that you see, how iniustice (as it is an habit, that is, onelye an inclination or pro∣cliuitie to doe vniustlie) may be in a man withoute sin∣ne. For that it is no sinne of it selfe, withoute an acte, as hathe bene shewed. And this point perhappes you lear∣ned not before.

* 1.346 Secondlie, you obiect agaynst this first member, that the synne of omission is a synne: as where Hely was punished for not chastising his children, and the watchemen condemned for omitting to sounde the trompette, whiche notwitstanding was no action, saye you. This is a common obiection, borowed of our owne schoolemen, and answered by the same. Euery omission

that is a sinne (M. Charke) implyeth some action, that is cause, ether directlie or indirectlie of that omis∣sion, * 1.347 and so is principall part of the sinne: as S. Chriso∣stome, Ambrose, and Basil doe proue. I saye directlie or indirectlie: and I wyll gyue examples of bothe. First then I saye, that I beynge bounde (for example sake) to goe to churche at a certaine hower, I maye make a reso∣lution with my selfe, that I will not goe: and then this acte of resolution in my mynd, called no litio, is the di∣rect cause of this omission, and the ground of the sinne. And this was the sinne of Hely, and of the watchemen before mentioned: whereof: the one determined not to punishe his childeren, and the other not to sounde the trompet, though they sawe the enemie comming, as the text sheweth. Secondlie, I may omitt this goeing to the churche at the hower appointed, not vpon any resolu∣tion made to the contrarie: but for that I doe sett my selfe to doe some other action at that time, (as to write, or the lyke) whereby I doe occupie vp the time wherein I should goe to churche, and so doe committ that omis∣sion without any particular resolution, that I will not goe: and in this case the action of writing, cōmitted in the tyme when I should haue gone to churche, is the indirect cause of this omission, and the grounde of the same, being done wittinglie at suche time as it should not. And so we see that euery omission includeth an act, ether directly or indirectly, goeing before, and causing the sayd omission. As also appeareth playnlye by the * 1.348 definition of synne so often repeated owt of. S. Austen l. 22. contra Faustum cap: 27. and owt of S. Ambrose li. de Paradiso capi. 8.

And that whiche M. Charke addeth for ouer throw of my instances, sayeing: that not deuills, but the euill in deuills not euill men but the euill in men doeth repugne against the lavve of god, ys too too chyldysh and absurd to come from hym that professe the Learnyng For I am sure there is no yong scholler, whiche hathe studyed Logik in Cambrige, but knoweth that, actio tribuitur toti concreto, & non ac••identi inhaerenti: that action is attribu∣ted

to the whole cōcret, and not to the accident inherēt. Althoughe the accident inherent be ratio formalis of the action. As for example: the phisitian is sayd to cure his patient, and not the Phisick in the phisitian, though he doe it by his phisick. The vniust iudge synneth in gyuing wronge sentence, and not the iniustice in the iudge, & for proofe wherof, the iudge shalbe damned, and suffer tormentes for it, and not the qualitie of in∣iustice in hym. The lyke is in deuills, and in all euyll men, whoe doe properlie repugne against gods lawes, and doe sinne properlie, and not the euill within them. And the contrarie thereof is olde heresie, as may ap∣peare by S. Augustin writing against some that sayd, * 1.349 not we, but the darkenesse within vs, haue offended. Nether is it contrarie to this (as M. Charke imagineth) that all things were created good by God. For God created not lucifer a deuyll, but a good Angell: nether Herod an euill man, but a good. Theyre owne lewdnesse made them euyll. Therfore, albeit wicked men and deuylls be euill, and doe repugne the lawe of God: yet the creatu∣res of God are not euill, at leastwise as they are creatu∣res of God: for that, God (as I haue sayde) created them not euill.

3 1.350Secondlie you reprehend, that I call sinne an hu∣mane or reasonable action: and you wolde rather call yt (as you saye) an vnreasonable action, whiche argueth in you some lack of reason. For what? doeth not all electiō bothe good and badde procede of reason? doeth it not procede ab intellectu practico, whiche is the seate of dis∣course and reason, as the philosopher proueth? is M. Charke so vnlearned in all foundation of philosophie? Doeth not S. Augustin proue of purpose, that peccatum fit ab anima rationali, that sinne procedeth frō the min∣de endewed with reason? againe, that consentio ad pecca∣tum fit in ratione? that consent to sinne is made in reasō? what saye you by the good morall woorkes of the gen∣tils, as their iustice, theyr temperance, and the like, whi∣che you (though falsely) doe Iudge to be sinnes, for that they proceded not of faith? were they all vnreasonable

actions? But you obiect against this owt of S. Paul vvhat so euer is not of faithe is sinne: therfore, (saye you) vvhether it be reasonable or vnreasonable it is sinne. * 1.351 Iumpe: by this a horse might be a sinner, for that his actions proceede not of faithe. But I answere to S. Paul, with S. Ambrose. * 1.352 that he meaneth, who soeuer doeth a thing against that whiche faith prescribeth, that is, against a mans owne conscience and iudgement, he sinneth. But yet, that all morall good woorkes of infideles (as iustice, liberalitie, & the like) were not sinnes, S. Augustin proueth at lar∣ge against M. Charke lib. de spir. & lit. ca. 26.27. and 28. And S. Ierom. in cap. 29. Ezechielis. Finallie, to returne and conclude our purpose, S. Aug. proueth against the Manaches, * 1.353 that, peccatum est defectus voluntarius animae rationalis. Synne is a voluntarie defect of a reasonable mynde, and therfore is it a resonable action.

But what doe I talke of voluntarie? * 1.354 M. Charke de∣nyeth synne to be voluntarie. VVhat shall I saye? It we∣re infinit to stand and proue euery principle of diui∣nitie against so peruerse and obstinate a man. And thē prouerbe is common: a long eared creature maye denie more in an hower, than the best learned in the worlde can proue in a yere. But he that will see long and large proofes of this, with infinite scriptures and reasons for the same: lett hym reade but S. Augustin in anie of these places. li. de duabus nat. c. 11. de spiritu & lit. ca. 31. Et li. 3. de lib. arb. c. 18. and li. de vera relig. c. 14. & lib. 1. retract. c. 13. & 15. li. 4. confes. c. 3. and in diuerse other places, where he repeateth often these woordes: * 1.355 Sinne is an euill so voluntarie, as it can be by no meanes sinne, except it be voluntarie. And Christ hym selfe proueth the mat∣ter euidentlie, when he sayeth: that those thinges vvhiche doe defile a man doe come from the hart. Matth. 15. v. 18. But yet heere M. Charke hath two obiections. First, ori∣ginall sinne is not voluntarie, (sayth he) ergo all sinne is not voluntarie. This albeit (it be not to the purpose: the Cēsure talking onelie of actuall sinne, as it professeth:) yet is it moste false, and neuer diuine sayde so before VVilliam Charke, but onelie the pelagians, whoe ther∣by

wolde haue taken awaye originall sinne from in∣fants (as hauing no will) as S. Augustin testifieth: * 1.356 whiche (as well in that place, as in the first booke of his retra∣ctations. c. 13.) he proueth moste leardnedlie, that ori∣ginall sinne is voluntarie in vs, by the first voluntarie acte of our first father, * 1.357 in whiche acte we all dyd sinne voluntarilie, (that beinge an vniuersall acte of all man∣kynde contained in Adam) as also the Apostle confir∣meth, sayeing of Adam, In quo omnes peccauerunt: * 1.358 In who∣me all haue sinned.

* 1.359His second obiection is of the citie of refuge, ap∣pointed by God among the Israelites, for them that had killed a man vnwillinglie, whereof he wolde inferre, that vnwilling manslaughter is a sinne. But I am asha∣med of M. Charke, that professinge skill in scriptures, doeth so ignorantlie alleage them, against theyr play∣ne meaninge, and against hym selfe. For that chapiter sheweth at large, how these cities of refuge were appo∣inted amonge the leuits, * 1.360 for indifferent triall of man∣slaughter, leaste the next of kynne to hym whiche was slayne, (called there the reuenger of bloode) shoulde reuenge the acte vppon the kyller, before the matter were tried. But when the thing was now examined in the citie of refuge, by sufficient witnesses, as the scri∣pture appointeth: then yf it were fownd that the slau∣ghter was committed willinglie, and of hatred: then the murderer was delyuered into the hands of the reuen∣ger of bloode, to be slayne for the same. * 1.361 But of vnwil∣linglie and without malice: liberabitur innocens de vltoris manu sayeth the text: the innocent shalbe deliuered frō the hand of the reuenger. But yet he shall not departe from that citie vntill the deathe of the high pryest. For that, * 1.362 (as Rabby Isaac Arameus writeth) the highe pryest (whose cities these of refuge amonge the Leuits were) had interest and dominion vppon this man, by the la∣we of Leuits, during his lyfe, for the benefit whiche he had receaued by the place of refuge. To whiche also Rabbi Moyses, and Rabbi Leui Ierson doe add an other reason: for that yf he should haue returned presentlie

amōg the kinred of the mā killed: his verie sight might haue styrred thē vp to reuengement vppon hym agay∣ne after the triall passed. But in the deathe of the high pryest, the publique sorowe was so great, as all men forgate theyr priuate iniuries. and dyd vse commonlie to forgeue one an other all offences, saye these learned Iewes. And now I aske againe, whie M. Charke brought in this exāple? Doeth not this make cleare against hym, prouinge that manslaughter vnwillinglie done is no sinne: but innocencie? yf not manslaugter: how muche lesse other smaller actions are cleare from sinne, when no consent of will is yeelded?

Against the clause of the definition, which sayeth, [ 5] that sinne must wittinglie be committed, he obiecteth, that M. Howlet in his reasons of refusall doeth acknow∣lege a sinne of ignorance: * 1.363 which I graunt, but he spea∣keth of culpable ignorance, whereof a man hym selfe is the cause: as his example of persecuting Saul doeth shew, whose ignorance (although it were not so willfull as of many persecuting protestants at this daye, whoe of purpose refuse to know the truthe) yet, * 1.364 as S. Ber∣nard well noteth, it could not be but culpable in hym: as also hym selfe doeth confesse. For that he being lear∣ned: in the olde testament, yf he wolde haue conferred patientlie with the Apostles, he might haue seene that they taught nothing but correspondent to the aunciēt scriptures of God. But we speake heere of inculpable ignorance, called inuincible, by the tearme of schoole∣men: for that it was not in the doers power to auoyd it, nor he fell into it by his owne default. As yf an English man, being in India in seruice of the Prince, * 1.365 should be commaunded by proclamation made in westminster hall to appeare there at a certaine daye, and he (as not hearyng of the same) should not appeare this man is excused by inuincible ignorance. And so in all other cases. S. Augustin and Chrisostome proue of purpose, & moste learnedlie, that this kynde of ignorance (which in deede is onelie proper and true ignorance) doeth excuse from sinne. Yea God hym selfe proueth it by the

example of Abimelech king of Gerare, whome he ex∣cuseth from sinne, * 1.366 for that he had taken awaye Sara Abrahams wyfe, vpon ignorance, & in simplicitie of hart, thinking her to be Abrahams sister, as the text sayeth. The like simplicitie of hart and inculpable ignorance, was in Iacob, lieing with Lia, in stead of Rachell, as the Cen∣sure sheweth. * 1.367 And albeit M. Charke most impiously Ioynynge heerein with Faustus the Manachie, dareth condemne the holie Patriarche in a double sinne, as Faustus dyd: yet S. Austen defendeth notablie this holy mans innocencie, bothe against that and this heretique, in his two and twentith booke against Faustus, * 1.368 through many chapiters together: as also in his booke of the Citie of God. And with S. Augustin doe take parte S. Iustin the martyr l. de verit. Christi religionis: and Theo¦doret q. 84. in generat. and lyranus vpon the verie same place of genesis. * 1.369 And what one woorde can M. Charke now peepe against all this?

To conclude therfore, though M. Charke hathe picked out certaine obiectiōs of our owne bookes, ma∣de and answered by our selues against the learned de∣finition of the Iesuits, (as in deed thay haue no other argumētes, but suche as we lende them our selues): yet hathe he (as you see) not infringed, but establyshed that definition thereby, and hathe bewrayed in hym selfe greate wantes, in holdinge, * 1.370 that sinne is no acte: that no euill men doe sinne, but the euill in men: that sinne is not voluntarie: that it is no humane or reasonable action: that it requireth nether vvill nor knovvlege in the doer: that fooles & madde men may as properlie committ sinne, as others, (for all these are his positions) by whiche he may as well de∣fend, that beasts and vnreasonable creatures may com∣mitt sinne, and be sinners: * 1.371 which S. Augustine thinketh to be so absurd as no man of common sense will affir∣me the same. But what doe I alleage S. Augustin, whome M. Charke reiecteth heere by name about the defini∣tion of sinne? Let vs returne therfore to the Censure. And see what is further brought about this matter.

THE CENSVRE.

But novv hovv doeth M. Charke ouerthrovv this doctrine? forsoothe thus. Contrarie to this (sayeth he) is the woordes of God. 1. Ioh. 3. the transgression of the lawe is sinne. You seme to haue made a vovve (M. Charke) not to deale plainlie in anie one thing. Can you not alleage one litle sentence vvithout falsifyeing? The vvoordes of S. Iohn are these. Euerie one that sin∣neth committeth iniquitie, and sinne is iniquitie. Or (as you vvill perhappes seeme to enforce it out of the greeke vvoorde ANOMIA) Sinne is transgression of the lawe. But vvhy haue you fraudulentlie turned it bac∣kevvard? you knevv vvell the force of transposition out of Sophistrie, * 1.372 that it changeth all the meaning of the sentence. For yf I say, Euerie man is a liuing creature, it is true: but yf I turne it backevvard and saye: Eue∣rye liuing creature is a man, it is false. Soe these vvoor∣des, as S. Iohn vttereth them, are moste true: Euerie sin∣ne is iniquitie, or transgression of the lawe: but as you vtter them, they are false: to vvitt, that euery iniquitie or transgression of the lawe, be it neuer so litle, or done vvithout eyther consent or knoulege, or by a madde man, or brute beast, should be properlie a mortall sinne. Soe that this first blashemie of the Iesuits cōmeth not to be so haynouse, as you vvolde make it: but rather to confound your ignorance, vvhich vnderstand not so cleare doctrine, but hudle vp matters as M. Campian telleth you: also to note your vntruthe in misreporting their vvords, and the scriptures against them. And of this first depend the other tvvo that folovve.

THE DEFENCE.

For couering of falshoode in this place M. Charke

is constrayned to vse a falshoode or two more, accor∣ding to the sayeing: that one lye is not maintayned, but by an other: things aequiualent (sayeth he,) as for exam∣ple, the definition and the thing defined) may be con∣uerted, & one mutuallie maye be affirmed of the other: as the gospell is the povver of God to saluation: * 1.373 And the povver of God to saluation is the gospell: And therefore these two woordes also, si••ne & transgression of the lavve. But I denie this consequence: for transgression of the lawe is not the definition of sinne, as hath bene proued, nor is it equall in signification with the same, but rea∣cheth further than sinne, as the former discourse she∣weth: And thefore it is but absurdlie brought in againe heere, as a thing graunted, seing thereof is all the con∣tention. Secondlie, let M. Charke looke, leste he be de∣ceyued, whē he sayeth the power of God to saluation is the proper definition of the gospell: seing, Christ hym selfe (whiche notwistandinge is not the gospell, but au∣thor of the gospell) is called by the same woordes in an other place DVNAMIS THEOV: that is The povver of god, * 1.374 and no doubt but to saluation, as M. Charke will not denie. VVherfore, though it import not our matter at all, yet I thinke M. Charke was somewhat grosselie ouerseene in choyse of this example.

After this, for some countenance of his fraudulent transposition, he sayeth: * 1.375

as for the transposition, lett the Apostles vvoordes be marked, sayeing, (God is a spirit:) Yet the vvoordes lye thus in the greeke text, (a spirit is God.) VVherfore let not transposition seeme straunge to you.

No more it doeth (M. Charke) in common speeche, and in a tongue that will beare it, as the latin and greek doeth. But when we measure the weight of woordes or pro∣positions, and that in oure English tongue (as in our matter it falleth out) * 1.376 trāspositions are fraudulēt, as in the verie example whiche you alleage, a spirit is God: if you wolde inferre therof, ergo euerie spirit is God, as you inferre that euery transgression of the lavve is synne: you should easilie see your owne falsehood. For Angels also are spirits (as the scripture sayeth), and yet not Goddes.

And heere for my learning I wolde know of you Sir, in what tongue the Apostle sayeth God is a spirit, different from which you say the greek hath a spirit is God? sure∣lye (M. Chark) you are ouer bolde in your auouche∣ments of the script••re. For not onelie the greeke, but also the latin and Syriak hathe Spiritus est deus: and ther∣fore, bothe fondlie and falsely doe you attribute it, as peculiar onelie to the greeke.

But M. Charke reserueth a sure carde for the end, therewith to dashe all that hath bene sayd before, and that is the sentence of S. Iohn afterward, omnis iniqui∣tas est peccatum, all iniquitie, (or * 1.377 transgression (sayeth he) is sinne. VVhich seemeth so plaine against me, as he greatlie insulteth and triumpheth, affirming that the victorie by this one sentēce is gotten: but beleeue hym not (good reader) for he thinketh not so in his owne cōscience, but well knoweth that this sentence maketh greatlie against hym, thoughe he wolde deceyue thee, with the bare sound and equiuocation of woordes. For in the former sentence, where is sayd, sinne is iniquitie, S. Iohn vseth for the woord iniquitie, ANOMIA, in greeke, which signifieth any transgression or variance from the law••, be it great or litle, as hath bene proued, and as the nature of the greeke woord importeth, in which sense it is most true, that euerie iniquitie is not sinne, as I haue shewed, & as S. Augustin proueth, of verie pur∣pose. l. 2. cont. Iul. pela. c. 5. And alleageth also S. Am∣brose in the same opinion: * 1.378 as also Methodius apud Epi∣phanium her: 64. quae est Origenis. And S. Augustin proueth it in many other places besides: shewing in our verie case, how concupiscence is iniquitie, in the regenerat, but yet no sinne. And this for the first place. Now in the second place, where the same Apostle sayeth euerye ini∣quitie is sinne: he vseth not the same generall woorde ANOMIA. * 1.379 VVhiche he vsed before, but ADICIA, * 1.380 which is a more speciall woorde, and signifieth an iniustice or iniurie: as the philosopher sheweth, assigning it as the contrarie to Iustice: and therfore no maruaile though this kinde of iniquitie be sinne as S. Iohn sayth, yea

great sinne also, for of such onelie S. Iohn talketh in that place, * 1.381 sayeing, there is a sinne to death, I doe not saye that any man should aske for that all iniquitie is synne &c. whe∣reby is euydent, that the Apostle taketh not iniquitie in this place (expressed by the woord ADICIA) in the same sense, wherein he tooke it before, vsing the woord ANOMIA. VVhiche M. Charke well knoweing, sheweth hym selfe a willfull deceyuer, in that he wolde delude his reader, with the equiuocation of the latin transla∣tion, which at other times he reiecteth withoute cause or reason.

* 1.382Lastlie, he chargeth me with alteration of the text of scripture, for translating omnis qui facit peccatum euerie one that sinneth, where I should haue transla∣ted (sayth he) euery one that doeth sinne. This is a char∣ge woorthie of M. Charke, that will playe small game rather than sytt owt. I praye you sir, what difference is there in the two phrases, your vvyfe spinneth, and your vvyfe doeth spinne? But you cōfesse in deede there is litle holde in this, and therefore freendlie you doe pardon me, for it, and doe conclude, sayeing: you think perhaps to serue the Lorde in your opinion, and I knovv I serue the Lorde. You are happie that haue so certaine knowlege of your good estate M. Charke, * 1.383 though to vtter it in this place I doe not see what occasion you had. But I praye you let me learne how you came to this knowlege: Not by Aristotles demōstrations (I am sure) which yett are the onelie means of certaine science properlie. How then? by fayth? but you know, that faith can assure nothing, whiche is not reuealed by the woorde of God. VVhat parte of gods woorde then, teacheth vs that william Charke in particular serueth the Lorde a-right? but yow will saye perhappes. Your spirit within you tel∣leth 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: * 1.384 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 ly∣uing, they wold say the same that you doe of theyr cer∣taine knowlege. VVherefore me think you might haue spared these woordes of your certayne knovvlege, whi∣che 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: * 1.385 Con∣cupiscēce 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) * 1.386 you vvill needes helpe the Iesuits out vvithe that vvhiche ma∣keth 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 re∣pugnant 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.) * 1.387 And albeit S. Paul doe sometimes call it sinne: * 1.388 yet meaneth he not properlie but by a figure, vvhereby the name of the cause is of••entimes attributed to the effect: (3.) * 1.389 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, * 1.390 as also S. Paul calleth (4.) * 1.391 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. * 1.392 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 Alexan∣drinus 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: * 1.393 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. 1 1.394 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••su∣re 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 mea∣nyng, but a secret intention to deceyue. As also when you assure your reader, that I denyeing concupiscen∣ce to be a mortall sinne (according to the question be∣twene 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 Mar∣tin Luthers mariage to be sacrilege) dyd meane there∣by to graunt vnder-hand that it was adulterie, fornica∣tion, or any other lesser sinne of the fleshe.

The exposition of S. Pauls woordes callinge con∣cupiscence improperlie sinne, 2 1.395 quia peccato facta est, be∣cause it was wrought in vs by originall sinne: as S. Au∣gustin sayeth: M. Charke reiecteth, calling it a wrāgling exposition, though it be the exposition of the primati∣ue 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, * 1.396 and beginneth hym selfe li∣ke 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. * 1.397 VVell: this maketh for vs. For soe we may reason: that though concupiscen∣ce doe sturre vs to sinne; yet is it no sinne. But what in∣ferreth he? * 1.398 therfore (sayeth he) yf the lavve vvh••che is ho∣lie, doe come in question notvvithstanding of synne, for that it prouoketh our corrupt nature to synne: hovv muche more con∣cupiscence: vvhich is vncleane in it selfe? This proueth no∣thing M. Charke but from the place, a disparatis, where commonlie children and distracted men take their ar∣guments. 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 wa∣yes ether vncleane or euill, or the effect of sinne, as we graunt concupiscence is? and yet for all this not proper∣lie sinne, without consent of hart, as S. Augustin in the places alleaged proueth.

