[A treatise against the Defense of the censure, giuen upon the bookes of W.Charke and Meredith Hanmer, by an unknowne popish traytor in maintenance of the seditious challenge of Edmond Campion ... Hereunto are adjoyned two treatises, written by D.Fulke ... ]

The eight section, Of sinne.

MAster Chark hauing said out of the definition of Saint Iohn, which also Saint Ambrose doth vse, as I haue shewed before, that all transgression of the lawe is sinne, was charged by the Censurer with transposition, because the Apostles wordes lie thus in the text, Sinne is trans∣gression of the law. Master Charke defendeth him-selfe, al∣ledging that these wordes sinne, and the transgression of the law, are as the definition, and the thing defined, which are mutuallie verified the one of the other. The defender bringeth nothing to prooue, that this is no

definition, but that which he hath saide in the section before, which is ouerthrowne. Onelie he quarrelleth, that Master Charke said, the Gospell is as generall, as the power of God to saluation, whereas Christ also is called the pow∣er of God to saluation. As though the Gospell did not include Christ. For when it is said, the Gospell is the pow∣er of God to saluation, you must vnderstand, the generall matter, namelie the doctrine or the preaching. That transposition of wordes is sometimes lawfull, M. Charke sheweth by an example, God is a spirite, where the wordes lie in the text, a spirite is God. The defender wrangleth, that it is not alwaies lawfull, which shall be graunted vnto him, without controuersie. That in this question it is not lawful, he hath nothing to prooue but a beggerlie demaund of that in question, that trans∣gression of Gods lawe is larger then sinne. Where Master Chark alledgeth out of 1. Iohn. 5. 17. that euerie iniquitie is sin, he maketh no small adoe, because the greeke word in that text is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the other 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,, which if they be not all one in sense, let him enter an action against the vulgar interpreter, which in both places transla∣teth iniquitas. Yea, let him quarrell with Saint Augu∣stine, which vpon the place in question, writeth thus. Nemo enim dicat, aliud est peccatum, at{que} aliud iniquitas: ne∣mo dicat ego peccator homo sum, sed iniquus non sum: omnis qui facit peccatum, & iniquitatem facit, Peccatum iniquitas est. quid ergo faciemus de peccatis nostris & iniquitatibus? Let no man saie, sin is one thing, iniquitie is an other thing: let no man say, I am a sinful man, but I am not vniust: euery one that committeth sin, doth commit iniquity: for sin is iniquity: what then shall we do with our sinnes, and iniquities, &c? You see here that S. Augustine accounteth sin & iniquitie or vniustice to be all one. So doth he in 1. Iohn. Tr. 5. And where the Apostle vseth the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is vnrighteuosnes, what say you? meaneth he generall in∣iustice, or speciall? If he meane generall, as you must needes say for shame, then it is as large as sinne, and it

is manifest, that the Apostle vseth the worde Iustice, as contrarie to sinne, therefore iustice must needes be the same that sinne. If you can make a diuersitie be∣tween general iniquity, & general iniustice, you are wi∣ser then the vulgar interpreter, speciallie if he speake in this latter place of great sinnes onelie, as you say, where∣as iniquitie in the former place, may signifie such small trans∣gression, as is no sinne at all. Verelie Oecumenius is against you, and saith, Simpliciter tanquam à genere peccati facit 〈◊〉〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉〈◊〉, omnis iniquitas peccatum est, hoc est, siue sit ad mortem, siue non. He maketh a plaine diuision of sinne, as it were from the generall, and saith, all inquitie is sinne, that is, whether it be vnto death, or not. And vpon 1. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 3. he saith. Sciendum autem quòd 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. We must know that sin is a falling from that which is good, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is an offence against the law: and both of them hath, this beginning, namelie sinne, the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 from that which is good, iniquitie, to doe against the law that 〈◊〉〈◊〉. And they agree the one with the other, and are about the same thing. For he which sinneth, erreth from the marke which is according to nature, and in nature is selfe. For the scope or marke 〈◊〉〈◊〉 nature, is to liue according to reason, farre from vnreasonablenes. Likewise he that doth 〈◊〉〈◊〉, offendeth about the lawe giuen in nature, beeing affected intemperate∣lie. Rectè ergo discipulus domini 〈◊〉〈◊〉, inidem 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Therefore the disciple of our Lorde, hath rightlie vsed the one for the other. Here iniquitie is as large as sinne. Against this what haue you to saie? Aristotell in praedicam. qual. For which I send you to Aristotell. Eth. lib. 5. c. 1. But 〈◊〉〈◊〉 euery iniquitie is not sinne, you haue Saint Augustine lib. 2. cont. Iulian cap. 5. When you can set downe his wordes, you shall receiue an answere; in the meane time as you saie, Master Charke reserued a sure carde for the ende. I may thinke you haue prepared this as a bumme carde to wine the game. That S. Auustine saieth, concupiscence in the regenerate is not sinne, I graunt, so you wil confesse that he saith also, that it is sinne. When he saieth, it is not

sin he meaneth either because the guilt is forgiuen 〈◊〉〈◊〉 because it is not actuall sinne, as Saint Iames doth di∣stinguish sinne from concupiscence. But that it is of it selfe sinne, and damnable, if it be not remitted, he affir∣meth cont. Iul. Pel. lib. 5. c. 3. & lib. 6. cap. 5. he saith it is e∣uill alwaies, and cap. 3. he condemneth it as the Pela∣gians heresie that 〈◊〉〈◊〉, it is not to be blamed.

Where Master Charke chargeth you with alteration of the text, when you translate, omnis qui facit peccatum, euerie one that sinneth, where you should saie, euerie one that doth sinne, you make sporte afteryour manner, and aske what difference, whether a man saie, your wife spinneth, or your wife doth spin? where you shew your selfe to be a verie good Grammarian, that can make no difference in our tongue, betweene the signe of the actiue mode, doth, and the Greeke worde 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, & think that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 differeth nothing in vehemency from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which M. Chark told you, you should haue