And this now of consequent, supposinge the An∣tecedent were true, as it is moste false. For who will graunt those absurd impious propositions: The lavve sturreth vs to sinne: the lavve prouoketh our corrupt nature to sinne? * 1.399 S. Paul sayeth, I had not knowne sinne but by the lawe: but he neuer sayeth, that the lawe sturred hym vpp to sinne: but onelie, that it discouereth sinne vnto hym, euen as the looking glasse discouereth the spotte in a-mans face, and maketh vs to see it, whiche we did not before, but yet procureth not that spotte. And S. Paul gyueth an example, sayeing, * 1.400 I had not knovvne con∣cupiscence, yf the lavve had not sayd, thovv shalt not couet. In whiche woordes, that he meaneth of voluntarie cō∣cupiscence, that is, whereto ether consent or delecta∣tion is yeelded: S. Augustin besides the places alleaged testifieth. li. 1. de nup. & concup. c. 29. li. de spiritu & li∣tera cap. vlt. li. 19. con: Faustum c. 7. & cont. 2. ep. petil. li. 3. c. 7. And it is moste woorthie of laughter, which M. Charke, for filling vp a page discourseth of S. Pauls esta¦te: sayeing. Paule cōpareth his sta••e before his knovvlege of the tenth cōmaundemēt, vvith his state aftervvard. He knevv other synnes before, by the light of nature: but he knevv not cōcupiscēce, till he knevv the tēth cōmaundemēt. I praye you Sir, what was S. Pauls state before his knowlege of the tenth commaundement? was not S. Paul borne a Iewe? * 1.401 brought vp from his youth in the law, at the feet of Ga∣maliel? how then coulde he be ignorāt in ••he tenth cō∣maundemēt,

and yet be hable to discerne other sinnes by the light of naturall reason? doe you thincke vppon your woordes before you send them to the print?

S. Augustins example of the latin tongue M. Chark reiecteth, 3 1.402 for that the tongue is not suche a cause of the speche, as originall sinne is of concupiscence. But what a reason is this to reproue so learned a man as S. Augu∣stin was? for vvhoe knovveth not, (as I haue shewed before) that comparisōs or similitudes are not of neces∣sitie, to holde in euerye pointe, but in that onelie whe∣rein they are compared. Though then the tongue be onelie the instrumētall cause of speeche: & originall sin¦ne, the formall cause of concupiscence: yet is it sufficiēt to shevve that effects may take vppon them oftentimes the name of their causes: and consequentlie, asvvell concupiscence the name of sinne, as the tongue the na∣me of speeche. * 1.403 Nether is it necessarie (as M. Chark rea∣soneth) that euery effect of originall synne should be synne in the regenerate: For that all our penalties (as hungar, thirst, sicknesse & the like) are effectes of originall sin∣ne in vs, but yet not sinnes in them selues: as nether cō∣cupiscence in the baptized, vvhose guylt is vtterlie ta∣ken avvay by baptisme, as S. Ambrose and S. Augustin doe proue.

To like effect is alleaged by the Censure the exā∣ple of Christ called sinne in the scripture: not for that, Christ and concupiscence are like effectes of sinne (as M. Charke quareleth:) but to shevve that a thinge may be called sinne by the scripture figuratiuelie, and yet be no sinne properlie albeit, yf vve consider Christ, as he vvas hostia pro peccato, a sacrifice for our sinne: (in vvhich sēse onelie, S. Paul calleth him sinne:) No mā can denie, but Christ so considered, vvas a certayne effect of our sinnes also: that is, Christ crucified, or the cruci∣fieinge of Christ vvas a certayne effect of our sinnes: for that our sinne vvas the cause of that deathe and sa∣crifice. And vvhere you controll my quotation of the ••. to the Romanes, as though there vvere no suche thing in that place: doe you reade but the third verse,

and confesse your ouersight. * 1.404 And yf you will not be∣leeue the text: reade Origen, and S. Augustin: * 1.405 and they will tell you the cause whie he is called sinne by S. Paul in that place.

But nowe for the auncient fathers alleaged in the Censure, as partakers of the Iesuits blasphemie: I maruaille M. Charke vouchesafeth to examine them, s••ing in other places he contemneth vtterlie their au∣thorities, calling them my breade zovvle of fathers. Mary here belike he hathe gotten some sleyght to shyft them of, or at leastwise, some part of thē. For as for S. Cypriā and Pacian, he passeth ouer without sayeing any woord vnto them. * 1.406 To S. Ambrose and Clemens Alexādrinus, he answereth, that they haue no suche thynges in the pla∣ces alleaged: whiche is somewhat worse than passing ouer: for it is a flatt vntruethe: seing in those places (as the reader may see by conference) they proue all sinne to be taken awaye in the regenerate by baptisme, and the sowle left pure & cleane, as the light it selfe: whiche can not stande, yf concupiscence remayning be a fowle sinne, as M. Charke affirmeth: but he addeth, that Cle∣mens in an other place hathe some what against vs: * 1.407 to witt, that hy con••npiscence onelie a man cōmitteth adulterie: whiche is true, yf a man gyue consent therunto, as ap∣peareth by Christ, Math. 5. But the first motions onelie, without any consent or delectation in them, I maruaile M. Charke is not ashamed to call adulterie: seing Cle∣mens in the same place exhorteth the gentiles to resist these motions of concupiscence, and not to yeelde vnto them, and so to auoyde adulterie: whiche he wolde not haue done, yf these very first motions thē selues (which are inauoydable) were adulterie without yeelding any consent vnto them.

To Gregorie Nazianzen alleaged in orat. de S. Iauacro, he answereth, that Nazianzen neuer vvrote any such oratiō as I dreame of. But if he dreamed not, yet I thinke at least he was halfe a sleepe, whē he wrote this: & ether vnderstoode not the books name, being writtē somewhat short (whiche were too badde in so greate ••

diuine:) or else neuer sawe Nazianzēs woorkes (which were worse:) or else not able to answere the place, wold shyft it of with suche a sleyght, which were worst of all. That which he hathe for shyfting of S. Austen, I vnder∣stande not: his woordes are these: lett the reader skanne them: you vvere deceyued (sayeth he) in citing Augustin tvvyse, as hauyng vvriten but one booke de nuptiis & concu∣piscentia. Heere, yf he meane that S. Austen hathe writ∣ten but one booke de nupt. & concup: and that I was deceyued in citing hym twyse, as hauing written two bookes: then is S. Austen hym selfe against hym: whoe sayeth in his second booke of Retractations, * 1.408 that he had written two bookes de nuptiis & concupiscentia. But yf M. Chark meane that I thynke S. Austen to haue wrytten but one booke de nupt. & concup. and so doe erre in citing hym: he is deceyued. For I cite hym thus in the Censure: li. 1. de nupt. & concup: whiche signifieth the first booke: and no man citeth a first booke, which thynketh not that there is a secōd. Vherfore this fond charge eyther tasteth of ignorance, or of greate desire to quarrell. VVill you stand to it that S. Augustin hath written but one booke of this matter? I wolde gyue a good thing, that I were by you whyle you reade this, to see whether you can blushe or no. But yet I call backe my wishe agayne. For I thinke you wolde make me more a fearde, than I you a shamed: for that your Purseuantes are stronger than our argumentes.

And this is but concerning the quotation of S. Augustin: for about the text it selfe M. Charks beha∣uioure is a great deale worse: and suche in verie deede, as yf a man had care of his owne sowle, he wolde ne∣uer trust suche a felow more, that against all honestie, trueth, shame, and respect, bothe of conscience & ••re∣dit, falsifieth so learned a fathers writinges against his plaine and euident woordes and meaning. For whereas S. Augustin alleaged by the Censure, & in many places else of his woorkes sayeth, * 1.409 auoucheth, confirmeth, and proueth, that Concupiscentia iam non est peccatum quando ••lli ad illicita opera non consentitur: concupiscens nowe in

the regenerate is not sinne when consent of mynde is not yeelded to vnlaufull woorks. M. Chark answereth: S. Augustins place is expounded by him selfe afterward, sayeing Cōcupiscence is not so for gyuen in baptisme, that it is not synne, but that it is not imputed as synne: * 1.410 this seemeth plaine, and Augustin appeareth contrarie to hym selfe. But what is the principall woorde in this sentence, that maketh moste for M. Charke? The word, Synne, you will say: for that being taken away in the former clause, the sentence maketh quite against hym. VVell then, that woorde hathe he added of hym selfe, and yet hathe corrupted the whole sentēce besides. For S. Augustines woordes are these: * 1.411

quaeritur &c. si in parente baptizato po∣test esse (concupiscentia) & peccatum non esse: cur eadem ipsae in prole peccatum sit? The question is (sayth S. Augustin whie this concupiscence is sinne in the childe (before it be baptized:) yf it be no sinne in the parent nowe ba∣ptized? heere you see by the way, that it is holden as a matter out of doubt, that concupiscence is no sinne in the parent whiche is baptized:

and the reason S. Augu∣stin yeedelth immediatlie in the answer: sayeing,

Ad haec respondetur dimitti concupiscentiam carnis in baptismo, non vt non si••, sed vt in peccatum nō impute••ur, quamuis rea∣tu suo iam soluto, manet tamē &c.

To this is answered that the cōcupiscence of the fleshe is forgeuen in baptisme, not that it is not, (or remayneth not,) but that it is not imputed into sinne. Yt remaneth still, though the guylt be taken awaye.

Heere now we see that S. Augustin affirmeth one∣lie that concupiscence is not quite taken awaye by ba∣ptisme, but yet the guilt thereof, is so that it is no more imputed into the nature of a sinne. The cause whie it is left he vttereth in diuers places, as when he sayeth: * 1.412 ad agonem manet, non sibi ad illicita consentientibus nihil omnino nocitura. Concupiscence remaneth to fight with∣all, but yet in such sort, as it can hurt vs nothing at all, yf we cōsent not to her vnlaufull suggestiōs. Secondlie we see that S. Augustin in this verie place proueth di∣rectlie our verie position, that concupiscence in the bap∣tized

is not sinne: also that it hath no guilt: and that it doeth hurt nothing vvithout consent: vvherby M. Charkes lacke of Iudgement and shame may be noted in bringing this place of all others against vs, & adding, that hovv soeuer the Iesuits distinguish, yet these sinnes (the first motions of con∣cupiscence) ••vhich by the Iesuits doctrine are so called figu∣ratiuelie (except vve fynde mercie) vvill fynde no figuratiue condemnation.

Thyrdlie vve may beholde and lament the pity∣full desperate resolutiō of our aduersaries, whoe seing and knoweing their owne vveaknes, * 1.413 yet to couer their miserie dare abuse, forge, and falsifie playne authorities, as in this place this shamelesse creature hath done in so many points For first, vvhere as S. Augustin sayeth Con∣cupiscence is forgyuen in baptisme: he translateth, concupi∣scence is not so forgyuen in baptisme. Secondlie vvhere as S. Augustine saythe: it is forgyuen, not that it be not, or re∣maine not: he trāslateth: not that it is not sinne. Thirdlie for imputed into synne: he trāslateth imputed as sinne. Fowerth∣lie he cutteth of the woordes immediatlie goeing be∣fore, where S. Augustin sayeth concupiscence in the paren•• baptized is no synne, as also the voordes immediatlie fo∣loweing, and affirming, that concupiscence remayneth, but vvithout guilt, and consequentlie can not be sinne. Ha∣the this man anye conscience, any trueth? any good meaning? any sparke of grace? seeketh he to instruct or to deceyue? to proue and defend, or to couer & dissem∣ble? Is this he whiche protested suche sinceritie in his dealing, as before God and Angels? is this the credit of a puritane protestant? O how miserable are those people whiche hange their soules vpon the trust of such dissē∣bling and deceyuing men?

And this for the fyrst place cited by M. Charke, for his sentence of S. Augustin, for he citeth two chapiters in one booke: the first thereof hath as you haue seene: the other hath no one woorde tendinge that waye, but cleane to the contrarie. For S. Augustin layeth downe & proueth our position of purpose, in muche more ample and vehement maner than I can against M Charke, and

sheweth it also by examples, how the Apostle called concupiscence sinne improperlie: * 1.414 vocatur peccatum quia peccato facta est, cum iam in regeneratis non sit ipsa pecca∣tum: Si autem vocatur lingua locutio, quam facit lingua, & manus vocatur scriptura quam facit manus. Concupiscence is called sinne: because it is made in vs by (originall) sin∣ne, whereas it selfe is not sinne now in the regenerate: * 1.415 euen as the speeche whiche the tongue maketh is cal∣led the tongue, and the writinge whiche the hand ma∣keth is called the hand. The verie same hath S. Augu∣stin against Iulian the pelagian towching S. Pauls cal∣ling of concupiscence sinne, * 1.416 whiche in deede properlie is no sinne, except consent be yeelded thervnto, as the∣re S. Augustin proueth by the woordes of Paul hym selfe. VVherfore M. Charke doeth fraudulentlie allea∣ge his woords against the same Iulian, to proue that all concupiscence is sinne. For S. Augustin sayeth onelie of concupiscence in generall, * 1.417 that it is synne, and the puni∣shement of synne, and the cause of synne, whiche is true of concupiscence in generall, as it comprehendeth all her braunches, and all estates of men: for concupiscence is the punishement of sinne in all men: In them that gyue consent it is the cause of sinne: in them that are not ba∣ptized it is sinne it selfe, whether they gyue consent or no. But yet is it not nedefull that all these points should be verified in euerye particular braunche of concupi∣scence: * 1.418 as for example: Manslaughter in generall com∣prehendeth murder, chaunce medley, execution by Iu∣stice, and the like: and in respect of these braunches a man may say truelie, manslaughter is vvicked and prohi∣bited by god•• lavve. And againe, manslaughter is good and commended by gods lavve, for bothe these are verified in some of her braunches. So in respect of diuerse braun∣ches of concupiscence S. Augustin might saye concupi∣scence is synne, the punishement of synne, and the cause of syn∣ne. But yet this is not true in euerie particular braun∣che of concupifcence, and namelie of that braunche we now dispute of: that is, of concupiscence in the regene∣rat without consent: as a man can not saye, that euerye

manslaughter is good, nor that euerie manslaughter is euill.

And the cause why S. Augustin vsed this sentence against Iulian was, for that Iulian dyd prayse concupi∣scence, as a thing commendable, for that it was a puni∣shement of God sor sinne: But S Augustin refuteth that, sheweing, that concupiscence in generall, is not onelie a punishement for synne, but sometimes also, and in some ••ē it is sinne it selfe, & the cause of sinne: * 1.419 & ther∣sore an euill thinge, though no sinne, without consent. For so he sayeth against the same Iulian. Quantum ad nos attinet. sine peccato sen per essemus, donec sanaretur hoc malū, si ei n••nquam consentiremus ad malum: sed in quibus ab illo rebellame, e••si non lethaliter, sed venialiter, tamen vincimur, in hiis contrahimus vnde quotidie dicamus. * 1.420

Dimitte nobis de∣bita nostra•• As for vs (that are baptized) we might be all∣wayes without sinne vntill that day when this euill cō∣cupiscēce shall be healed, (that is in heauē) yf we wol∣de not consent vnto yt, * 1.421 to euill.

But in these things whe∣rein we are ouercome by this rebelliouse concupiscen∣ce veniallie at least, though not mortallie: by these (I sa∣ye) we geather matter daylie to saye, forgyue vs our trespasses.

Heere Loe S. Augustin proueth concupiscence to be euill, against the pelagian: & yet not to be sinne wi∣thout consent, against the protestant. Thyrdlie, that ac∣cordinge to the mesure or degree of cōsent yeelded, it may be ether veniall or mortall sinne against, M. Char∣ke, a litle before obstinatlie denyeinge this distinction of sinnes. And finallie, S Augustin doeth not onelie pro∣ue this our p••sition purposelye in almoste infinite other places of his woorkes, but also in his second boo∣ke against Iulian doeth confirme it, by the vniforme consent of other fathers of the Churche, as of S. Am∣brose, Nazianzen and others. VVhat then shall we say but onelye pittie william Charke, whiche fyndeth Au∣gustin the doctor as hard against hym in all pointes, as Augustin the monke.

The woordes of Christ alleaged by you to ouer∣throw

our position: to witt, * 1.422 euerie one that shall see a vvo∣man, to lust after her, hathe novv committed adulterie vvith her in his hart: are truelie sayd of the Censure, to be al∣leaged by you, bothe ignorantlie, & against your selfe. Fyrst, for that the woorde hart there expressed, impor∣teth a consent, without whiche nothing defileth a man, as may be gathered by Christ his owne woordes, * 1.423 in an other place, sayeing, that the things which defile a man doe procede frō the hart. Secondlie, for that, the woor∣des import a voluntarie looking vppon vvomen, * 1.424 to that ende to be inflamed with lust, as bothe the latin, & mu∣che more the greeke and Syriake textes insinuate: and S. Chrisostom interpreteth hom. 8. de poenitentia, as S. Augustin also expoundeth them, sayeinge, * 1.425 qui viderit mulierem ad concupiscendam eam: id est, hoc fine & hoc animo attenderit, vt eam concupiscat, quod est plene consenti∣re libidini.

He that shall see a woman to lust after her: that is, shall looke vpon her to this end, and with this mynde to lust after her, which is in deede fullie to consent vn∣to the lust.

Now what replieth Sir william to all this? su∣relie nothing, but maketh along idle speake of praedica∣tum & subiectum, as pertinent to the matter, as charing crosse to byllingsgate. And in the end to quite the Lorde (as he saythe) moste carefullie from synne, he alleageth S. Iames, sayeing, * 1.426 that God tempteth no man, but euerie man is tempted, dravven, and allured by his ovvne concupiscence: and then concupiscence vvhen it hathe conceyued, bringeth furth synne. But what is this against vs? Doe we charge God with this sinne of cōcupiscence, when we denie it to be sinne at all, except onelie when a man consenteth to it? or rather doe you charge God withe it, when you affirme it to be sinne, as it is of nature, without consent? are we or you they, that make God author of sinne? is not Caluin condemned of our churche for this im∣pretie? * 1.427 (a) doeth he not holde, that God is author of sin∣ne, in diuers places of his woorkes? (b) Doeth he not condemne S. Augustin by name, for holdinge the con∣trarie? (c) Doeth not Peter Martyr his scholer holde the same? How then talke you of quitting carefullie the Lorde

from synne, as though he were charged or accused therof by vs? what hypocrisie, what dissimulation, what fals∣hode is this in you?

Now the place of S. Iames (as commonlie all other thinges that yow alleage) maketh singularlie against your selfe. Heare S. Augustins exposition & argument, whiche proueth our position out of the same woordes. * 1.428 Cum dicit apostolus Iacobus, vnusquis{que} tentatur a concupi∣scentia sua abstractus & illectus: deinde, concupiscentia cum cònceperit parit peccatum: profecto in hiis verbis partus a pa∣riente discernitur. Pariens enim est concupiscentia, partus pec∣catum. Sed concupiscentia non parit nisi conceperit: non con∣cipit nisi illexerit, hoc est ad malum perpetrandum obtinuerit volentis assensum.

VVhen the apostle Iames sayeth: euery one is tempted, drawen awaye, and Intised by his owne concupiscence: afterward concupiscence, when it ha∣the conceyued, bringeth furthe sinne: surelie in these woordes the childe is distinguished from the mother: the mother that beareth is concupiscence: the childe borne is sinne. But concupiscence beareth not except she conceyue: and she conceyueth not except she ob∣taine the consent of hym which is willing to doe euill.

Now goe (M. Charke) and acquite your selfe of grosse follie and ignorance, whereof you are conuicted, which wolde so carefullie quitte the Lorde of that, wherewith we neuer meant to charge hym.

Of the first motions of concupiscence.

THE CENSVRE.

Thyrdlie, you reporte the Iesuits to saye, * 1.429 That the first motiōs of lust are without hurt of sinne Cēs. 54. 89. It is moste true and playne, as they delyuer it, but you, by clipping their vvoords, make euerie thing to seeme a paradoxe. They say, the first motions of lust, yf they come of naturall instinct only, vvithout any cause gy∣uen by vs, are no sinnes, so long as vve geue no consen•• of hart vnto them. And the reason is because it lyeth not in vs, (they being naturall) to prohibit them to co∣me,

no more than it dothe, to prohibit our pulse from beating. And therfore seing no sinne can be cōmitted, vvithout our vvill & consent of har••: (as I haue she∣vved before:) the first motions can be no more sinnes in vs, than they are in beastes, for the lyke reason. Nether is the tenthe cōmaundement, (alleaged by you for the contrary doctrine, to vvitt, * 1.430 thow shalt not couet) any vvaye repugnant to this. For this commaundemēt for∣byddeth consent to these motions, & not the verie mo∣tions, vvhiche are not in our povver, as the Scriptu∣re it selfe signifieth, vvhen it sayeth. * 1.431 This cōmaunde∣ment which I doe gyue thee this daye, is not aboue thee. And as S. Austen learnedlie proueth out of an other place of scripture, vvhere this commaundement is ex∣pounded, to vvit. Goe not after thy concupiscence: That is, consent not vnto them, or folovve them not.

THE DEFENCE.

The vnderstanding of this article dependeth who∣lie of that whiche goeth before. For yf no sinne be cō∣mitted, where no consent of will is, as hath bene pro∣ued abundātlie in the two former articles: then can not the first motions of lust or concupiscence, that come by naturall instinct onelye, without any cause gyuē by vs, be sinne: yf we yeeld no cōsent of hart to the same. And this is so euident, bothe in reason, common sense, phi∣losophie, diuinitie, and authoritie of auncient fathers: as no man wolde haue the face to stand against it, but a man enforced therunto, as M. Charke is•• S. Austen dothe proue the matter purposelie in diuers places, whoe was not behynde M. Charke in iudgement. You remember how many places I haue alleaged of his be∣fore: as that amōg the rest: * 1.432 VVe myght be allvvayes vvith∣out synne•• yf vve neuer dyd yealde consent to our concup••scēce to sinne. And in an other place, talking purposelie of these first motions, he sayeth:

Quibus si non consentitur, nullius peccati reatus comrahitur:

vnto whiche motions, yf

we gyue no consent of hart: no guylt of sinne is contra∣cted by them. VVhat can be sayde more effectuallie? Agayne he sayeth in an other place, that these first mo∣tions of lust are so fare of from beyng sinnes, * 1.433 of their owne nature, as Christians vse not to aske God forgiue∣nes for them, except they be eyther negligent in repel∣linge them, or doe yealde some consent vnto them. The verie same he hathe in diuers other places: as concione 3. in psa. 118 And Lib•• de perfect. iustitiae. cap. vlt. and yet more largelie Li. 1. cont. duas ep. Pelag: cap. 13. and in dy∣uers other places: affirming that wee neede not saye for thes sirst motions, dimitte nobis debita nostra: Forgeue vs our trespasses. So that you see with what witt, or reasō, this doctrine is called blasphemous in the Iesuites, by VV. Charke.

But yet, though this matter be moste euident in it selfe: Lett vs examine what cauilles he seeketh to fra∣me some shewe or semblance of a replie. He reprehen∣deth first, as superfluous, my addition of woordes, vsed for explication sake, when I sayde, that the first motiōs were no sinne without consent: Yf they come of naturall instinct onelye, vvithout any cause gyuen by vs. This expli∣catiō (I saye) he greatlie reprehendeth: sayeing, * 1.434 I pray you, are not all the fyrst motions of lust merelye naturall, and euermore of some cause gyuen by vs &c? In which fond in∣terrogation, first he includeth two contraries. For if they be meerlie naturall: then are they not of any cause gyuen by vs. And yf they be of causes gyuen by vs: then are they not meerlie naturall. For that, natura & volun∣tas are distinct agents: as he ought to haue learned in philosophie. Secondlie, it is false, that all fyrst motions of lust are meerlie naturall. For in lewed men they are often voluntarie: * 1.435 as when a man applieth his imagina∣nation purposelie to thinke of dishonest things, and so sturreth the motions of concupiscence: also when a mā voluntarilie doeth beholde lasciuious sightes, or rea∣deth wanton bookes, or the lyke. In all whiche cases, though the motions of lust that ryse, be naturall in the roote, as diuines tearme it: yet is their nearest and im∣mediat

cause voluntarie: * 1.436 and therfore are they not meerlie naturall. A playne example heerof may be this: that, if a furious dogge should lye a sleep, & one should a-wake hym purposelye, knoweing the daunger, and so should be bytten of hym: this hurt might be sayde to proceed from the dogges nature, as from the roote or fyrst cause: But the immediate cause therof was the mans voluntarie awaking of hym, and not the dogges nature. So in the first motions of lust, though all be na∣turall in the roote, or first cause of concupiscence, and many times they doe rise of thē selues in the most god∣lie that are, without any cause gyuē by thē (& therfore sayeth M. Charke most falselie, that all come of causes gyuen by vs:) yet sometimes they are a-wakened and sturred vpp in vs by those meanes, whiche I haue na∣med. And then are they bothe voluntarie and sinfull, and not otherwyse. And for this distinction dyd I ma∣ke that addition of vvaste vvoordes, as M. Charke calleth yt: but you haue seene with what cause or wisdome.

After this, he reprehendeth my comparison of first motions to the pulse, * 1.437 as a comparison vvithout iudgement•• And his cheefest reason is, for that they are not lyke to the pulse in all things: & this is his ordinaire answering of all comparisons alleaged in the Censure. VVhiche is as substantiall a waye of answering, as yf a man should saye, a cowe and her cal••e are not lyke in heire, for that they are not lyke in hornes. VVhat Gramarian almost knoweth not, that similitudes are not of necessitie to holde in all poyntes, but onelie in that, wherein the cō∣parison is made? I compared therfore the first motions of lust vnto the pulse, in one onelie point: (as ap∣peareth in the Censure) And that is, that they bothe, as well the one as the other, are often tymes meere natu∣rall: and the lust many tymes no more voluntarie than the pulse: And is not this true? or dothe M. Charke saye one woord against this? no surelie: but goeth and pro∣ueth at large, that in other thyngs they are not lyke: whiche I neuer denyed.

His second reason against my example of the pulse

standeth thus in his booke: * 1.438 You can not conclude from that parte of our naturall sovvle, vvherby vve haue lyfe and sens•• onelie, to the parte vvherein our reason & affections are placed, because the former is not in the same sorte corrupted as the second. Nether dothe synne so vvoorke in naturall lyfe and sense, as it dothe in the hart by the corruptions and guyltines of the sovvle. The necessarie actions of lyfe, (as eating, drin∣kyng, sleepe, breathe) also the necessarie actions of sense, (as smellyng, seeyng, hearing, feelyng, & the rest,) they are of thē selues all free from synne, remaynyng as they vvere in man before his fall. By this long discourse he wolde proue that the pulse; and the first motions of concupiscence are not lyke in all pointes. VVhiche I graunt without proofe. But yet in this one reason he vttereth three fowle absurdities, and most grosse errours.

The first is that he placeth concupiscence of the fleshe (wherof we talke) in the reasonable parte of the mynde, * 1.439 and not in the sensityue parte: which is as much, as yf a man should appoint seeyng to be in the nose, & smellyng to be in the eyes. For the motiōs of cōcupiscē∣ce are nothing els but the rebelliōs of our sēsitiue par∣tes, against the parte wherein reason is: and how then are not they in the parte sensityue? are they not called the concupiscence of the fleshe? Dothe not S. Paul saye the fleshe coueteth (or hathe concupiscence) agaynst the spirit? Dothe not he saye playnlie: * 1.440 I feele an other lavve in my members repugnyng to the lavve of my mynde? Is not heere concupiscence placed in the members; and reason in the mynde? what intollerable ignorāce is this in a prea∣cher, yea in a conquerour of learned M. Campian, ea∣uen vnto Tyborne?

But his second absurditie is yet greater than this; in affirmyng that the sensuall parte of man is not so muche corrupted by originall synne, * 1.441 as is the reasona∣ble part: whiche is cleane false and the contradictorie therof is true. For albeit all partes be corrupted: yet the s••••sible parte more, by reason of the rebellyon of the sensityue parte against the reasonable: whiche I haue named before, and euerie man by experience dothe

fynde more temptation in his sensitiue partes: to witt, in his senses, imagination, and other like partes, and mem∣bers of his bodie: than he dothe in his reasonable par∣tes, to wytt, in his iudgement, and wyll: especiallie good men, who fynde greate rebellyon often tymes in their sensuall partes, thoughe their iudgement be ryght, and their wyll most holye and firme. S. Paul felt this, when he sayd, * 1.442 O vnhappie man that I am, vvho shall delyuer me from the bodie of this deathe? And agayne: I my selfe doe serue the lavve of God in my mynde, but in my fleshe I serue the lav••e of synne: signifyinge therby the violent rebellion of the fleshe. In whiche sense also it is sayd by the wyse man: * 1.443 the bodye that is corrupted aggreueth the mynde. And S. Paul sayethe, I doe not that uuhiche I vvolde, but that vvhiche I hate. By all which is shewed that the inferiour parte of man (called the sensatyue parte) is more corru∣pted, by the fall of Adam, than the reasonable: * 1.444 for that by the force of concupiscence placed principallie in it, it maketh warre, and offerreth violence to the other. So that heerin also M. Charke was fowlie ouerseene.

* 1.445His third absurditie is ioyned with flatt pelagia∣nisme, where he sayeth, that the necessarie actions of lyfe and sense remayne novv in man, as they vvere before hys fall. Heerof S. Austen shalbe witnesse, whose woordes are these: Yf any man shall affirme that by the offence of pre∣uarication in Adam, the vuhole man, that is, man bothe in bodie and sovvle is not chaunged into vvorse &c: he is decey∣ued vvith the errour of pelagians, and is contrarie to the scri∣ptures. * 1.446 The lyke teacheth Prosper. lib. 1. de vocat. gent. ca. 7. Into these errours and heresies falleth M. Charke, whi∣les leauing the sure doctrine of the Catholique Chur∣che, he deuiseth owt newe wayes, (after the fashion of all heretiques) wherby to excuse naturall actions from sinne. VVe excuse them from sinne, and doe saye the cause to be, for that they are not voluntarie: whiche is one principall point required, aswell in sinne as in ver∣tue, as hathe beene shewed. M. Charke deuiseth, he can not tell what him selfe, in this pointe: but onelie that he wolde not saye willinglie as we doe, thoughe he haue

nothing to saye besides.

But yet against this poynte of voluntarie he obie∣cteth (once more,) originall sinne: whiche (as he sayeth) is not voluntarie. But it hathe bene answered before; & shewed, how it is voluntarie, not onelie in men of di∣scretion, but also in infantes. Secōdlie, he alleageth owt of Genesis; * 1.447 that the cogitation of mans hart is euill euer mo∣re. To whiche I answere, that it inclineth to euill by reason of concupiscence left in vs: but yet is not that inclination synne, without consent: as hathe bene pro∣ued before. Thirdlie, he obiecteth the commaundemēt; * 1.448 thovv shalt loue thy God, vvith all thy hart, vvith all thy so∣vvle, and vvith all thy strength. By whiche commaunde∣ment, he imagineth the first motions of concupiscen∣ce to be also forbydden, * 1.449 and consequentlie to be sin∣nes: whiche is false. For (as S. Austen well writeth in dy∣uers places) thoughe we be sturred by this commaun∣dement to all perfection that we can in this lyfe: yet no more is inioyned vs therby vnder payne of synne and damnation, but onlie that we doe not yeeld consent to sinne; as hathe bene shewed before, in the Censure, and is now presentlie to be examined more at large, in ex∣plication of the tenthe commaundement: whiche con∣tayneth the verye same meaninge that this commaun∣dement dothe.

Vpon all this that goeth before, * 1.450 VV. Chark maketh this conclusion agaynst vs. Therfore to saye vve must not; or can not pull in the raynes of our first lustes &c, is in deede to teache a beastlie libertie, and to laye open the vvaye to all vncleannesse, vvithout controllement. Heere now is shewed the ordinarie practise of all lyeing heretikes, and spe∣ciallie of protestantes: whose fashion is to charge the Catholique Church with odious conclusions, deduced of false principles deuised by them selues. For, which parte doeth enlarge or pull in the raynes of our lu∣stes? the protestant, or the Catholique doctrine? surelie, yf to pull in or enlarge the raynes of our lustes, be to gyue them scope, or to represse the motions, as all men (I thinke) will confesse: then consider, I pray you, who••

doe this, ether VV. Chark and hys felowes, or we. * 1.451 They teache that these first motions of lust are naturall, and doe present them selues vnto vs without our wyll: and when they doe so come, we can not lett their effect, but that they woorke sinne in vs, whether we consent, or not consent. So that by this doctrine, protestantes doe not onelie lett owt the raynes, but doe qwyte take awaye bothe raynes, and brydle owt of our handes. For yf lustes come without our will, and woorke sinne in vs without our consent: what raynes are there left in our handes to pull in? Yf they be sinne in me whe∣ther I consent, or not consent: shall I stryue agaynst a thyng that is impossible? whoe will not rather execute his lustes with pleasure, than resist them with payne, yf whether he consent, or not, they are sinne? So that (in deede) this is that libertine doctrine of protestantes, which looseth the raynes, and layeth open the waye to all vncleannesse: * 1.452 as bothe by experience nowe appea∣reth in the worlde, and by reason is euident. And our contrarie doctrine is that, whiche pulleth in the raynes of lust, and layeth the foundation of all vertue among Christians, yf it be executed accordinglie. To witt, the doctrine vvherby vve teache, that albeit these first motions be naturall, and doe present them selues vnto vs many tymes, without all fault of ours: yet allwayes (by the help of gods grace that neuer wanteth) it stan∣deth in vs to admitt, or reiect them: to gyue consent or to resist to their motions. And yf we consent, they are sinnes: but yf we consent not, but vanquishe them: they are cause of merit and rewarde in heauen: though the motions them selues, be infirmities and spottes left in vs by originall sinne. And this maketh men to stryue and resist them, and to keepe their myndes cleare from consent, and finallie to stand stronglie in the spirituall battaill betwene the fleshe tempting, and the spirit re∣sisting: wherin the protestant fighteth not at all, for that he hath no hope of victorie•• And yet (gentle reader) cō∣sider their impudencie in chargyng vs with that beastlie libertie which they teache onelie them selues.

There foloweth now the tenth commaundement: * 1.453 thou shalt not couet: alleaged by M. Charke, for condem∣nyng of the first motions of lust. VVhiche commaun∣dement the Censure expoundeth owt of S. Austen, * 1.454 and by an other place of scripture, (which is the best man∣ner of exposition that may be) that it is meant onelie of consent: to wytt, that we must not gyue cōsent to our lustes of concupiscence, nor folow them. So that this tenth cōmaundemēt, (by S. Austens expositiō) maketh nothing against the first motions, whiche are without consent, but onelye against the lustes wherto we yeeld assent. To this Syr VVilliam replyeth nothing, but one∣lie sayeth Austens opinion appeareth by the places allea∣ged before. VVhich is true: for it appeareth that S. Austen is moste euident and flatt against M. Charke, and more earnest, than I can be: And that M. Chark hath no shewe owt of hym for one syllable on his syde, but onelie a place forged by hym selfe, as hath bene declared.

Next to this it pleaseth M. Charke to put downe fower manifest lyes for helpyng hym selfe owt with so∣me shew of matter: * 1.455 sayeing, As the papistes make of the tenth commaundement tvvo commaundementes: so this felovve maketh of tvvo seuerall breaches of tvvo diuers commaunde∣mentes, but one synne. Bothe these (I saye) are slaunders. For first, the Catholiques make but one cōmaundement of the tenth cōmaundement. But the question is, which is properlie and distinctlie the tenth commaundement. For the protestātes (for mayntaynyng of a cauill against the Catholiques) will haue these two braunches, thou shalt not couet thy neyghbours vvyfe. And: * 1.456 thou shalt not couet thy neyghbours hovvse, fyeld, &c. to be but one one∣lye cōmaundement: that is, the tenth. And cōsequentlie, they will haue these two other braunches: thou shalt not haue straunge gods before me, And: thou shalt not make vnto thy sel••e any grauen Idole &c. to be two distinct cōmaun∣dementes. But S. Austen contendeth in dyuers places, * 1.457 that these latter two braunches make but one onelie commaundement: that is, the first commaundemēt: and that the second clause therof, prohibiting the makyng

of Idoles, is but an explication of the first clause, that prohibiteth false goddes. And therfore, that these other two braūches, of coueting our neyghbours vvyfe, And: of co∣ueting his goods: doe make two distinct cōmaundemētes: to witt, the nyenthe and tenthe: the nyenth prohibiting all internall consent of hart to carnall sinne: the exter∣nall complishement and woorke wherof is prohibited by the sixt commaundement (after this account:) whi∣che is, thovv shalt not committ adul••erie. And the tenth, prohibiting all internall consent of hart vnto couetous∣nes: the externall accomplishement wherof is prohibi∣ted by the seuenth commaundement: whiche is, thovv shalt not steale. So that by this account of S. Austen, and other learned men foloweing his opinion, these two braunches, thovv shalt not couet thy neighbours vvyfe, and thovv shalt not couet thy neighbours hovvse or field &c. doe make two distinct commaundemētes, answering to the sixth and seuenth, as hathe beene sayde.

* 1.458And the reason of this opinion is, first, for that those two braunches: thovv shalt not haue straunge god∣des before me: and thovv shalt not make vnto thee any gra∣uen thing, or likenes to adore it &c, contayne in deed but one thyng, and therfore can not make two distinct com∣maundementes, as the protestantes teache, but one one∣lie commaundement. And consequentlie, these latter two must needes make two sundrie commaundemētes: or elles there could not be tēne. Secondlie, for that the septuagint or 70. interpreters, doe recite them distin∣ctlie as two commaundementes, in their greke transla∣tion, repeating the verbe twyse, as I before haue allea∣ged them. Thyrdlie, because it was most couenient that the two generall internall consents vnto the two lustes of Carnalitie, * 1.459 and Couetousnes called by S. Iohn and distinguished by the names of Concupiscence of the fle∣s••e: and concupiscence of the eyes: should be expresselye & particularlie forbydden by two distinct commaunde∣mentes. For that in these two fountaynes of poyson, doe lye the greatest and most daungerous baytes of synne in this lyfe. If you aske why the woorkes forbid∣den

in the other commaundementes, * 1.460 had not (for lyke reason also) theyr internall concupiscēces of lustes for∣bydden by distinct and seuerall commaundementes? it is answered, that the internall temptations against the other commaundementes, are nether so frequent, nor so daungerous, as these are: and consequentely they are sufficientlye prohibited, by the woordes sett downe in these commaundementes them selues that prohibet the woorks: partlie also their prohibitiō may be vnder∣stoode by the prohibition of these two internall con∣cupiscences or lustes: * 1.461 for whiche causes is problable that S. Iohn made mention of these two concupiscences onely, and not of any other, as in his sentence be••ore al∣leaged apearethe.

And now albeit these reasons and the lyke dyd moue S. Austen in his time, and many learned men sen∣ce, to deuyde the tenne commaundemēts in this order: yet is not the matter, a matter of faythe, nor so defined by the churche, as a man may not folowe an other opi∣nion, yf yt seeme more reasonable vnto hym. For the auncient fathers had alwayes dyuers opinions abowt the diuision of the decaloge, or tenne commaunde∣mentes, without any difference of beleefe. For the He∣brewes (as a 1.462 Iosephus, and B 1.463 Philo with whome also agreeth c 1.464 Irenaeus) doe appoynt owt fyue commaun∣dementes to the first table, concerninge the honour of God: & fyue to the second table, concerninge the loue of our neyghbour. But the Greekes, (as a 1.465 Origen, B 1.466 Procopius, c 1.467 Clemens Alexandrinus, d 1.468 Hesychius, with whome agree also S. e 1.469 Ambrose, & S. f 1.470 Ierome,) doe assigne fower to the fyrst table, and six to the se∣cond table. But S. Austen, and the most part of the lati∣nes foloweing hym, doe appoint onelie three prece∣ptes to the first table, and seuen to the second. And yet all doe agree vppon tenne commaundementes. By all which may be seene the shameles dealing of M. Chark heere, * 1.471 in charging Catholiques to make two commaun∣dementes of the tenthe commaundement: and muche more the malitious calumniation, bothe of hym, and

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

all hys felowes, in affirming euerye where in all theyr bookes and sermons to the people, that Catholiques leaue owt the second commaundement, * 1.472 against grauen Idoles: where as they leaue it not owt, but doe inclu∣de it in the first commaundement, and that for the sa∣me reasons whiche moued S. Austen to doe the same, as hath bene sayde. These earnest, odious, & slaunderous accusations, whiche our aduersaries in theyr owne cō∣sciences doe know to be meere false, doe argue nothing for them, but onelie great malice in theyr hartes, sin∣gular lacke of modestie, and great shame in theyr be∣hauyour, and extreeme pouertie, and necessitie in theyr cause.

* 1.473M. Charkes second charge, that I make the seuerall breaches of tvvo diuers commaundementes but one synne, is also false. For I make them two distinct synnes, though they haue one generall name gyuen them by Christ: that is, I make the breache of the nyenth commaunde∣ment (after our account,) whiche is, thou shalt not couer thy neyghbours vvyfe, to be mentall adulterie, yf it goe no further, but onelie to cōsent of mynde. And the breache of the sixt cōmaundemēt, thou shalt not commit adulterie, I make to be the sinne of actuall adulterie, when it brea∣keth owt to the woorke it selfe: which two sinnes, thou∣ghe they agree in the name of aldulterie: yet are they distinct sinnes often tymes, and one seperated from the other, and cōsequentely may be prohibited by distinst commaundementes•• And so in lyke wyse I make actuall theft to belong to the seuenth commaundement, and mentall theft vnto the tenth. This is my meanyng (M. Charke): whiche you myght haue vnderstoode yf you wolde, and consequentlie haue forborne so malitiouse falshode in misreporting the same.

There remayneth onelie to be examined abowt this article, the reason touched by the Censure, and fownded on the scripture, for the cōfirmation of S. Au∣stens Catholique exposition of the commaundement, * 1.474 thou shalt not couet. VVhiche lawe (sayeth the Censure, forbyddeth onelye consent of hart to the motions of

lust, and not the verye first motions them selues, which are not in our power: & consequentlie, not comprehen∣ded vnder that prohibition of the lawe: as the scriptu∣re signifieth, when it sayeth, * 1.475 this commaundement vvhiche I gyue thee this daye is not aboue thee. To this M. Charke answereth, first, that our first motions are not altogether ovvt of our povver. For that the guyft of continēcie dothe mo∣re and more subdue them. * 1.476 VVhiche is true, if wee vnder∣stand of yeelding consent vnto them. But yf we vnder∣stand of vtter suppressing and extinguishinge of all first motions of lust and concupiscence: (as M. Charke must needes meane, our question beinge onelie therof) then must we know, that, albeit good mē doe cutt of by mor∣tification, infinite occasions and causes of motions and temptations, whiche wicked men haue: yet can they ne∣uer (during this lyfe) so subdue all motions them selues of theyr concupiscence, but that they will ryse often against theyr willes: as S. Paul complayneth of hym sel∣fe in many places, and all other Saints after hym haue experienced in their fleshe: whoe notwithstanding, had the gyft & diligence of mortifieing theyr fleshe, asmu∣che (I weene) as our ministers of England haue, whoe talke of continencie & mortification (eche one hauinge hys yoke mate redye for hys turne) as those good fe∣lowes doe of fastynge, whiche sitt at a full table, accor∣ding to the prouerbe.

To the place of Moyses, * 1.477 he hathe no other shyft but to saye: that the translation is false and corrupt, for that Moyses meant onelye, the lavve is not hydden from vs, and not, that it is not aboue our povver, as yt is euidentlye declared (saythe he) by the playne text, & by explication therof in the Epistle to the Romans. This sayeth M. Charke: mary he proueth yt nether by the woordes of the text, nor by S. Pauls application. But yf I be not deceyued, S. Iero∣me (whose trāslatiō this is esteemed to be, or els before him•• & corrected by him) knew as well what the Hebrew woords of Moyses imported in the text, & also how S. Paul applyed thē, as williā Chark dothe. S. Pauls appli∣cation of that parte of this sentēce which he towcheth,

maketh wholie for vs as after shalbe shewed. * 1.478 The He∣brew woord of the text is NIPHLET cōming of the verb PHALA: which, as I denie not, but it signifieth to be hid∣den: so signifieth it also, to be maruailous: to be hard & dif∣ficult: As appeareth psa. 139. & 2. Sam. 1. where the same woord is vsed. The same signifieth the Chaldie woorde M••PHARESA cōming of the verbe PHARAS, that besides the significations signifieth also to seperate. The greke woord HYPERONGOS signifieth (as all men knowe) excee∣ding, immesurable greate: passing all meane: &c Howe then doe not these three woordes vsed in the three aunciēt tongues, hauinge a negation putt before them (as they haue in the text) expresse so muche as S. Ierom hathe expressed, by sayeing, the lavve is not aboue thee? Doe not all these woordes putt together importe, that the lawe is not more hard, or difficult than thy abilitie may rea∣che to perfourme? or that, it is not seperated from our power? that it is not exceedinge our strengthe? wolde any horse but bayard, haue beene so bolde with S. Ierō, and withe all the primatiue churche, whiche vsed this our common latine translation, to deface them all (I saye) vppon so lyght occasion? VVolde any impudencie haue durst it, besides the pryde of an heretique? If S. Ierom will not satisfie you: * 1.479 take S. Austen: who hādleth bothe the woordes alleaged of Moyses, and also the ap∣plication vsed by S. Paul of parte of the sentence: and proueth owt of bothe, the verie same conclusion that we doe: to wytt, that the lawe is not aboue our abilitie to kepe it: and for confirmation therof, he addeth many other textes of scripture, * 1.480 as, my yoke is svvete and my bur∣den is lyght: also, his commaundementes are not heauye, and the lyke: concluding in these woordes, vve must beleeue moste firmelye, that God being iust and good, could not com∣maunde impossible things vnto man. And in an other place: * 1.481 VVe doe detest the blasphemie of those men, vvhiche affirme God to haue commaunded any impossible thing vnto mā. The verie same woords of detestation vseth S. Ierome in the explication of the creede, vnto Damasus byshope of Rome. And the same proueth S. Chrisostome at large in

hys first booke of impunction of the hart: and S. Basil his breefe rules the 176. interrogation.

Of defacing of scripture. Artic. 4.

THE CENSVRE.

You report the Iesuites to saye: * 1.482 The holie scriptu∣re is a doctrine vnperfect, maymed, lame, not cōtaynyng all things necessarie to saith and saluatiō: Cen. fol. 220. you are too shameles (M. Charke) in setting forth these, for the Iesuites vvoordes. Lett anye man reade the place, and he shall finde noe such thing, but rather in contrarie maner the holie scripture vvith reuerent vvordes, most highlye commended. Notvvithstanding, they reprehend in that place Monhemius, for sayeing that nothing is to be receyued or beleued, but that vvhiche is expreslie found in the Scripture. * 1.483 For re∣proofe of vvhich heresie, they gyue examples of many things, vvhiche bothe vve, and our aduersaries also doe beleeue, vvhich neuerthelesse are not sett dovvne expreslye in the Scriptures, although perhaps deduced therof. As the perpetuall virginitie of our ladie after [ 1] her childebyrth: Tvvo natures and tvvo vvilles in [ 2] Christ: The proceeding of the holye Ghost equallie frō [ 3] the father, and the Sonne, vvithout generation: The [ 4] vnion of the vvorde vnto the nature of man, and not vnto the persone: That God the father begat his Sonne, [ 5] onelye by vnderstāding hymselfe: That infantes vvith∣out [ 6] reason should be baptized: That the common Cree∣de [ 7] vvas made by the Apostles: The celebration of the [ 8] Sōdaye, in steade of the Satterdaye: The celebration of [ 9] Easter onelye vppon a Sondaye. The fovver Gospels [ 10] vvhich vve vse, to betrue Gospels, & not fained or cor¦rupted: That our epystle to the Romanes vvas vvri∣ten [ 11] by S. Paul: And the other (vvhich is to be seene) [ 12]

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. * 1.484 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: * 1.485 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 Andra∣dius, * 1.486 and proued to be (as it is) a moste shameles slaun∣der 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 im∣portance, 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 hee∣rin: and that is, that seing we holde, that all thinges ne∣cessarie 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, & la∣me. VVhiche reason yf yt were true: yet were your di∣shonestie 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. * 1.487 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 ser∣uantes saye, that he had left them a broken commaun∣dement writen? but yf he should yet add further vnto them: that yf they dowted of any thing, they should re∣payre 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 commaunde∣ment? No more is it any defect to scripture, or gods cō∣maundement, (as S. Austen proueth at large li. 1. contra Cresc. c. 32.) that God hathe lefte certayne things vnwri∣ten: for that we may receyue the same by tradition in the churche, as that doctor proueth: * 1.488 whiche Churche Christ hathe commended vnto vs, as his espouse in ear∣the, to be heard and obeyed by vs in all dowtes. The ve∣rie 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 sea∣uen of them are in scripture, & the other fyue, for that they are not in scripture, * 1.489 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, * 1.490 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 rea∣sons owt of scripture for proofe of inuocatiō of Saints, prayer for the deade, purgatorie, and from other con∣trouersies: 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 belee∣ued, 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 ex∣pre••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. * 1.491 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 Da∣uid 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 di∣stinct 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, * 1.492 in the end they concluded in these woordes, vve beleeue this, for that, 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. * 1.493 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 expresse∣lie 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 procee∣deth onelie from the father: And therfore the hereti∣ques which denyed this equallye buylded their heresie especiallie vpon this place, as S. Cyrill noteth. * 1.494 Agayne, this place telleth not whether it proceedeth by gene∣ration, or without generation from the father, and yet we must beleeue it to be without generation.

The third poynt is, * 1.495 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 woor∣de 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. * 1.496 For which, M Charke quoteth these woordes of Gene∣sis: The infant of eight years olde shalbe circumcised in man∣kynde. 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 kyn∣de also, whiche were not circumcysed in the lawe? Beza was strycken quyte dumme in the disputation of poysie in fraunce withe this demaunde, * 1.497 as the byshope Claudius de Saynctes reporteth: whoe was present. VVherfore I had rather folow S. Austen, who conten∣deth, 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.

* 1.498The 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. * 1.499 I vvas in spirit in our Lordes daye. But heere is no mention of Sundaye or Saturdaye; & mu∣che 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 pro∣ued from this place of scriprure trow yowe?

* 1.500The 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 in∣scription, 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? * 1.501 The fayned Gospell of S. Tho∣mas,

had it not his name? * 1.502 and yet Origen sayeth, he reiected it onelie, for that the tradition of the churche receyued it not. * 1.503 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 de∣nyed 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 mad∣nes 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. * 1.504 Marye he citeth no place fort it: but reprehending the darkenes of the woordes, (which notwithstanding are most play∣ne, and vsuall to those whiche haue studyed any thing i•• diuinitie:) he flyeth to an other matter: sayeing, * 1.505 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, * 1.506 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 see∣meth 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 Chur∣che hath determined heerin, against heretiques and in∣fideles. And albeit these thynges be not expresselye sett downe in scripture: yet are they no lesse to be be∣leeued thā the other mysteries of the Trlnitie: VVher∣of I reckoned some small parte onelie in the Censure. VVhi••he notwithstanding I wolde not haue troubled M. Charke withall: yf I had supposed hym so grosse therin as by examination I fynde hym. A lacke poore sir william.

And by this you see how substantiallie he hath proued all these seuen poyntes to be expresselie in scripture. * 1.507 If we shoulde beleeue no more in all thes•• mysteries, than is expressed in scripture: our faythe wolde be verie obscure and confuse heerin. B••t these men are wonderfull lordes of scripture. They can ex∣clude what they will, and drawe in what they please. VVhē we are to proue a matter to be founded on scri∣pture: no testimonies will serue, except they be so play∣ne and euident, as by no wayes they may be auoyded. But when they will haue a thing in scripture: euerye litle gesse at theyr pleasure is sufficient to proue yt. Hear•• D. Fulks woordes to M. Bristoe, * 1.508 abowt certayne lyk•• matters. For the diuision of parishes, excommunicacion, suspension, publique solennizing of Mariage, vvith the lavves therof, and punishing of heretiques by deathe, they are all manifestlie proued ovvt of the scripture. This he sayeth; al∣leaging no one place of scripture to proue it. * 1.509 And for the fyrst fower, I thynke the puritanes will hardlie gra∣unt them to be manifestlie in scripture. And the last was for a long tyme denyed by them selues, to be ey∣ther in scripture, or allowable by scripture, vntill now they haue burned some for religion them selues in En∣gland. But theyr former bookes are extant to the con∣trary: and all theyr companions yet in other countries

(where they raigne not as our protestants doe now in England) are styll of opinion, that no heretique ought to be putt to deathe for religion.

And thus he auoydeth seuen of the pointes obie∣cted, affirming them to be euidentlie in scripture. For the rest (sayeth he) of these tvvelue pointes, as they are not ••uidentlie contayned in the vvoord: so a christian is not ab∣solutelie bounde to beleeue them. * 1.510 Beholde the last refuge of a proude hereticall spirit, in breakinge where he can not otherwise gett owte. Dare you (M. Charke) to sett men at libertie, to beleeue or not to beleeue, that the common crede was made by the Apostles: whiche, a 1.511, Origen, b 1.512, Tertullian, c 1.513, Ierom, d 1.514, Ruffinus, e 1.515, Ambrose, f 1.516, Austen, and all the primatiue Church doe so cōstant∣lie affirme to be theyr doeinge? Dare you to sett at li∣bertie the obseruation of Easter daye: whiche g 1.517 Euse∣bius calleth Apostolicam traditionem: A tradition of the Apostles: and abowt whiche was so great sturre in the primatiue churche, and so many decrees made in coun∣cels against heretiques? But aboue all other, dare you putt at libertie the beleefe of our blessed ladies perpe∣tuall virginitie? Remember you not that Heluidius was condemned of heresie, for denieing the same, in the pri∣matiue Churche? Remember you not the solemne curse for this matter, of so many holie Byshopes recorded and confirmed by S. Ambrose of Millan? I will conclude and stoppe your mouth (yf I can) with these woordes of S. Austen: Integra fide credendum est &c. vve must beleeue vvith a sounde faith, blessed Marie the mother of Christ to ha∣ue conceiued in virginitie: to haue brought foorthe her sonne in virginitie, and to haue remayned a virgin after her child∣byrth, nether must vve yeeld to the blasphemie of Heluidius. Loe (M. Charke) S. Austen maketh it bothe a matter of faith, & the dowting therof to be blasphemie: how will you auoyde thys?

For the mention which S. Paul is thought to make to the Colossians of an epistle written by hym to the Laodicenses, * 1.518 M. Charke denyeth it, and condemneth both me and S. Ieroms translation of ignorance: for re∣porting

the same for that (as he sayeth) the greeke text hath onelie of an epistle written by S. Paul from Lao∣dicea, and not to Laodicea. But me thynketh M. Charke should not obiect ignorance so perēptorilye to others, except he were sure of his owne opiniō. If I had had no other vvarrantize for my allegation, but onelye the olde latin translation, being of suche antiquitie as it is, and the matter of no importance to our purpose: yet ought I not so rigourouslie to haue bene reprehended for the same. But besides this, I haue two editions in greeke: the one of learned Paguine in folio, the other of Plantyne in octauo: both whiche make playnlie for me. Then haue I the iudgement of S. a 1.519, Ambrose, and o•• b 1.520 S. Ierome: whiche knew the true greeke editions. Also the consent of c 1.521 Tertullian, d 1.522 Philastrius, and e 1.523 Epi∣phanius a greeke writer: whiche may be sufficient to wype away M. Charkes bytter reproche against me in this matter.

Of the scriptures misalleaged for the contrarye, by M. Charke.

THE CENSVRE.

But hovv doe you novv ouerthrovve this doctri∣ne, and prooue it blasphemie, M. Charke? By a place of S. Paule: * 1.524 All (the) scripture (is) geuen, by inspiration of God, (and) is profitable, to teach, to confute, to correcte, and to instructe in iustice, that the man of God maye be perfect, (and throughly) instructed to euery good worke. VVherof you inferre, that the Scripture is suf∣ficient to perfection, but hovv vvrongefullye, it shall novv appeare. And first I let passe your ordinarie mi∣susinge of scripture, by adding fiue vvordes of your ovvne, in this litle sentence, to vvit, (the, is, and, and, through••lie) vvhich audacitie, if it vvere in transla∣ting of Aesops fables, it vvere tollerable: but in the holie Scriptures, vvhere euerie vvorde must be taken as from the holie Ghoste, it is impious. Secondlie,

this place maketh nothinge for your purpose: vvhich I proue by tvvo reasons. The first is, because. S. Paule saieth not here, that the Scripture is sufficient to perfe∣ction, but onelie, that it is profitable. * 1.525 Novv you knovv, that a thinge maie be verie profitable, yea nec••ssarie to an effecte, * 1.526 and yet not sufficiēt to doe the same vvith∣out all helpe: As meate is profitable and necessarie to maintaine lyfe, and yet not sufficient, vvithout naturall heate, clothes, and the like. The second reason is, for that S. Paule signifieth in this place, that euerie parte, or canonicall booke of Scripture, is profitable to make a man perfecte: but yet vve can not say, that euerie part or booke is sufficient: for then, all other boo∣kes of scripture besides that, vvere superfluous. And that S. Paule meaneth in this place, euerie seuerall ca∣nonicall booke or parte of Scripture, by the vvordes (Omnis scriptura:) it is euident by that he vseth the vvorde, Omnis, and not Tota, vvich tvvo vvords hovv much they differ both in Greeke and Latine, all Logisioners knovv. For omins homo signifieth, euerie man. And M. Charke him selfe, in this verie same sentence, hath translated, Omne o••us bonum, Euerye good worke: And yet deceatefullye, hath he trā••lated Omnis scriptura, All the scripture. As though S. Paule had meante onelie, that all the Scripture put together is sufficient to perfection: vvhich sense can not stand. First, for that all the Scripture, at such time as. S. Paul vvrote this, vvanted diuers important partes, as the Ghospel of S. Iohn, the Apocalips, and some other, vvhich vvere vvritē after, & cōsequē••lie should haue bene superfluous, yf the other before had bene ••uffi∣cient.. Secondly, * 1.527 because vve lacke at this daye many parts of scripture, vvhich of likelyhoode vvere in S.

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

Paules time. As the booke of Nathan the Prophet•• vvith the volume of the Prophet Gad. 1. Paralip. vlt. The booke of Ahias salonites, and the vision of Ad∣do the Prophet 2. Paral 9. Many of the Parables and verses of Salomon, for he vvrote three thou∣sande of the one, and fiue thousand of the other, 3. Reg. 4. Also the epistle of S. Paul to the Laodicenses Colos. 4. vvhereof it folovveth in M. Charkes ovvne, sēse, that if all the scripture put together, is onely suf∣ficient to perfection: then our scripture, novv lacking dyuers partes of the same, is not sufficient. And so me thinkethe, M. Charke vvrestethe this place againste hym selfe.

THE DEFENCE.

After a long apologie in defence of loose transla∣tyng of scripture, (wherin M. Charke will perforce re∣taine opinion of honest dealing) he cōmeth to refute the first reason, about profitable and sufficient, & sayethe that sometimes profitable may stand for sufficient. * 1.528 As where the Apostle sayeth to Timothie: Exercise thy selfe to god••ynes. For bodilye exercise is profitable but to a litle: but godlynes is profitable ••o all thyngs: hauyng promisse bothe of this lyfe, & of the lif•• to come. Heer (sayeth M. Chark) it can not be denyed but by profi••able is mente suff••ciēt. VVhich suppose were true: yet were it but a slender argumēt, of one particular to inferre an other. But (in myne opiniō) M. Charke is vtterlie deceyued in this matter. For as S. a 1.529 Ambrose, S. b 1.530Ierome, & S. c 1.531 Austen doe expound this place: S. Paules meanyng is to putt an antithesis or differēce betwene corporall exercise & pietie: sayeing, that the one is but litle profitable, but the other (that is godlynes) hath her promysse of rewarde in all actions, taken ether for this lyfe, or for the lyfe to come: Out of all (I say) she reapeth cōmoditie, and is profitable. For in all actions, whiche are taken in hand for charitie and loue of God (whiche is true pietie:) therin is merit and rewarde, whether the actions be about matters of this

lyfe, or of the lyfe to come. And whoe wolde say heere that profitable signifieth sufficient?

His second reason he frameth in these woordes, vpon the place of S. Paul before alleaged: that vvhiche is profitable to all the partes that may be required to perfectiō, can not be but sufficient for the perfection of the vvhole: but that the scripture is profitable in suche maner, the Apostle doeth fullie declare, in rehearsing all the particular partes vvhiche are necessarie: as to confute, to correct, and instruct in iustice: ergo the scripture is sufficient. God help you (M. Charke:) I assure you: you are a simple one to take con∣trouersies in hand. VVhat boye in Cambrige wold euer haue reasoned thus? If you had sayed, that whiche is sufficient to all the partes in particular, is sufficient to the whole: you had sayed somewhat. But how foloweth it, that what soeuer is profitable to all particular partes, should be sufficient to all? haue you not Learned that there is causa sine qua non, whiche is not one he profita∣ble, but also necessarie to all partes, wherof it is such a cause: and yet is not sufficient alone, ether to the partes or to the whole? As (for example,) the heade is profita∣ble, yea necessarie to all the actions of this lyfe, as to sing, weepe, dispute, and the lyke: for without a heade none can be done: and yet is not the head sufficient alone to performe these actions: as we see by expe∣rience. For that euery one whiche hath a heade is not able to doe these thinges.

Hys thyrd reason and argument is taken from the woordes of S. Paul immediatlie goeinge before in the place now alleaged to Timothie: whiche are these, * 1.532 for that thou hast learned the holye scrip••ures from thy infancie, vvhiche can instruct thee to saluation, throughe the faythe vvhich is in Iesus Christ. Loe (sayeth M. Charke) heer the scriptures are sayed to be sufficient to saluation. But I denye this. For the Apostle sayeth they can instruct Timothie, and shew him the waye to saluation, and can bryng hym also to it, yf he will folow them. But doeth it folowe heerby that they are sufficient for the whole churche? and in such sort as all doctrine by tradition is

superfluous? Euerie epistle of S. Paul instructeth a mā to saluation, & wolde also bryng any man to heauen, that shoulde folow the same exactlie. But is therfore euerie epistle of S. Paul sufficiēt for the whole Church? (wher∣of onelie our question is) and are all other supe••fluous? Againe, it is to be noted, that S. Paul speaketh heere principallie of the olde testament. For he speaketh of the scriptures which Timothie (beyng nowe a byshope) had learned from his infancie: whiche was before the newe testament was wryten. And will M. Charke saye, that the olde testament is sufficient to Christian men (such as Timothie now was) for their saluation, without any other write? You see this man lyke the hare in the nett: the more he struggleth, the more he encombreth and intangleth hym selfe.

To my two reasons in the Censure, to proue that S. Paul in the place alleaged spoke not onelye of all the whole scripture together, but also of euery particular booke therof, (whiche notwitstandinge can not be sayed to be sufficient of it selfe without other) he answereth in effect nothinge: but for excuse of his fraudulent translating Omnis scriptura: all scripture: where as he translated omne opus bonum, euerie good vvoorke, euen in the same sent••nce: he alleageth a place or two owt of the scripture, where this woord omnis signifieth all, aswell as euerie one. * 1.533 VVhiche I denye not, but some times it may be: (especiallie in greek) but yet that there is ordinarilie a difference betwene these two proposi∣tions omnis homo••est corpus: and totus homo est corpus: I ••row your logicians of Cambrige (wherof you talke,) will affirme with me. And yf there be ordinarilie such a differēce, and your selfe obseruing the same in the for∣mer parte of the same sentence: why you showld alter your translation in the second part therof, I can not imagine, except you mente fraude.

But now to my two reasons. In the first, I saye that S. Paul coulde not meane to Timothie of all the scriptures together which we now vse. For that, all was not then written: as the Gospell of S. Iohn, and some

other partes. To this he answereth, that there was enou∣gh written then, for the sufficient saluation of men of that tyme, and that the other partes added afterwarde were not superfluous. But this is from the purpose. For I graunt, that in all tymes when there was least writen vvord, yet was there sufficient for the peoples saluatiō of that tyme. For God supplied it otherwyse: that is, by woorde of mouthe vnwritten. And this maketh for vs: for in suche tymes the written woord was not sufficiēt without all other helpes as you affirme it is: as (for exā∣ple) when onelie S. Mathewes Gospell was written, and nothing els of the new testament: yet graunt I, that this scripture was sufficiēt for that tyme. For that, God sup∣plied yt otherwyse, by the woordes and speeches of his apostles. So before Moyses wrote the lawe, the patriar∣ches had sufficient for theyr saluation: thoughe they had ether nothinge, or verie litle writen woorde. And yet you can not saye, that the written woorde of that tyme was sufficient of it selfe, without all tradition by mouth. VVerfore this answere is against your selfe, as also that is, whiche you frame to the secōd reason: affir∣ming that albeit dyuers partes of scripture be wanting now, whiche was in S. Pauls tyme: yet still it is sufficiēt whiche I denye not, being ioyned to the other supplies that God vseth. For God supplieth by tradition and woorde of mouthe. * 1.534 But whether in all tymes the onelie written woord, that is extant, be sufficient of it selfe to the whole Churche, without all other helpes deliuered by tradition: that is our question. And of times past, when the law was not written, no man without impu∣dencie can affirme, that the written woorde was then sufficient. And of our tyme, that is, after the writinge of the new testament, Epiphanius sayeth:

Non omnia a di∣uina scriptura accipt possunt, quapropter aliqua in scripturis, aliqua in traditione sancti. Apostoli tradiderunt.

All things necessarie, can not be had from the scripture: And ther∣fore the holie Apostles left vnto vs some thinges writtē and some thinges by tradition. VVhich signisieth suffi∣cientlie what Iudgement the primatiue Church had of

this matter: as more at large shalbe shewed in the arti∣cle foloweing: whiche is also of this same argument.

Of teaching traditions besides the scripture. Art. 5.

THE CENSVRE.

5. You reporte the Iesuites to saye: That the want of holy Scriptures must be supplyed, by peeci••ge it out by traditions. Cens, fol. 220. * 1.535 This is coyne of the former forge, all false, and noe one such vvorde to be found in all their booke. But yet as though they had sayed soe, you fight manfullye agaynst this your ovvne s••ntence, sayinge in manner follovvinge: Contrarye to this is the lawe in Moyses. Thow shalte not adde to the woordes which I speake to thee, nether shalte thou take frō thē. But vvhy do you breake the lavv M. Charke in repor∣tinge the lavv? you haue heere added the singuler nū∣ber in the Verbe, and the plurall in the Noune, and haue taken avvaye the numbers vvhich the lavv gy∣uer vsed, & chaūged the same at your ovvne pleasu∣re, and that for a purpose vvhich I could gesse at. But let all thinges be lavvfull vnto you: vvhat maketh this lavv for your pourpose? By your meaning the Apostles and Euāgelistes did offend, in adding any thing besi∣des the lavve of Moyses, vvhiche is absourd. Nether did Moyses in this place (forbiddinge to adde or take avvaye) speake of his vvrytten lavve (for he had not yet vvritten it) but of those thinges vvhich he deliue∣red thē by vvorde of mouthe at that time, the vvhich he vvilled them to keepe and obserue vvhollye and perfectly, vvithout chaunginge it by addition, or di∣minution, or by their ovvne corrupte gloses, as naugh∣tie men are vvonte to doe: And this is the true mea∣ninge of that place, and not as you vvould haue it, that nothinge should be beleeued besides that vvhiche

Moyses set dovvne: for a litle after Moyses hym selfe commaundeth the l••vves to heare the Prophet vvhich God should rayse af••er hym, as hym selfe, * 1.536 meanynge therby Christ.

THE DEFENCE.

Heere agayne M. Charke disburdeneth hym selfe vpon Gotuisus: sayeing, If the Censure of Colen hathe no suche vvordes: Gotuisus fayled in vvriting their booke. * 1.537 But gentle sir wiliam: this matter is not so shyfted of. You knew that Gotuisus: tooke these woordes from kemni∣tius, against whome they were proued false by Payuas, before you wrote your booke, as the most of his other reportes were. How chaunceth it then you wolde vtter thē agayne without seeing the originall, whether they were true or no? Besyde this, Gotuisus citeth Canisius for the same woordes, * 1.538 where no one suche woorde is to be fownd: whye looked you not in Canisius to see yt? or whye had you not cited Canisius in your Margent, as well as the Censure of Colen, which you well knew was not to be had? whye dyd you conceale Canisius, I saye? can you be excused from willfull dishonest dea∣lyng in this matter? No, no, your desperate resolution is to-too euident.

But (saye you) we holde the doctrine, thoughe the Iesuites haue not the woordes. VVhat doctrine M. Chark? that the want of holie scripture must be peeced owt by traditiōs? It is false. VVe speake not so vnreue∣rētlie of the scripture, as shall better appeare by the ar∣ticle foloweyng. VVe doe not teach that the scriptures are wanting, or neede to be peeced. It is your hereticall malice which deuiseth these woordes. Though bothe partes of gods woord, that is, both written & vnwrittē, be necessarie vnto gods Church: yet both of thē do stād in their full perfection assigned them by God: nether is the one a mayme, or impeachement to the other: no more than is S. Lukes Gospell to that of S. Mathew: or S. Pauls epistles to any of them bothe. For as you may not saye that S. Mathewes Cospell is maymed, for that

S. Lukes is also admitted: or that S. Pauls epistles are a peecing vp of the former Gospells: no more can we saye that gods woorde left vs by mouthe in tradition is a ••ayme, or detraction to that, whiche he hath left vs in writing: or that in writing to be a disanullyng of that whiche we had by tradition: for that, bothe are partes of gods woord, & of equall authoritie: as shalbe shewed more largelie in the twelueth article, together with certaine meanes how to knovv and discerne the same. VVherfore these odious speeches against the dignitie of holie scripture doe procede onelie from the malice of you our aduersaries, and of no cause or matter mi∣nistred by vs.

After certaine tryflyng speeche to litle purpose M. Charke concludeth peremptorilie this article in these vvoordes. To conclude, it is a great iniquitie to adde tradi∣tions, or your vnvvritten * 1.539 verities to the vvrytten vvoord of God, vvherunto no man may adde: because nothing is vvan∣tynge: and to hym that addeth shall the curses vvritten in the booke be added for euer, cityng in the Margēt, the place of the Apocalips, vvhiche sayeth, that vvho soeuer addeth or taketh avvaye from that booke of prophecie, shall incurre the plagues vvritten in that booke. * 1.540 But good Lorde: when vvill these men leaue to abuse the scriptures, & learne to speake to the purpose? yf vvee beleeue all that is vvritten in that booke of reuelations, and other things besides reuealed vnto vs els vvhere by God: doe vve incurre this curse of S. Iohn therby? S. Iohn sayeth no∣thing may be added or taken awaye from the perfectiō of that most excellēt & mysticall booke of reuelations: but dyd he meane heerby that nothing should be cre∣dited besides that vvhiche is there vvritten? S. Iohn hym selfe vvrote diuerse things vvhich are not in the Apocalips: * 1.541 yea by the iudgement of kemnitius (a pro∣testant) he vvroote hys vvhole Gospell after the Apo∣calips. And yet (I thynke) by this additiō of his Gospell, he did not runne into the curses of that booke. How thē is this place alleaged agaynst vs for beleeuyng those thynges whiche our auncetours haue delyuered vnto

vs, as receyued from the mouth of Christ and his Apo∣stles? how holdeth this argument, no man may adde to the booke of Apocalips: ergo, no man may beleeue a traditiō of Christ, or his Apostles? May not a man aswell inferre, ergo we may not beleeue the actes of the Apo∣stles? But this is their common alleaging of Scriptures.

It is Lamentable to see the sleight dealings of the∣se men in matters of suche importance. It is a great ini∣quitie (sayeth Charke) to add traditions, or your vnvvritten verities to the vvritten vvorde of God. VVhat meane you (Sir) by adding? whoe doeth add? or in what sense? If God left any doctrine by tradition vnto the Churche, and our auncetours haue deliuered the same vnto vs, especiallie those of the primatiue Churche: what shall we doe in this case? shall we refuse yt? It seemeth daun∣gerous: and I see no reason. For the same men that dely∣uered vnto vs the scriptures, and sayed, this is gods written woorde, and sayd of other forged scriptures, this is not gods written woorde: the same delyuered vnto vs these doctrines, sayeinge, this is Gods woorde vnwritten. As for example, a 1.542S. Austen, and b 1.543Origen doe teache vs that baptizing of infants is to be practi∣zed in the Churche, onelie by tradition of the Apostles. S. c 1.544Ierom, and d 1.545 Epiphanius tell vs that the fast of the lent, and other the lyke is a traditiō of the Apostles. e 1.546Dionisius, and f 1.547Tertullian saye, that prayers and ob••ation for the dead are traditions of the Apostles. g 1.548 S. Basil teacheth, that the consecration of the font be∣fore baptisme, the exorcisme vppon those that are to be baptized, theyr anointing with holie Chrisme, and di∣uers lyke thinges are delyuered vnto vs by prescript of Christ and his Apostles. Thus testifie these men, and no man in the Churche controlled theyr testimonie at that tyme: wherby it is euident that all that Churche beleeued it. Nowe, what shall we doe, when these and many other lyke things are delyuered vs by our fore-fathers, the doctors, and cheefe pyllers of Christ his Churche? shall we reiect, and discredit them? wherfore? or vppon what ground! these men were nearer to the

Apostles tymes than we are by many hundred yeeres: and therfore could better tell than we can, what the Apostles left by tradition, or left not. Agayne, they we∣re no dishonest men, and consequentlie wolde not wri∣te a lye or deceyue vs wittinglie. And yf they wolde: yet other men wolde haue controlled them. VVhye then should it be suche iniquitie in vs to receyue and be∣leeue the traditions which they deliuer vs, as M. Chark sayeth it is? If they come from the mouthe of Christ & his Apostles, as thes fathers doe affirme: then are they parte of Gods woorde also, as well as the other whiche are written.

But you will saye (I knowe) they come not from Christ and his Apostles. And how (I praye you) can you proue that to me? whye should I beleeue you rather than these holye fathers, whiche lyued so long agoe? I doe not see (fot example sake) why I should beleeue a CHARKE, or a FVLKE commyng but yesterdaye from the Grammer Schoole, before a Cyprian, a Tertulian, a Ba∣sil, a Ierome, a Chrysostome, an Ambrose, or an Austen, especiallie in a matter of fact (as our case is:) seyng they lyued more than twelue or thyrtene hundred yeeres nearer to the deed doeing, than these ministers doe: and yet to this extremitie am I driuen. For hearken a litle how D. Fulck handleth these men about traditions. S. Cyprian is alleaged agaynst hym, sayeing, that the mynglyng of wyne and water in the Chalice is the tra∣dition of Christ hym selfe Fulke: * 1.549 but yf Cyprian had bene vell vrged, he vvolde haue better considered of the matter. Tertulian is alleaged, sayeing, that the blessing with the signe of the crosse is a tradition of the Apostles: Fulke: * 1.550 Tertulians iudgement of tradition vvithout scripture in that place is corrupt. S. Basil is alleaged for the same matter, affirmyng the custome of blessing with the signe of the crosse to be an Apostolicall tradition: Fulke: * 1.551 Basil is an insufficient vvarrant for so vvoorthie a matter. S. Ierome is alleaged, sayeing, that Lent fast is the tradition of the Apostles: Fulke: * 1.552 Ierome vntruelye ascribeth that tradition to the Apostles. S. Chrisostom is alleaged, sayeing, ••hat the

Apostles decreed that ī the sacrifice of the Aultar, there should be made prayer for the departed: Fulke: vvhere he sayeth, it vvas decreed by the Apostles &c, he muste pardon vs for crediting hym, because he can not shevv it ovvt of the Actes and vvritings of the Apostles. * 1.553 But dyuers fathers are alleaged together beside Chrisostome for the same matter: Fulke: * 1.554 vvhoe is vvytnesse that this is the tradition of the Apostles? you vvill saye, Tertulian, Cyprian, Austen, Ie∣rome, and a great many moe. But I vvolde learne vvhye the Lord vvould not haue this setforth by Mathevv. Marke, Luke, or Paul? vvhy they vvere not chosen scribes heerof, rather than Tertulian, Cyprian, Ierome, Austen, and other suche as you name? But this is a counterfait institutiō, & fained tradi∣tiō. And in other place beyng vrged by the lyke, he di∣screditeth all antiquitie: sayeing, * 1.555 It is a cōmon thing vvith the A••ncient vvriters to defend euerie ceremonie vvhiche vvas vsed in their tyme, by tradition of the Apostles.

Heere now are sett before me a payre of balances, with fulke and Charke in one ende: and Cyprian, Ori∣gen, Tertulian, Basil, Ierome, Chrisostome, Epiphanius, and Austen, in the other ende: for all these fathers (as you see) affirme constanlie traditions of Christ and his Apostle, besides the written woord: Fulke and Charke denye the same. They alleage particular examples: Fulk opposeth hym selfe to them all. But whiche in reason should I rather beleeue? You shall heare some of them speake. S. Basil the great was a mā (I trow) to be matched in credit with Charke the minister. His woords are the∣se: * 1.556

Dogmata quae in ecclesia praedicantur quaedam habemus e doctrina scripto tradita, quaedam rursus ex apostolorum tra∣ditione in mysterio, id est, in occulto tradita accepimus, quorū vtraque parem vim habent ad pietatem, nec hiis quisquam contradicit, quisquis sane vel tenuiter expertus est, quae sint iura ecclesiastica:

Among the doctrines whiche are prea∣ched in the church, some we haue opened to vs by wri∣tinge, and some agayne we haue receyued, delyuered vs by tradition of the Apostles in secret: bothe whiche doctrines are of equall force to pietie: nether doeth any man gaynsaye this, whiche hathe anye litle know∣leige

in the lawes of t•••• Churche.

Heere now are S. Basil and VV. Charke at an open combate abowt traditions, The one sayeth, it is iniqui∣tie to admitt them: The other sayeth, it is ignorance to re∣iect them. The one sayeth, they are of no authoritie or cre∣dit at all: The other sayeth, they are of equall force and au∣thoritie vvith the vvritten vvoord of Christ and his Apostles. VVhome will you rather beleeue in this case?

* 1.557

VVith S. Basil taketh parte Eusebius, sayeinge, Christi discipuli ad magistri sui nutum, illius praecepta par∣tim literis, partim sine literis quasi iure quodam non scripto, seruanda commendarunt. The disciples of Christ at theyr Maisters beck, dyd commend his precepts to posteritie, partlie in writing; partlie without writing, as it were by a certaine vnwriten lawe.

Marke heere, that traditiō is called an vnvvritē lavve: & the things delyuered therby are the precepts of Christ: and that they were left vnwry∣ten by the becke or appointment of Christ hym selfe.

* 1.558Epiphanius is yet more earnest than Eusebius. For writing against certaine heretiques named Apo∣stolici, whiche denyed traditions, as our protestants doe: he proueth it thus: * 1.559

Oportet autem & traditione vti: Non enim omnia a diuina scriptura accipi possunt. Quapropter ali∣qua in scripturis, aliqua in traditione sancti Apostoli tradi∣derunt, quemadmodum dicit Sanctus Paulus: Sicut tradidi ••obis: & alibi, sic doceo, & sic tradidi in ecclesiis:

we muste vse traditiō also. For that, all thyngs can not be had owt of Scripture. For which cause, the holye Apostles haue delyuered some things to vs in scriptures, and some thyngs by traditions, according as S. Paul sayeth: euen as I haue left vnto you by tradition: And in an other place: This doe I teache, & this haue I left by traditiō in Churches.

Heere you see Epiphanius doeth not onelye affirme so much as we holde, but also proueth it out of Scripture.

* 1.560VVith Epiphanius ioyneth fully and earnestlye S. Chrisostome, writyng vpon these woordes of S. Paul to the purpose: State & tenete traditiones: Stand fast, and holde traditions. Out of which cleere woordes S. Chri∣sostome maketh this illation. Hinc patet quod non omniae

per epistolam tradiderint, sed multa etiam sine literis. Eadem verò fide digna sunt tam illa quám ista. Ita{que} traditionem quo{que} ecclesiae fide dignam putamus. Traditio est: nihil quaeras amplius.

By these woordes of S. Paul it is euident, that the Apostles delyuered not all by epistle (or writing) vnto vs: but many things also whiche are not wrytten: And yet those are as woorthie fayth as the other. For whiche cause, we esteeme the tradition of the Church woorthie of faythe. It is a tradition: seeke no more abowt it.

VVhat can be spoken more effectualie against VV. Charke than this? Is it now greate iniquitie to re∣ceyue traditiōs, or no? how will he auoyde this vnifor∣me cōsent of antiquitie against his fond malepeartnes, condemning all traditions for iniquitie? Heere you see are the verie woordes auowed (as also in S. Basil allea∣ged before) which these new maisters doe so odiouslye exaggerate to the people dailie, that we matche traditiōs with the written woord of God. These woordes (I saye) are heere maintained bothe in Chrisostome and Basil, affirming the vnwrytten traditions of Christ and his Apostles to be of equall force, and authoritie with the written woorde of the same: And yet I trowe, were they not blasphemous for sayeing so, as these yonge gentle∣men are accustomed to call vs.

And this now in generall, that traditions are: that is, that diuers things belonging to faythe are left vs vn∣writen, by Christ and his Apostles: Also, that this sort of traditions are of equall authoritie with the wrytten woord: because they are the vnwritē or deliuered woor¦de. But now yf any man wolde aske me, * 1.561 what, or which are these Apostolicall traditions in particular: I could alleage hym testimonies owt of the auncient fathers, for a great number: wherof some examples haue bene gyuen in the former article. But lett any man reade S. Cyprian, Serm: de ablut: pedum: Tertullian de coron: miiltis: and S. Ierom. Dialog. cont. luciferianos: and he shall finde store. And albeit, some thing hathe bene sayd of S. Austen before: yet will I adde these few examples owt of hym, for endinge of this article. He proueth the

baptisme of infants by tradition of the Churche: * 1.562 lib. 10•• de gen. cap. 23. He proueth by the same tradition, that we must not rebaptize those whiche are baptized of heretiques: li. 2. de bapt. c. 7. & lib. 1. cap. 23. & li. 4. cap. 6. He proueth by tradition, the celebration of the pente∣cost commonlie called whit-sondaye: epist. 118. c. 1. He proueth by tradition, that the Apostles were baptized. ep. 108. He proueth by tradition the ceremonies of ba∣ptisme as delyuered by the Apostles, Li. de fide & oper. cap. 9. He proueth by tradition of Christ & his Apo∣stles, that we should receyue the blessed sacrament fa∣sting. ep. 1••8. cap. 6. He proueth by lyke tradition the exorcisme of suche as should be baptized li. 1. de nupt. & concup. cap. 20. & li. 6. contra Iulian. ca. 2. He proueth by the same tradition, that we must offer vpp the sacri∣fice of the masse for the deade li. de cura pro mort. agē∣da. ca. 1. & 4. Serm. 32. de verbis Apostoli.

I omitt many other suche thinges, whiche aswell this learned doctor, as other most holye fathers of the primatiue Churche, doe auouche, by onelye tradition of Christ and his Apostles, without writing: whiche to beleeue or credit, if it be such great iniquitie and blas∣phemie, as VV. Charke will haue vs to esteeme: then were these auncient fathers in a miserable case, and this new minister in a fortunate lot. But yf the counte∣nance of this new Sir doe not surpasse the credit of those olde Saints: I weene it will not be hard to iudge how fond and foolishe hys raylinge speeche ys against a doctrine so vniformlie receyued in Christ his Chur∣che, as the doctrine of traditions hath bene from the beginning.

VVhether the Iesuites speake euill of Scripture. Art. 6.

THE CENSVRE.

* 1.563You reporte the Iesuites to saye: The holy Scri∣pture is a nose of waxe. Cens. 117 God forgyue you, for abusing so muche these learned men. Marie you take the vvaye to ouermatch both learning and trueth too,

yf you may haue your desire. He that vvill reade the place by you quoted, shall finde the Iesuites, vpon oc∣casion geuen them, to saye in effect thus: that before the rude and ignorante people, it is easie for a noughtie man, to vvreste the scripture, to vvhat interpretation pleaseth hym beste, for the flatteringe ether of Prince or people: euen as a man may frame a nose of vvaxe vvhat vvay, or to vvhat forme he liste. And vvill you of this make them to saye, that the holye Scripture is a nose of vvaxe? Christ is lykened to a serpent, * 1.564 and yet is no serpent: Also to a couetous Vsurer, and yet is no∣ne: Nether doth the Scripture committ blasphemie in vsing such similitudes. But hovv proue you (M. Char∣ke) that the scripture maye not be vvrested into manye senses before the rude people, as a nose of vvaxe maye be into manye formes? Because it is cōtrarye (saye you) vnto the vvordes of Dauid: * 1.565 The lawe of the Lorde is perfecte, conuerting soules Suerly I vvould you might be feed euen for the sauing of your credit (M. Chark.) to alleage one place vvithout corruptiō. Doe you trans∣late, Lex domini immaculata: The Lavve of the Lorde is perfecte in sense, soe that it maye not be vvrested to a vvrōg interpretation? This is maruelous. Immaculata signifieth in these countries, vnspotted, voyde of filthe, or dishonestie, vvherevvith prophane vvritinges are often times defiled: But the lavv of God is deuoyde of all suche thinges, and therefore conuerteth soules, vvhereas other vvritinges doe often tymes corrupt them: But that Immaculata can not be translated, per∣fecte in sense, it is euidente by this, that euerye silla∣ble and vvorde in Gods Lavve is vnspotted, but yet not perfecte in sense, & muche lesse so cleare, as it may

not be peruerted to an euill meaninge: vvherby your fraudulente translation is discouered.

THE DEFENCE.

To auoyde the reproche of belyeing and slaun∣dering the Iesuits in this place, * 1.566 M. Charke hath this re∣fuge. I appealle (sayeth he) frō your Censure, to Andradius playne confession. He defended the Iesuites•• in these poyntes agaynst kemnitius, vvhiche you defend agaynst me. This An∣dradius in handlyng this article, doeth not at all crye ou••, as you doe, but acknovvlegeth & defendeth the matter vvithou•• suche needles scoffes: VVhat scoffes the Censure vseth, or what cryeing out there is in this article, the reader seeth, and can Iudge of your report M. Charke. But that you are the same man, which you were before (that is, most false and shameles in your avouchementes) it shall nowe appeare. You saye heere of Andradius twoo things: First, that he playnlye confesseth, and acknow∣legeth the matter: Secondlye, that he cryeth not owt agaynst kemnitius for this report. And for bothe these things, you quote Andradius in the hundred & fower∣tie page of his second booke. As for the first, lett anye man see the place by you quoted, and yf Andradius confesse any more of the matter, than is sett downe in the Censure it selfe: lett hym beleeue you an other tyme vppon your woorde. For the second, it is to-too impudent. For albeit Andradius had not altogether so much cause to take stomach against kemnitius as I ha∣ue against you, for makyng a greater lye than he dyd, as shalbe shewed: yet lett the reader vewe ouer but the two pages, * 1.567 whiche goe immediatlie before that whiche you cite, & he shall see nothing els in them but a moste earnest & sharpe inuectiue against kemnitius, and all other protestāts, for malitious slaundering, and misre∣porting the ••esuites. And among other things Andra∣dius sayeth there, that for a great•• tyme he tooke pytie of the protestāts, thi••king that they had erred of igno∣rance. But nowe seeyng their malice in forging open lyes against their owne consciences: that is, which they

must needes know and vnderstand to be lyes: his affe∣ction of compassion was turned into hatred. This and much more hath Andradius in that place, against kem∣nitius, for shameles lyeing. And yet M. Charke sayeth, that he cryeth not owt as I doe, but c••fesseth all. VVhat may be sayd to such?

But (as I sayed before) Andradius had not so much cause of Choler against kemnitius, as I haue against M. Charke: for that he doeth not onelie report againe an open vntrueth, whiche he knewe to be a lye before he repo••ted it: but also hath corrupted, and falsified that lye, to make yet a greater lye. VVhiche thyng that you may see, I will heere laye downe the verie woordes bothe of kemnitius, & of Gotuisus M. Charkes author: * 1.568 for that their woordes are the selfe same: and Gotuisus tooke them syllable for syllahle from kemnitius. Gotui∣sus woordes then are these: The Iesuites saye, that the ho∣lye scripture in those thyngs vvhiche it contayneth and settetb forth, is, as it vvere, a nose of vvaxe, not yeelding any certaine and immouable sentence, but such as may be vvrested into any interpretation. Censura Colon. fol. 117. & in opere cate∣chestico Canisij fol. 44. For this false report of kemni∣tius against the Iesuites, Andradius falleth into the lōg and vehement inuectiue wherof I spake before. But what should I doe heere with VV. Charke? or rather what should the reader think of hym, for so great a fal∣shoode, as in this place he vseth? for first he concealeth the quotatiō of Canisius fol 44, as well in his first book, as also in his second replye. And the cause heerof is (as often hath beene noted before) for that the quoting of Canisius, according as he found hym quoted in his author, wolde haue discouered the lye, which M. Chark hoped to conceale by passing ouer Canisius, and cy∣ting onelye the Censure of Colen, whiche he was sure no man coulde fynde in England. And is this dealing excusable?

Secondlie, owt of the large sentence of Gotuisus nowe repeated, M. Charke tooke onelie three or fower woordes, that seemed most odious, and yet falsified too,

therby to make them more odious. For wher as Gotui∣sus sayeth, the Iesuits holde the scriptures to be as it vvere a nose of vvaxe: M. Cha••ke writeth that the Iesuits saye, the holye scrip••ure is a nose of vvaxe, and quoteth for it Censura Colen. fol. 117. whiche he knewe was not to be had: & concealeth purposelie bothe kemnitius, Gotui∣sus, and Canisius, where the forgerie was to be disco∣uered. VVhat shall a man say of this ministers falshood? shall we beleeue any longer this puritane protestation of playne and simple dealing in the lord? what hypocriti∣call deceyuing of the reader is this?

And thus muche for the slaunder and falshoode in reportinge. But now to come to the matter it selfe: the Censure graunteth, that vppon certayne circum∣stances the Iesuites doe compare the hereticall wre∣••ting and detorting of scripture, vnto the bowe••ng of a nose of waxe into many formes. Mary the circumstan∣ces of this comparison are these. Fyrst, that they speake not in respect of the scripture in it selfe: but in respect of heretiques and other wicked men, which abuse scri∣pture. Secondlye, they add, apud rudem populum, qui iudi∣care non potest. This abuse and wrestinge of scripture happeneth commonlie before the rude and ignorant people, whiche can not iudge of the deceyt. Thirdlye, they adioyne, vt palpentur vitia principum aut vulgi. He∣retiques doe it to flatter the princes or people present, in theyr vices. By whiche woordes they signifie the fa∣uour of the hearers. All these circumstances the Iesuits laye downe, when they compare the scripture abused to a nose of waxe wrested. And who is so foolishe but will cōfesse, that a lewd and wicked man in an ignorant audience, & where all men fauour his doctrine (for that he flattereth them in theyr sinnes:) maye wrest & abu∣se the holye scripture (as men are wonte to bend a nose of wax) to what plausible sense it lyketh hym best? No mary (sayeth M. Chark) it can not be. * 1.569 For albeit an here∣retike may vvrest and peruert the scripture, yet S. Peter tea∣cheth that it shalbe to hys ovvne destruction, and the scriptu∣re notvvithstanding shall remayne perfect and vndefiled. As

though we did holde the contrarie to this: or as though we did impute the wrestinge of the scripture vnto im∣perfection of gods woorde, & not to the malice of the wrester: or as though we sayd that this wresting were not destruction vnto the wrester. VVho euer heard su∣che kinde of answering? he sayeth the scripture may be wrested and peruerted: and yet he will euen with these woords answer and refute vs, which holde also that it may be wrested. He sayethe the very same that we doe, and yet will he haue men beleeue that he sayethe the contrary. VVhere were your wittes (sir william,) when yow wrote this answer?

But you storme greatlie agaynst the comparison, sayeing, shall Iesuits mayntayne this directlie, or in directlie in a k••ngdome, vvhere the gospell is preached? VVhat els good syr? euen in the kyngdome of you ministers, & to the confusion of your false named Gospell: whiche is nothing els, but the letter of scripture peruerted, and woorse abused, and wrested by yow to all errors and li∣centiousnes, than euer waxen nose was yet bended to diuers fashions. * 1.570 It is no fault of holye scripture, that wicked men may abuse it. For the more excellēt a thing is, the more easie and pernicious is the abuse therof. Christ was the excellētest benefit that euer God gaue vnto this worlde: and yet is he called notwithstanding, * 1.571 lapis offensionis, & petra Scandali: the stone of offence, and rock of scandal: not for any fault or imperfection in hym: * 1.572 but through the wickednes of suche as abuse that benefit. So, when S. Ierome dothe call the scriptu∣re alleaged corruptlie by Marcian and Basilides, euan∣gelium Diaboli, the deuills Gospell, yeelding this reason: that the Gospell consisted not in the vvoordes of scripture, but in the sense. Also whē S. Austen calleth the scripture, arcum haereticorum: The bowe of heretiques. And Ire∣neus compareth it abused by heretiques, to a Iewell stamped with the forme of a dogge or fox. * 1.573 In Lykewise when Gregorie Nazianzen compareth it to a syluer skaberd with a leaden swoorde within yt: Tertullian to the deceitfull ornaments of harlots: Vincentius Lyri∣nensis

to poysoned herbes, * 1.574 couered in the apotheca∣ries shoppe, vvith fayer titles, and superscriptiōs on the boxes where they lye: No doubt these fathers meāt not by suche comparisons, to detracte any thinge from the dignitie and excellencie of holie scripture, no more than the Iesuits dyd in comparing it to a nose of vvax, abused and vvrested by malitious heretiques.

* 1.575And I vvolde knovv of M. Charke, for that he exaggerateth so muche the indignitie of this compari∣son, hovv he vvill interpret hys holy man Martin Lu∣thers ovvne vvoordes: vvhi••he, after a long discourse to proue that all heresies seeke theyr foundation in scripture, are these. * 1.576 Quare verum est (sicut dicitur) Scri∣pturam sanctam esse librum haereticum: hoc est, eiusmodi libr••̄ quo potissimùm haeretici nituntur:

VVherfore it is true (vvhiche is sayde) that the holye scripture is an he∣reticall booke: that is, suche a booke as heretiques most of all leane vnto.

And a litle after: Haereseon liber biblia sunt: The bible is a booke of heresies. Oh that the Ie∣suites had vsed suche vvoordes: hovv vvold VV. Chark and his felovves haue triumphed against them for the same? And yet (thoughe Martin Luthers fashion vvas to runne ouer the shooes, in what soeuer he tooke in hād) I thinke he meant nothing in these vvoordes, against the dignitie of scripture. For he addeth in the verie place alleaged,

Scriptura sancta haereseon liber est, non sui causa, sed istorum nebulonum qui eam deprauant. The holie scripture is a booke of heresies, not of it selfe, but by the meanes of those knaues, vvhiche doe peruert yt.

This is father Luthers swete benediction vppon sacra∣mentaries: vvherof (I trowe) M. Charke will not deny hym selfe to be one.

And thus you see that the Iesuites haue not onelie trueth and reason on their syde, to vse that comparison: but also haue examples in this kynde: both of auncient fathers, and of our aduersaries them selues. VVhat in∣temperat malice then is this of william Charke, so to raue against them, for this one cōparison, vsed without all derogation of Scripture? yf they had spoken euill of

any scripture in it selfe: yf they had reiected any one booke therof, as protestants doe many: yf they had dis∣credited or defaced any one sentence therof, as Luther dothe most odiouslie the whole epistle of S. Iames: * 1.577 yf they should saye any booke of the scripture to be writ∣ten with a profane and ambitious spirit, as your D. Fulk doeth of the Machabies: * 1.578 yf they should ieste at the An∣gell Raphaell in the booke of Tobie, as M. VVhittaker doeth: or fall to that extreme impudencie, as to reuyle in open audience any holie person cōmended in sacred wryte, * 1.579 as you dyd (M. Chark) without shame, when you called that blessed womā of God, Iudith, vnchaste Iudith, in your disputations with M. Campian: yf the Iesuites (I saye) should saye, or doe any of these thynges, as you are driuen to doe: then myght you iustlie accuse thē, & drawe thē into hatred, for deprauing of gods woorde. But seing they doe not soe, but alltogether the cōtra∣rie: seyng they defend gods whole woord agaynst you, that offerre violence to the same: seyng they maintayne the number of bookes, which antiquitie hath left thē: the vnwrittē traditiōs that the Apostles haue delyue∣red them: the Catholiques expositiōs which auncient fathers haue assigned them: seyng they nether choppe nor chaunge, nor corrupt nor put owt, nor cōtēptuous∣lie reiecte anie one thing, as you doe infinite, for main∣tainyng of your ruynous, and most impious cause: you endeuour in vayne to discredit them, by exaggerating one poore comparison or similitude, whiche they vpon occasion vsed, to expresse the wickednes of you hereti∣ques that abuse scripture: and not to attribute any im∣perfection to scripture it selfe.

No man in the world euer spake more reuerentlie of holye scripture, than Iesuites doe. * 1.580 And whether they seeke to execute it in lyfe, as muche as our ministers of England or no: let them be iudges that know bothe theyr conuersatiōs. I myght heere alleage infinite testi∣monies owt of theyr workes, how & with what reueren∣ce they speak of scripture. But one place onelie of Cani∣sius shall serue for this tyme. He hath wryten two large

and learned volumes of the corruptions of gods woor∣de, * 1.581 by the heretiques of our tyme, where he hath these woo••des: Est ergo verbum dei &c. VVherfore the vvoorde of God is (as holie scripture conteyneth) the knovvleige of sal∣uatiō: the cleare lanterne, and shynyng lampe: it is the hydden mysterie: the heauentlie Manna: the pure and proued golde: the learnyng of Saints: the doctrine of all spirit and trueth: the loking glasse: the liuelye fontayne: the sealed booke: vvhich booke vvho soeuer doe vse vvell, they are Gods scholars, they are spirituall, they are vvyse, they are iust, they onelye are ma∣de the freendes, and heyres of almightie God. These are Canisius a Iesuites woordes. And doe these men speak baselye of scriptures, as M. Chark heere accuseth them?

* 1.582But now we come to examine the text alleaged by M. Chark agaynst the Iesuites to wytt, Lex domini imma∣culata: "the law of our Lord is vnspotted, or vnd••filed: which M. Charke wolde haue to signifie: that the scri∣pture is so perfect & playne in sense, as no wicked man may wrest or abuse the same. For whiche absurd reaso∣ninge and wrestinge of scripture, he being now repro∣ued by the Censure: heare what he answereth, and how he defendeth hym selfe. The Censure (sayeth he) suppo∣seth me to haue but one Byble, and that of the olde translation onelie, vvhich hathe, [the lavve of the Lord is vndefiled] &c. but the original hath: [the lavve of the Lord is perfect.] And the best translations haue so translated it. your olde translation goeth alone. The 70. folovv the rest. Heere you see that M. [ 1] Charke bryngeth diuers reasons for his defense. First, that he hath diuers Bybles in his house, and that of [ 2] diuers translations. Secondlie, that the original or he∣brew text of this verse in the Psalme, hath not immacu∣lata: that is, vndefiled or vnspoted: but rather perfect, in [ 3] that sense as he defendeth it. Thirdlie, that all the best translations haue it so: and that our olde translation [ 4] differeth from them all. Fouerthlie, that the septuagint or seuentie greke interpretours are also against vs here in. This is all M. Charkes defense.

But here by the waye wolde I haue the reader to Marke, how muche M. Charke getteth to hys cause.

Yf I should graunt hym all that he hathe here sayd: su∣relie he should gayne onelie, that the law of God, is perfect. And is this against any thinge that we saye or holde? or is it against the signification of the woord im∣maculata in the olde latin translation, whiche he im∣pugneth? Is not a thinge immaculate or vndefiled also, called perfect? euen as on the contrarie, a filthie or defi∣led thinge, is called imperfect? If then we should graunt that the hebrew and greeke textes had the woord per∣fect in them, in steed of the latin woord immaculata: yet this dothe not condemne the olde translation for vsing the woord immaculata, immaculate. For that immaculate (as hath bene shewed) signifieth also perfect from spot: mary not perfect in that sense, wherin M. Charke talke∣th: and for proofe wherof he alleaged this sentence: to witt, that because the law of the lorde is perfect, ther∣fore the scripture can not be wrested: whiche is a most false and absurd illation vppon the worde perfect. For S. Paules epistles are persect together withe other scri∣ptures: and yet S. Peter sayeth that many men dyd wrest and depraue them. * 1.583 But now lett vs consider the seue∣rall fower pointes of M. Charkes former answer, whi∣che (as yow see) if wee should graunt vnto him, without contradiction, yet had he gayned nothing therby. But lett vs examine them.

Touching the first whiche he answereth: that is, abowt the varietie of Bybles and translations, which he hath at home, I will not stand or cōtend with M. Chark. Let hym haue as many as he please: the matter is, howe well he vnderstandeth, or reporteth those Bybles, and not how many he hath. The second poynt is false, that the hebrew text disagreeth from the olde latin transla∣tion: as shalbe shewed after. The thyrd is fond, that all the best translations doe differe from the olde transla∣tion heerin. * 1.584 For what best, or better, or other good latin translation hath he, than the olde, whiche was in vse in gods Churche aboue thirtene hundred yeeres past: as may be seene by the citations of the fathers, whiche lyued then? whiche was afterwarde also ouervewed

& corrected by S. Ierom? * 1.585 which was also so hyghlye cō∣mended by S. Augustin? what other better translation (I saye) hath william Charke than this auncient, which he so contemneth? except he will name some latter of our tyme, as of Erasmus, Luther, or the like: whiche Beza hym selfe notwithstandinge affirmeth to be no∣thing lyke the olde trāslatiō for exactnes. The fowerth poynt which he addeth is a shameles lye, that the sep∣tuagint in greeke doe dissent from the woorde imma∣culata in the latin. For their woorde is AMOMOS, * 1.586 which their owne lexicon will expound vnto them to be im∣maculate, innocent, irreprehensible.

* 1.587To returne therfore in a woorde or two to the originall text, the hebrew woorde is TAMAM, or TAM which the septuagint doe interpret (as you haue heard) AMOMOS: that is, irreprehensible: and the auncient latin translation immaculata, * 1.588 immaculate. And what refuge then can M. Charke fynde heere? I doe not denye, but that it signifieth also, perfect: for that, what soeuer is irreprehensible and without spott, may also be called perfect, as hath bene shewed. But how doeth this proue that it signifieth to be perfect in sense, in suche sorte, as it may not be wrested, or peruerted? In the 118. Psalme where our auncient translation hath beati immaculati in via: * 1.589 your owne englysh bible hath translated it (M. Charke) blessed are those that be vndefyled in the vvaye: and the Hebrew and greeke woordes are TAM, & AMO∣MOS, as in the other text. How then doe you rayle at our olde auncient translation for that wherein your new englishe byble doth the verye same? the lyke you may see in infinite other places: as leuit. 3. v. 1. & 6. Also Num. 6. v. 14. VVhere sacrifices are appointed to be imma∣culate, according to the auncient tranflation. And your englishe byble translateth it so too, sayeinge they must be without blemishe: where the hebrew and greeke woordes are TAM and AMOMOS, as before.

By whiche is seene, that M. Charke careth not whether he runneth, what he forgeth, or whome he re∣prehendeth, so he maye seeme allwayes to saye some∣what:

And of all other shyftes, this is the last, and the easiest, and of most credit, and least able to be spyed of his reader, (as he thinketh) to inueighe against the ol∣de latin translation, when he is pressed vnauoydablye with any place of scripture alleaged. For this shyft, be∣sides the present couering of the difficultie, yeeldeth also some opinion of Learning to his Maister, gyuinge men to vnderstand, that he is skillfull in the lear∣ned tongues: whereas God knoweth, the refuge is vsed for bare miserie: as it alwayes appea∣reth, when it cōmethe to examination. And this shall suffice for this sixt article.

HEERE the Authour vvas interrupted by a VVritte de remouendo, so as he could not for this present passe on any further: as more at large is shewed at the beginning, in an epistle to M. Charke.

Notes

• * 1.1

  THE PRE∣FACE.
• * 1.2

  Intituled: a conference betvvene M. D. fulk, and the pa∣pists ī vve∣soiche ca∣stell.
• * 1.3

  The maner of protestā¦tes dispu∣tations.
• * 1.4

  of M. HAN¦MER.
• * 1.5

  Intituled an ansvve∣re to a Ie∣suites cha∣lenge.

  In 2. thes. 2
• * 1.6

  2. Thes. 2.
• * 1.7

  Intituled the Iesui∣tes Banner. A fovvle lye.
• * 1.8

  Diego Pay∣uas An∣dradius de orthodoxis explicatio∣nibus.
• * 1.9

  In opere ca¦techistico. pag. 350.
• * 1.10

  Moste fal∣se.
• * 1.11

  The descri∣ption of our iusti∣fication.

  Gal. 4.

  Tit. 3.
• * 1.12

  Canis: in op••re C••te. pag. 764.
• * 1.13

  Assert. 26. & 27.
• * 1.14

  Assert. 2.
• * 1.15

  The vnlear¦ned ••olye of Meredith Hanmer.

  Li. de vera reli. c. 14. lib. 1. ••etr. c. 13. sess. 6. c. 18

  Ierom. in expos. simb. ad Dam. Augu. ser. 191. de tem¦pore••
• * 1.16

  Sess. 5.
• * 1.17

  Li. 1. cont. 2. ep. pe∣lag. c. 13.
• * 1.18

  The effect of M. Han∣mers booke
• * 1.19

  Cap. 1. In ini••io.
• * 1.20

  Fol. 2.
• * 1.21

  Fo. 5. & 26
• * 1.22

  Impertinēt matters fo∣lovved by M. Hāmer
• * 1.23

  The effect of M. Char¦ks booke.
• * 1.24

  The order & diuisiō of this booke.
• 1 1.25

  Nickena∣mes against Iesuites.
• * 1.26

  Mat. 12. Luc. 6.
• * 1.27

  Act. 6.
• * 1.28

  Rom. 8.
• * 1.29

  Athan. in vita S. An¦thonii Ere∣mitae.
• * 1.30

  THE PRO∣TESTANTS Rayling & scurrilitie in vritinge. Hanmers s••urrilitie.
• * 1.31

  Against purgatorie pag. 241.

  D. Fulks tallent in rayling.

  In his retē∣tiue against the moty∣ues.
• * 1.32

  In his an∣svver to the booke of purgatorie & prayer for the de∣ad.
• * 1.33

  Intituled AN OVER∣THROVVE of Stapletōs for••resse of faythe.
• * 1.34

  Intituled. A REIOYN¦DER to Martials replye.
• * 1.35

  Iohn Cal∣uin his spi∣rite in ray∣linge.
• * 1.36

  Against Stapletons fortresse pag. 75.
• * 1.37

  Luthers pre¦rogatiue in rayling. Rom. 8.
• * 1.38

  Lib. cont. regem An. To. 2. vvitt. tēb. fo. 331.
• * 1.39

  Fol. 333.
• * 1.40

  O impure spirit of a prophet.
• * 1.41

  Fol. 334.
• * 1.42

  Fol. 335.
• * 1.43

  Fol. 337.
• * 1.44

  Fol. 338.
• * 1.45

  Hovv in∣tollerable is this in a renegate fryar.
• * 1.46

  Fol. 339.See the pri∣de of an a∣postata a∣gainst three famouse vniuersi∣ties.
• * 1.47

  Fol. 442.
• * 1.48

  Fol. 345.
• * 1.49

  Fol. 333.
• * 1.50

  Fol. 337.
• * 1.51

  Luthers spee¦che against Caluinistes and of Cal∣uinistes a∣gainst him. Tigurini tract. 3. cōt. supremam Lutheri con¦fess••onem.
• * 1.52

  Ergo lu∣ther had de¦uills: vvhi∣che after Charke de∣nyeth.

  Et nunc & semper & in saecula saecul••rum. In sathana si••tum, & supersatha¦nasiatum, & persa∣thanasiatū Pag. 61.
• * 1.53

  Iesuytes no Secte.
• * 1.54

  1. & 2.
• * 1.55

  4. Reg. 1. 4. Reg. 2. Dan. 1. Marc. 1.
• 3 1.56

  The descri∣ption of sa∣ctaries.
• 4 1.57

  The name of Iesuits.
• 1 1.58

  OF ELIAS and vvhe∣ther he be a paterne of monkes.
• * 1.59

  Ep. 13. ad paulinum & ep. 4. ad rusticum.
• * 1.60

  Elyas & Elyzeus monk•• of the old te∣stament. Ge. 2. 3. 4.
• 2 1.61

  OF S. IOHN Baptist vvhether he vvere a president to monkes.
• * 1.62

  Cap. 6. Plin. li. 5. c 17. nat. hist.
• * 1.63

  Ioseph. li. 2. ca. 7. de bello Iu∣daico.
• * 1.64

  Cap. 6.
• * 1.65

  S. Ihon a monke of the nevve testament.
• 3 1.66

  THOV∣CHINGE the true definition of a secta∣rie.
• * 1.67

  The diffe∣rence be∣tvvyxt he∣resie and a sect.
• * 1.68

  The signi∣fication of heresie mo∣re generall then of a secte.
• * 1.69

  A fond argument.
• * 1.70

  1. Cor. 1.
• * 1.71

  Schisme.
• * 1.72

  Ad quod vult. hae. 69.
• * 1.73

  Heresie. Error.
• * 1.74

  Tract. 5. in Ioh.
• * 1.75

  The erro∣neous schisme of the Corin∣thians. 1. Cor. 1.
• * 1.76

  The exposi¦tion of S. Pauls vvoords. 1. Cor. 1.
• * 1.77

  An exāple
• * 1.78

  Heresies of the pharises
• * 1.79

  HOVV THE PHARISES vvere a sect in tvvo senses.
• * 1.80

  A sect or heresie may sometimes be taken in good parte. Act. 26.
• * 1.81

  Tyrannis.
• * 1.82

  Against Bristovvs Motiues. pag. 14.
• * 1.83

  M. Charks definition of a sect.
• * 1.84

  Great ab∣sur••••••••••••
• * 1.85

  M. Charcks fond ouer∣sight.
• * 1.86

  Act. 26.
• * 1.87

  Gal 5.
• * 1.88

  2. Pet. 2.
• * 1.89

  VVhether the Iesuites be a sect by M. Charks definition.
• * 1.90

  Nath. 28. Mark. 16. Math. 10.
• * 1.91

  Coloss. 3. Gal. 5. & 6. Rom. 12.

  Chastizing of oure bodies.

  Mat. 3. Marc. 1. Heb. 11.
• * 1.92

  Ca. 10. li. 3.
• * 1.93

  Ep. 22. ad Eustoch
• * 1.94

  But you vvill saye S. Ierom. vvas no protestant.
• * 1.95

  In ca. 16. li. 3. Reg.

  An offer of coolinge physicke to the mini∣sters of En∣gland.

  In Londō. In Banbe∣rie.
• * 1.96

  Charks be∣lyeing of the Iesuites.
• * 1.97

  Gab. pra∣teol. in haer. de flagel∣lantib.

  Ger. tract. cont. flagel.

  The here∣sies of vvhippers.
• * 1.98

  Pratcolus vbi supra.

  Alphon. lib. 3. cont. haeresee.
• 4 1.99

  THE NA∣ME of Ie∣suites.
• * 1.100

  Impudēcie.
• * 1.101

  Turianus in apologe∣tico cap. 1. & 5.

  Fond ex∣claming for nothinge.
• * 1.102

  An euidēt example.
• * 1.103

  Intituled. Gentle gir∣ckes for Iesuites to be-come true Israe∣lytes.
• * 1.104

  Monks and friars.
• * 1.105

  In psa. 132 Li: 11. hist. cap. 3.
• * 1.106

  Li. 3. cont. li. Petil. ca. 40.
• * 1.107

  Books vvri¦ten in the commēda∣tion of mō∣kes and fryars.
• * 1.108

  Luc. 9. Ioh 11. Mat. 19.
• 1 1.109

  Of the vvor¦de religious D. Tho. se∣cunda secū¦dae. q. 18. art. 1.
• * 1.110

  Marc. 10. 1. Cor. 7.
• * 1.111

  C••EROS.
• * 1.112

  Orig. ho. 7. in Iere. Hier. in 12 Ierem.
• 2 1.113

  Of Good & euel reli∣gious.
• * 1.114

  Against S••••pleton pag. 96. &
• * 1.115

  VVHE∣THER THE State of our monks & No••••es be the same as vvas in the prima∣tiue church
• * 1.116

  1. Cor. 4.
• * 1.117

  Hereticall consequen∣ces.
• * 1.118

  Charks bol∣de slaunde∣ringe of all religious peop••e.
• * 1.119

  TOV∣CHING RE¦LIGIOVS VOVVES.
• * 1.120

  De mor. eccl. cap. 31 de opere monach•• c. 14. & 15. Cogginge & foystin∣ge.
• * 1.121

  In Psal. 75. circa finē.
• * 1.122

  Questione vel regula 14. fusius explica••a.
• * 1.123

  Ep. 6. ad Theodorum lapsum. Heb. 13.
• * 1.124

  Nonnes.
• * 1.125

  In psa. 83.
• * 1.126

  Lib. cont. Io¦uinian.
• * 1.127

  Li. 1. ep. 11.

  Li. de vir. cap. 29.

  Li. ad vir. lap. cap. 5.

  De bono v•• duitatis c. 9••

  Ibid. ca. 8.
• * 1.128

  Against purg. pag. 333. and against sta¦pl••t: pa. 14. Against bristoe pag. 19. and against sta∣plet. pag. 1.
• * 1.129

  VVhether S. Augusti∣ne vvere a friar or no.
• * 1.130

  Scr. 94.
• * 1.131

  Of the vo∣luntarie po¦uertie of Christ.
• * 1.132

  Marc. 6. & 9. Luc. 6.
• * 1.133

  Sap. 2.
• * 1.134

  Luc. 14. Math. 19. Marc. 10. Luc. 18. & 12.
• * 1.135

  Act. 2. Act. 4. & 5.
• * 1.136

  S. Basil. ser. 1. de insti. monach. S: Ier. ep. 8. ad deme∣triadem.
• * 1.137

  In c. 19. Mat. & ep. 8 ad deme. In reg. fu∣sius expli∣cat: inter∣rogat. 9. Li. 17. de ciui. c. 4.
• * 1.138

  1. Cor. 6. & 10.
• * 1.139

  Mat. 19. Marc. 10. Lu. 6. & 18 1. Tim. 6. Apo. 18. Rom. 16.
• * 1.140

  1.
• * 1.141

  The true lyfe of Ie∣suits.
• * 1.142

  M. Han∣mers noto∣riouse lye.
• * 1.143

  2.
• * 1.144

  Vide Iaco. payuam: li. 1. de ortho. explicat.
• * 1.145

  Os••e. 4.
• * 1.146

  Li. 1. ortho. ••xpli.
• * 1.147

  HANMERS LYE.
• * 1.148

  Loyolas & Luthers ly∣fe.
• * 1.149

  Ignatius the begin∣ner of Ie∣suites.

  Vide Laco. payuam li. 1. orthodo: explicat & Pe. Masse ū. in vita Ignatij de Loy∣ola.
• * 1.150

  Luther be∣ginner of the nevv gospell.

  Vide Ioan. Cocle: in vi. Lutheri. & Lindan. lib. de fug. Ido. ca, 8. & 9.
• * 1.151

  Luthers do strine.
• * 1.152

  Iohn Slei∣dan a fa∣mouse lyar.
• * 1.153

  Cocleus.
• * 1.154

  VVhether Luther vve¦re begotten of a deuill.
• * 1.155

  The diffe∣rēce of pro∣testants & Catholikes in repor∣tinge.
• * 1.156

  Gab. pra∣teol. lib. 10. de haeres. pag. 27.
• * 1.157

  Li. 15. de ci ui. dei. c. 23.
• * 1.158

  VVhether Luther vve∣re stroken vvith a thū∣der. bolt.
• * 1.159

  Prateol. cō∣haer. li. 10. an. 1517.
• * 1.160

  In praefat. tom. 5. ope∣rum Luthe∣ri, vvittēb. anno. 1562
• * 1.161

  This epistle vvas vvri∣ten 21. of Nouemb. 1521. & is prefixed be¦fore his boo¦ke. De vo∣tis monasti cis. tom. 5.
• * 1.162

  Belyinge of Lyndan.
• * 1.163

  De fugien∣dis Idolis.
• * 1.164

  The deuyll cryeyng out of Luthers mouthe.
• * 1.165

  Luthers ly∣einge vvith a Nonne in the lorde.
• * 1.166

  Of Luther carnall do∣ctrines.
• * 1.167

  VVhy the same booke in Luther sometim••s hath di∣uers titles.
• * 1.168

  No sinne vvith Lu∣ther but in∣creduli••ie.
• * 1.169

  M. HAN∣MER.
• * 1.170

  M. Charke
• * 1.171

  De capt Ba¦bil. c. de Ba. to. 2. vvit∣tenb.
• * 1.172

  Pag. 73.
• * 1.173

  Concione. prima su∣per dom. post trini.
• * 1.174

  The tenne commaun∣dementes by Luther appertaine nothinge to vs.
• * 1.175

  Tract. 3. in Iohan.
• * 1.176

  Math. 5. Rom. 3.
• * 1.177

  One onelie true gospell by Luther.
• * 1.178

  Touching varietie in alleaginge of Luthers vvoorkes.
• * 1.179

  VValteru•• con••ra au∣••ifabrum de corrupta editione operum Lu¦theri. An. 1566.

  In Catalo∣go de libris lutheri. In bliblio∣theca sua. fol. 503.
• * 1.180

  Ep ad ••o. haruagium tipographū Argen••inē sem.
• * 1.181

  Alas••o in epistola sua ad regem Poloniae. In harmonia confess. Au¦gustanae.
• * 1.182

  In enarrat in epist. pet. Tom. 3. vvi∣tenb.
• * 1.183

  It vvas ouersight then for M. Chark to say that no su∣che preface vvas euer vvriten.
• * 1.184

  The greate impudencie of our ad∣uersaries.
• * 1.185

  In his an∣svver to M. Campians first reasō.
• * 1.186

  The same also hathe Luther in his preface to S. Iames epistle in the duche testament, as more at large is she∣vved in the ansvver to vvhitaker.
• * 1.187

  VVhether ••. Ihon do∣he speake ••esse of good vvorkes ••hā the for∣••er three Euangeli∣••tes.
• * 1.188

  ••ovv Lu∣••••er tea∣••••eth the ••ood vvyfe •••• lye vvith ••••er hus••āds ••rother.
• * 1.189

  1. Hāmer.
• * 1.190

  •• Charke •••• Goodly ••••••reement: ••t yet such •• comm••̄∣•••• ys in ••••ending ••••is.
• * 1.191

  Extreme impudencie of a lyeing mynister.
• * 1.192

  Ser. de Ma∣trim. tom. 5. vvittem. fo. 120.

  Ergo he vvas no pa∣pist vvhan he vvrote this.
• * 1.193

  M. Charke his notable false dea∣••ing.
• * 1.194

  Ser. de ma∣trim. vt su∣pra.

  Marke Lu∣thers coun∣sail to a mās vvise.
• * 1.195

  Here M. Chark brea¦keth of the sentence as thoughe no thinge folo∣vved.
• * 1.196

  Consider-also vvhat a face ME∣REDITHE HANMER. hathe, in denieing the vvhole mat¦ter, and sa∣yeinge that Luther ha∣the no suche thing.
• * 1.197

  It may be Luther had some kinse∣mē ī vvho∣se vviues, he vvould ha∣ue some īte∣rest by this do••trine.
• * 1.198

  Exegesi. ad c. 7. ep. 1. ad Cor. tom. 5. Erasm. Al¦ber. li. con∣tra Caro∣lost. Doct:
• * 1.199

  If the vvife vvill not co¦me, lett the maide come.
• * 1.200

  Serm. de Mat. tom. 5. vvittemb:
• * 1.201

  In profess. Cathal. im∣pressa Co∣lon. 1580.
• * 1.202

  Crom. lib. 1. colloquio∣rū. Smide. apud sta∣phylum, in 2. defens. apol. cont. Smidelinū.
• * 1.203

  Can. si quis ingenius: 20. q. 2. & Cā si foemi∣na. 29. q. 2.
• * 1.204

  Matrimo∣nie before virginitie.
• * 1.205

  Ep. 81.
• * 1.206

  Cyp. de di∣sc••pl. virg. Basil. prae∣fa••ione ad ascetica.
• * 1.207

  Luther exe∣ges: ad c. 7. ep. 1. ad cor. vvitten. fo. 107.
• * 1.208

  Esa. 56. v. 4. Math. 19. v. 12. 1. Cor. 7. v. 38.
• * 1.209

  VVhether Christ & S. Paul dyd dissuade virginitie. 1. Cor. 7. Matt. 19.
• * 1.210

  Com. in c. 19. Math.
• * 1.211

  VVhether a vvoman be as neces∣sarie as meate & sleepe.
• * 1.212

  Serm. de matri. edi. vvitenb. fo. 126.
• * 1.213

  Pryde the badge of heresie.
• * 1.214

  Serm. de nae¦tiui••. B. ma∣rie.
• * 1.215

  Com. in 6. ••. ep. 1. Petri
• * 1.216

  VVhether all men bee equalye ho¦lye and iust.
• * 1.217

  Am. ep. 81.
• * 1.218

  2. Gal. 2: Ambros. in c. 3. ad Ga.
• * 1.219

  Concil. cōst. act. 4. cā. 2.
• * 1.220

  1. Io. 3.
• * 1.221

  The conclu∣sion of the premisses.
• * 1.222

  Math. 7. Luc. 13.
• * 1.223

  1.
• * 1.224

  2.
• * 1.225

  Lib. de f••g. Idol. c. 8. Lib. de mis∣sa. a••gu••. pag. 228. to. 7. & lib. de missa priua.
• * 1.226

  3.
• * 1.227

  Hosius li. 1. de heres. Claud. de Sainct. li. de reo eucha. Linda. lib. de fag. id. cap. 8.
• * 1.228

  4.
• * 1.229

  Luth. ep. ad Argē••. & ep ad Io. Har. Bucer•• ep. ad Lu∣ther.
• * 1.230

  5.
• * 1.231

  Absurdi∣ties of Mar∣tin Luther.
• * 1.232

  In assert. ar. 36. condem. ••er ••••••. 10. In assert. ar. 36.
• * 1.233

  In assert. ar. 34.
• * 1.234

  In assert. ar. 7.
• * 1.235

  De capt. Ba∣b••••. tit. de B••pt.
• * 1.236

  VVhether Luther had bodilie con∣ferēce vvith the deuyll. See before pag. 18.
• * 1.237

  Gesner. fol. 503, s••ae bi∣blioth.
• * 1.238

  Fontacus in Chron. anni. 1554.
• * 1.239

  The deuill knevv Lu∣thers hu∣mour of pryde.
• * 1.240

  Heere is the protestantes fashion of disputation se••t dovvne by their mai¦ster.
• * 1.241

  The begin∣ning of pro∣testancye from Sathā
• * 1.242

  Luthers con¦ferens vvith the `deuyll. vvas body∣lye.
• * 1.243

  De missa pri¦••ata & vnc. sacerd, vbi s••p••••.
• * 1.244

  See before in the Cēsu∣re the place quoted.
• * 1.245

  Of M. Lu∣thers dea∣the.
• * 1.246

  Touchinge the cr••dit of Ihon S••eidan.
• * 1.247

  In epitome germanica, colon•• An 1558. edit.
• * 1.248

  Iindan in Ruardo.
• * 1.249

  Pontacus Burdegal. in chron. anni 1544
• * 1.250

  Luthers death.
• * 1.251

  Brentius in appendice ex luthero.
• * 1.252

  In admoni¦tione vlti∣ma ad Ia∣c••bū vvest fall.
• * 1.253

  Ludouic la¦uat. in hist. de orig. con¦trouer. Sa∣crament.
• * 1.254

  S••eid. lib. 7. lauat. in hi. controuer. sacram.
• * 1.255

  Iacob. va∣dian. lib. 3. Apho.
• * 1.256

  A notable storie of the protestan∣tes agree∣ment.
• * 1.257

  Amsford. in confess. purae doct. euang.
• * 1.258

  Nicol. Gal∣lus inthesi∣bus. Lauat. in hist. sa∣cram: Su∣rius in hist. A solem∣ne conuen∣ticle.
• * 1.259

  Acta collo quii Mul∣brunensis tam a pala tinis quam vvittenber¦gensibus edita.
• * 1.260

  The louin∣ge and cur¦teous spe••∣che of pro∣testantes amongest thē selues.
• * 1.261

  See before pag. 17. & 19. Tract. 3. cont. Luth. suprem. cōfessionē. Luther. ep. ad Io. Har∣grauium. Luth. tom. 7. vvitten. fol. 380. 381. 382. Act. 28. cōt. louā. to. 2. vvittenb. sol. 503.
• * 1.262

  Luth. in re∣spon. ad ma¦ledic. scri. regis An∣gliae.
• * 1.263

  Of the a∣greement of Luthera¦nes & Zuin¦glians.
• * 1.264

  This Bren∣tius him selfe testi∣fieth, in re∣cog. proph. & apostol. doctrin. pa. 4. & 64. Caluin. cōt. Iac. vvest∣falum.
• * 1.265

  Heshu: in desen. cont. Caluinum. lib. de ••i. & mediat. Note this fi¦gure of spe¦che.
• * 1.266

  The praecti¦se of prote∣testantes loue and vnitie, one tovvardes the other.
• * 1.267

  In hist. sa∣cram.
• * 1.268

  The Se∣cretarie of the compa∣nie vvas permitted to reade cer¦taine pri∣uat seruice for a time but no mi∣nister could be graūted them, tho∣gh the quee¦nes letters of England vvere got∣ten in their behalfe.
• * 1.269

  So vvere buried (a∣mōg other) the foresaid Secretarie of the com∣panie, & al¦so the de¦putie, na∣med Clou∣ghe, vvhich dyed•• there: At vvhat time the preachers of Hambo∣rough in∣ueighed moste ea∣gerlie aga∣inst all En∣glish men for their religion.
• * 1.270

  Of the lyfe of Iohn Cal¦uine.
• * 1.271

  The vvri∣ter of Cal∣uins lyfe.
• * 1.272

  This booke is intituled A Storie of the Life Manners, Doctrine, and Dea∣the of. Io. Caluin.
• * 1.273

  Iohn Cal∣uins birth.
• * 1.274

  Caluin bu∣rnt vvith a hoote li••∣ly for So∣domie.
• * 1.275

  M. vvhit∣aker thin∣keth it no shame but rather glo∣rie: for thus he ansvve∣reth it. If Caluine vvere brā∣ded S. Paul also vvas brāded, c••̄∣paring Cal¦uins bran∣des for So∣domie vv••∣th S. Pauls brandes for Christ. pag. 62. a∣gainst M. Campian.
• * 1.276

  Caluins firste assi∣stants in Geneua.
• * 1.277

  Caluin ba∣nished frō Geneua.
• * 1.278

  Caluins be∣hauiour tovvards•• his aduer∣saries.
• * 1.279

  Caluins brood haue not forgot∣ten this tricke.
• * 1.280

  Caluins crueltie in reuenge.
• * 1.281

  This Ioh. Caluin him selfe confes¦seth in his letters to vire••{us}. An. 1546, the Ides of Fe∣bruarie. The deathe of Seruetus and cause therof.
• * 1.282

  This let∣ter vvas vvriten the 12. of Febr∣uarye 1546, and vvas found in the stu∣die of vire∣tus by the magistra∣tes of lau∣sanna, af∣ter he vvas rūneavvay from then∣se, as after shalbe men¦tioned.
• * 1.283

  Heretiks doe holde one doctri∣ne no lon∣ger then it seruethe theyr tur∣nes.
• * 1.284

  Caluins am¦bition and vayne glo∣rye.
• * 1.285

  A holye ansvvere,
• * 1.286

  Chap. 13.

  Caluins raysing of a deade man.
• * 1.287

  Intollera∣ble hypo∣crisie.
• * 1.288

  Ioh. 11. & 13.
• * 1.289

  Caluins ca∣sting out of deuylls, vi∣de in vita Bezae. pag. 12.
• * 1.290

  FRED. STA PHILVS counsailer to the E••∣perour, beīg a yong mā, and a pro∣testāt also, vvas vvith Luther in the vestrye of aparishe churche in vvittenber∣ge, vvhē he tooke vpon hym to coniure the deuyll out of a mayde sent thither from Mis∣nia. But this deuyll soe drest Luther, as seeking to runne out againe at the doore, he could not, for that the deuyll had soe fastened yt bothe vvithin and vvithout, as Luther vvas fayne to stay there in great torment, and in daunger of a homelye chaunce, vvhile tooles vvere in fetchinge to breake dovvne the doore. Staph. apol•• 2.
• * 1.291

  Caluins la∣sciuiousnes. Ex cap. 14.
• * 1.292

  Monsieur Caluines day menes.
• * 1.293

  The Au∣thor vvas then ph••si∣tian at Ber¦na.
• * 1.294

  Ex ca. 15.
• * 1.295

  A notable pranke of Monsieur Caluine.
• * 1.296

  Caluins sic∣knesse and deathe.
• * 1.297

  An••ioch{us}, and Herod, and diuers other ene∣mies of god dyed this deathe.
• * 1.298

  s••••ha lyfe of Theodore Beza.
• * 1.299

  Ierome her mes Bolsec. in his book of the lyfe and man∣ners of Theodore Beza.
• * 1.300

  He begāne as his may∣ster Cal∣uine dyd.
• * 1.301

  Beza his dishonest Epigram.
• * 1.302

  The man∣ner of Be∣za his vo∣cation to the ghospel.
• * 1.303

  The confe∣rence at Poysie.
• * 1.304

  A notable deuise and presēt shift of Beza.
• * 1.305

  Beza kil∣leth his ovvn childe and toge∣ther hazar¦dethe the lyfe of his harlote. O impious abusing the maiestie of God.
• * 1.306

  The Duke of Gu••se murdered by Beza his appointe∣ment.
• * 1.307

  Seditious bookes sett foorthe by Beza.
• * 1.308

  Beza his tyrannye. in Geneua.
• * 1.309

  The furni∣ture of Ge∣neua for the gospell.
• * 1.310

  A breefe considera∣tion vppon the former lyues.
• * 1.311

  Six men the reformers of all our Englishe religion.
• * 1.312

  Lib. de mis. priua. & vnct. sacer. Artic. 28. cont. Lo••a. To 2. vvit. fol. 503.
• * 1.313

  COROLO∣STADIVS.
• * 1.314

  An. 1525.
• * 1.315

  OECO∣LAMPA∣DIVS.
• * 1.316

  An. 1531, October. 12
• * 1.317

  VLRICVS ZVING∣LIVS. in li. subsi. de euchar.
• * 1.318

  An. 1531. Octob. 9.
• * 1.319

  CALVIN.
• * 1.320

  Caluinistes differ from Zuinglians in religion.
• * 1.321

  BEZA.
• * 1.322

  Touching the deathe of Bucer.
• * 1.323

  Lindan. de fug. ido. cap. 11.
• * 1.324

  Pontacus Burdegalē∣sis in chron anni 1551.
• * 1.325

  Luther. ep. ad Io. Har. typ. arg.

  This is testi¦fied of bu∣cer by la∣uatherus a Zuinglian in hist. sacr.

  And by functius, a sectarie, in chron. al¦so by the acts them∣selues of that Synod set furth in print.
• * 1.326

  Bucers in∣constancie.
• * 1.327

  Badde dea∣ling of vvil¦liam Charlke.
• * 1.328

  Moste ri∣diculous a••∣cusations.
• * 1.329

  The dea∣ling of our aduersa∣ries in dra∣vveing all matters a∣gainst the state.
• * 1.330

  In the pre∣face to the reasons of refusall.
• * 1.331

  In his ans∣vvere to Hovvle•• fol. 3.
• * 1.332

  Tovvching Gotvisus.
• * 1.333

  Diuers vva¦yes vvher∣by M Char¦kes falsho∣de appea∣reth.
• * 1.334

  Li. depreci∣puis capi∣tibus theo∣logiae Ie∣su••tarum: In orthodo¦xis explica¦tionibus.
• * 1.335

  In opere ca¦techistic••. Dona••us Gotuisus de fide I su & Iesu••a∣rum.
• * 1.336

  The first Article.
• * 1.337

  A faultie definition. of sinne.
• * 1.338

  Gene. 29.
• * 1.339

  Aug. li. 3. de lib. arb. cap. 19.

  The true de¦finition of sinne.
• * 1.340

  False dea∣ling•• so••∣vved by an example.
• * 1.341

  Kem. pa. 16 Go••uis. pa. 245.
• * 1.342

  Arist. lib. peri her∣minias.
• 2 1.343

  VVhether sinne be an acte or no.
• * 1.344

  The diffe∣rence of vi∣tium and peccatum in diuinitie Lib. cont. Iul. pelag. cap. 18.
• * 1.345

  Cap. 14. de trin. cap. 7.
• * 1.346

  The sinne of omissiō. Ezech. 33. 1. Re. 2. D. Tho. 22 q. 79.
• * 1.347

  Chriso. ho. 16. inep. ad ••ph. & ho. 36. de vnc. & vitiis.

  Ambros. ser. 18.

  Basil. com. in illud Lu. 12. destruā horrea.

  Euery omis¦sion inclu∣dethe an acte.
• * 1.348

  Pecca∣tum est factum di∣ctum vel concupitum contra aeter nam dei le∣gem••
• * 1.349

  Aug. ••om. 8. fo. 665. Genes. 1.
• 3 1.350

  VVhether sinne be a reasonable action.

  Li. 3. aeth. c. 3. li. 3. de a∣nima. text. 46. & 54. Tom. 6. de fide cont. Manach. c. 9. & 10. li. 1. de ser. do. in mō∣te,
• * 1.351

  Rom. 14.
• * 1.352

  Amb. in. ca 14. ad Ro.
• * 1.353

  Cont. secūd. Manach. c. 15. & 16.
• * 1.354

  VVhether sinne be vo¦luntarie.
• * 1.355

  Li. de vera reli. ca. 14. & li. 1. re∣trac. c. 13.
• * 1.356

  Li. 3. cont. Iulian. c. 5.
• * 1.357

  Hovv ori∣ginall sin∣ne is volun¦tarie
• * 1.358

  Rom. 5.
• * 1.359

  Numb. 35.
• * 1.360

  The causes of the ci∣ties of refu¦ge.
• * 1.361

  Slaughter done vvith out consent of vvill is innocentie.
• * 1.362

  In Isaaco colligato. Rab. Moys. in Morech. Neuo çh. li. 3. ca. 40. Rab. Leui. ī ca. 20. Nu.
• * 1.363

  Tvvo kyn∣des of igno¦rance.
• * 1.364

  Ep. 77. ad hugo. de S. vict.

  1. Cor. 15.
• * 1.365

  An exam∣ple of īuin∣cible igno∣rance.

  Au. li. 3. de lib. arb: ca. 22. Chriso. ho. 26. in ep ad Rom.
• * 1.366

  Gen. 20.
• * 1.367

  Gen. 29. Iacob sin∣ned not in lyeīg vvith Lia.
• * 1.368

  Ca. 47.49. 50.51.52. Lib. 16. de ciui. c. 38.
• * 1.369

  In cap. 29. Gen
• * 1.370

  M. Charks positions about sin∣ne.
• * 1.371

  Au. tom. •• 5. fo. 137. aedit. paris.
• * 1.372

  Transposi∣tion in al∣ledginge of scripture.
• * 1.373

  Ro. 1. v. 16
• * 1.374

  1. Cor. 1. v. 24.
• * 1.375

  Io. 4. v. 24
• * 1.376

  In Latin vve saye Princeps est Pom∣peius. vvhich vve can not in∣terpret in Englishe, vvorde for vvorde, a PRINCE IS POM∣PEY: But Pōpey is a prince. For that oure tongue ad∣mi••••eth not the praedi∣catiō befo∣re the copu¦la proper∣lie, as other tōgues doe. 1. Io. 5. v. 7.
• * 1.377

  He frau∣dulentlie translateth transgres∣sion in this place, the greekvvoor¦de beinge chaunged. 1. Io. 3. v. 4.
• * 1.378

  Aug. li. 5. cont. Iul. c. 3. & li. 6. c. 8.12. & 13.
• * 1.379

  ANOMIA.
• * 1.380

  ADITIA.

  Arist. in praedicam. qualittias.
• * 1.381

  1. Io. 5.
• * 1.382

  Small ga∣me.
• * 1.383

  M. Charks knoulege of his seruing the lorde.
• * 1.384

  In disput. lyps. cum Eckio quae adhuc ex∣tat.

  Buc••r. ep. ad Norim. & epist. ad Essingenses & com. in 3. & 26. Math. & Ioh. 6.
• * 1.385

  The second article.
• * 1.386

  1
• * 1.387

  2.
• * 1.388

  Rom. 7.
• * 1.389

  3.
• * 1.390

  Rom. 8.
• * 1.391

  4.
• * 1.392

  Li. 1. de nu. & concup. c. 23. & 25. & li. 1. cō••. ep. 2. pelag. c. 13. & li. 1 Retr. c. 15.
• * 1.393

  Math. 5.
• 1 1.394

  Gotuisus pag. 264.
• 2 1.395

  Li. 6. c. 11. cont. Iuliā.
• * 1.396

  Charkes maleperte∣nes vvith S. Austen.
• * 1.397

  Rom. 7. Ver. 12.14
• * 1.398

  VVeake resonynge.
• * 1.399

  Rom. 7.
• * 1.400

  Exo. 20.
• * 1.401

  2. Cor. 11. Phil. 3. Act. 22.
• 3 1.402

  Au. li 1. de nup. & cō cup. c. 23.
• * 1.403

  A••b. ser. 27. Au. li. 2. de pecca. merit. c. 27. & 28.
• * 1.404

  Orig. in hūc locum.
• * 1.405

  Augu li. 3. cont. 2. ••p. pe••ag. c. 6.
• * 1.406

  Ambr. li. 1 de voc. gēt. ca. 5. Clem. A••e. li. pe∣dag. c. 6.
• * 1.407

  Clemens Ale. exho. ad gentes pag. 38.
• * 1.408

  Cap. 53.
• * 1.409

  Aug. li. 1. de nup. & c••cu. c. 23.
• * 1.410

  Li. 1. de nu. & co••cup. c. 23. & 25.
• * 1.411

  Cap. 25.
• * 1.412

  Li. 11. de peccat. me∣ri••. & re∣miss. ca. 4.
• * 1.413

  Great im∣pudencie.
• * 1.414

  Rom. 7. ca. 23. li. 1. de nup. & concup.
• * 1.415

  Hovv S. Paul called concupiscē∣ce synne im¦properlye.
• * 1.416

  Li. 6. c. 11.
• * 1.417

  Li. 5. c. 3.
• * 1.418

  An exam∣ple.
• * 1.419

  Lib. 2. cont. Iulian cir∣ca finem.
• * 1.420

  Math. 6.
• * 1.421

  Veniall & mortall sin∣ne.

  Vide Au. li. 1. cont. 2. ep. pelag. c. 13. li. 2. de pecc. merit. c. 28. S••rm. 6. de verb. apost. lib. 1. de ciui. c. 25 In expos. prop. ex ep. ad Rom. prop••sitio∣ne 17. 45. 47. com. ad Gal. c. 5. de pecca. orig. c. 39. cō. 3. in psal. 118 & alibi.
• * 1.422

  Math. 5.
• * 1.423

  Math. 15. Marck. 7.
• * 1.424

  PROS TO EPIDV∣MESAI AVTEN.
• * 1.425

  Au. li. 1. de serm. domi. in monte ca. 23.
• * 1.426

  Iacob. 1. v. 14. & 15.
• * 1.427

  •• Li. 1. iust. 8.17. 18. Li. 2. inst. ap. 4. In com. li. reg. ca. 2.
• * 1.428

  Aug. li. 6. cont. Iul. cap. 5.
• * 1.429

  The third Article.
• * 1.430

  Exo. 20.
• * 1.431

  Deut. 30. Li. 1. de nu. & concup. ca. 23. Ecc. 18.
• * 1.432

  Li. 2. cont. Iul. circa finem. Li. 2. de gra. & pec. orig. c. 40.
• * 1.433

  Ep. 200. ad Asell.
• * 1.434

  This kin∣de of spee∣che is called implica∣tio in ad∣iecto.
• * 1.435

  Fyrst mo∣tions volun¦tarie some∣times.
• * 1.436

  An euidēt example.
• * 1.437

  Deceytful auoydinge of similitu∣des.
• * 1.438

  Great•• surdities.
• * 1.439

  Concupiscē¦ce in vvhat place it is.
• * 1.440

  Gal. 5. Rom. 7,
• * 1.441

  The sensa∣tiue parte•• of mā mo∣re corrup∣ted than the reaso∣nable.
• * 1.442

  Rom. 7.
• * 1.443

  Sap. 9. Rom. 7.
• * 1.444

  Vide Au. in psa. 145 & li. 14. de ciuit. c. 19.
• * 1.445

  Necessarie actions of lyfe and sēse corru∣pted by ori∣ginall syn∣ne.
• * 1.446

  De eccles. dogm. c. 38.
• * 1.447

  Ge. 6. & 8.
• * 1.448

  Deut. 6. Matth. 22.
• * 1.449

  Au. de spi. & lit. c. v••. li. 1. de do. Christ. c. 2. li. de nat. & gra. 69. li. 2. de pec. merit. c. 6.
• * 1.450

  Catholikes doe represse lustes, an•• not the pro∣testants.
• * 1.451

  Protestants doctrine.
• * 1.452

  Catholique doctrine of lustes.
• * 1.453

  Exo. 20.
• * 1.454

  Li. de nup. & concup. cap. 23.

  Eccle. 18.
• * 1.455

  Abovvt the number and order of the com∣maundemē∣tes.
• * 1.456

  Deut. 5.
• * 1.457

  Quaest. 71. in exod. & concione. 1. in psa. 32.
• * 1.458

  The reasōs vvhy cōcu∣piscence of the fleshe, and concu∣piscence of temporall goods make tvvo com∣maunde∣mentes.
• * 1.459

  1. Iohn. 2.
• * 1.460

  A doubt resolued.
• * 1.461

  1. Ioh. 2.
• a 1.462

  Li. 3. ant. ca. 6. & 8.
• B 1.463

  Li. de de∣calog.
• c 1.464

  Li. 2. cont. haereses. ca. 42.
• a 1.465

  Ho. 8. in Exod.
• B 1.466

  in ca. 20. Exod.
• c 1.467

  Li. 6. Strō.
• d 1.468

  in ca. 26. Leuit.
• e 1.469

  in cap. 6. eph.
• f 1.470

  in ca. 10. Ose.
• * 1.471

  An. qu••st. 71. in exo. & alibi su. citat.
• * 1.472

  VVhether Catholikes leaue ovvt the second commaun∣dement a∣gainst Ido∣les.
• * 1.473

  Hovv one generall sinne may belong to tvvo com∣maundemē¦••es: that is, the consent of hart to one, & the ex••ernall vvoorke to an other.
• * 1.474

  Exod. 20.
• * 1.475

  Deut. 30.
• * 1.476

  VVhether all motiōs of lust may be extingui¦shed by mortifica∣tion:
• * 1.477

  VVhether the cōma∣undemētes, of God be impossible or no.
• * 1.478

  The lavve and com∣maundemē¦tes are not aboue vs.
• * 1.479

  Aug. li. de nat. & gra. cap. 69.
• * 1.480

  Math. 11. 1. Ioh. 5. Li. de nat. & gr. c. 69
• * 1.481

  Ser. 191. de tempore.
• * 1.482

  All things not expres∣sed in scri∣ptures.
• * 1.483

  Things be∣leeued vv∣hiche are not in scri∣pture.
• * 1.484

  Colos. 4.
• * 1.485

  A simple euasion.
• * 1.486

  Payu. in orthodox explicat.

  In opere ca tech. Cani∣sii, fol. 126. 160.161. 162.
• * 1.487

  An euidēt example.
• * 1.488

  Luc. 10. Ioh. 14. Math. 18. 1. Tim. 3.
• * 1.489

  The true state of the question.
• * 1.490

  Of thinges not expres∣sed in scri∣pture.
• * 1.491

  Tvvo natu¦res & tvvo vvilles in Christ. Rom 1. 34 Math. 26.
• * 1.492

  Syn. 6. Act. 4.
• * 1.493

  Proceeding of the holy ghost. Ioh. 15.26.
• * 1.494

  Ciril. in ca. 15. Ioh. Athan. in symb.
• * 1.495

  The vnion of the vv∣oorde. Ioh. 1. v. 14
• * 1.496

  Baptizinge of infantes Ge. 17. 12.
• * 1.497

  C••aud. de Sainctes in Apol. ad∣uers. Beza.
• * 1.498

  Chaunge of the Sab∣bothe day.
• * 1.499

  Apo. 1. 10.
• * 1.500

  Of the kno∣vveinge of scripture.
• * 1.501

  Ho. in Luc.
• * 1.502

  Orig. ho. 1. in Luc.
• * 1.503

  Epiph. li. 1. cont. heres. hebion. & li. 1. hae. 46. Au. li. 28. cont. faust. cap. 2.
• * 1.504

  The maner hovv God the father begat hys sonne.
• * 1.505

  Ioh. 1. 1. Rom. 9. 5.
• * 1.506

  That Chr••st is the son∣ne of God.
• * 1.507

  Protest••̄ts lordes of scriptures to make thē say vvhat they lyst.
• * 1.508

  Against the moti∣ues pa. 98.
• * 1.509

  Lege Lu∣therum cō∣tra Lato∣mum de Incendia∣riis:
• * 1.510

  Hereticall audacitie.
• a 1.511

  In pr••em lib. de prin.
• b 1.512

  ad pra∣xeam.
• c 1.513

  ep. 61. ad pā.
• d 1.514

  in exp. simb.
• e 1.515

  ep. 81. ad Syr.
• f 1.516

  ser. 181. de tem.
• g 1.517

  Li. 5. hist. cap. 22. Sozom. li. 7 Ierom. cont. Heluid. Amb. ep. 81. & 79. Aug. in Enchir. cap. 34.
• * 1.518

  Col. 4.16.
• a 1.519

  in c. 4. ad coll.
• b 1.520

  in cata∣log. scrip. in ver. Pau¦lus.
• c 1.521

  li. 5. con∣tra Mar∣cion
• d 1.522

  in Catal. haer. c. 89.
• e 1.523

  li. 1. cont. haer.
• * 1.524

  Obiectiō. 2. Tim. 3.
• * 1.525

  Profitable
• * 1.526

  Neces••a∣rie.
• * 1.527

  Part of scri¦pture loste.
• * 1.528

  1. Tim. 4.
• a 1.529

  Com. in hunc locū.
• b 1.530

  ibidem.
• c 1.531

  de morib. Eccles. li. 1. cap. 33.

  Pietie. me∣riteth in all actions.
• * 1.532

  2. Tim. 3.
• * 1.533

  Lu••. 21.
• * 1.534

  The true state of the controuer∣sie abovvt the suffi∣ciencie of scripture. Epiph in haer. 61.
• * 1.535

  Addinge to scripture Deut. ••. Non adde∣tis ad ver∣bum &c.
• * 1.536

  Deut. 8.
• * 1.537

  Gotuis. ca. 1. antith. 2.
• * 1.538

  Canis. in opere Cate. fol. 162.
• * 1.539

  Greate iniquitie to adde one veritie to an other, or to beleeue tvvo veri∣ties toge∣ther.
• * 1.540

  Apoc. 22.
• * 1.541

  ••n exami. ••oncil. trid. ••ag. ••01.
• a 1.542

  Li. 10. de gen. ad lit. cap. 23.
• b 1.543

  in c. 6. ep. ad Rom.
• c 1.544

  Ep. 54. ad marcellam.
• d 1.545

  Her. 75.
• e 1.546

  de Eccles. hier. cap. 7.
• f 1.547

  de coronae milit.
• g 1.548

  Li. de spi. S. cap. 27.
• * 1.549

  Against Martiall pag. 170.
• * 1.550

  Ibidem. pa. 178.
• * 1.551

  Ibidem. pa. 178.
• * 1.552

  Against Bristoes mo¦tiues. pa. 35
• * 1.553

  Against D. Allen For prayer 303.
• * 1.554

  Ibidem pa. 362. & 363.

  A provvd question.
• * 1.555

  Against Br. motyues pag. 36.
• * 1.556

  Li. de spi. S. cap. 27.

  Traditions of equall force vvith the vvriten vvoord.
• * 1.557

  Li. 1. demō. Euang. c. 8.
• * 1.558

  Heresi. 61.
• * 1.559

  1. Cor. 11. 14.15.
• * 1.560

  Hom. 4. in ca. 2. ep. ad Thess.

  2. Thess. 2.
• * 1.561

  Diuers apo¦stolical tra∣ditions in particular.
• * 1.562

  S. Austens testimonie for diuers particular traditions.
• * 1.563

  The scri∣pture may be vvre∣sted to an euill sense.
• * 1.564

  Nu. 21. Ioh. 3. Math. 25.
• * 1.565

  Psal. 18.
• * 1.566

  Pay•• An¦drad. orth. expl. lib. 2. pag. 104.
• * 1.567

  pag. 102. & 103.
• * 1.568

  Shameles dealing of M. Charke: Gotuisus in Antithe∣tis: pag. 216.
• * 1.569

  A ridicu∣lous euasiō 2. Pet. 3,
• * 1.570

  It is no fault of scri¦pture that heretiques abuse it.
• * 1.571

  Rom. 9.
• * 1.572

  In ca. 1. ep. ad Gal. In verba. ps. 10. ecce peccat. &c. Iren. lib. 1. cont. haer. cap. 1.
• * 1.573

  Naz. ad Nicob. Tertull. de praescrip.
• * 1.574

  Lyrin. con∣tra haere∣ses.
• * 1.575

  Luthers testimonie
• * 1.576

  In postilla conc. 2. in dom: 8. post trinitatem.
• * 1.577

  Vide sixt. sent. li. 7. biblio.
• * 1.578

  Against purg. pag. 209.
• * 1.579

  Against M. Campiā pa. 18.
• * 1.580

  The Ie∣suits most reuerent speeche of holie scri∣pture.
• * 1.581

  In prefat. ad lectorē, ī li. de cor∣ruptelis verbi dei pro Io. Ba.
• * 1.582

  Psal. 18. v. 7.
• * 1.583

  2. Pet. 3.
• * 1.584

  The olde latin trās∣lation.
• * 1.585

  Ierom. ep. 102. & in fine catalo. Augu. ep. 10. ad hieron.

  Praefat. in Nouum tes. an. 1556.
• * 1.586

  AMOMOS.
• * 1.587

  TAMAM or TAM.
• * 1.588

  Abouvt the trāsla∣tion of im∣maculata.
• * 1.589

  An. 1549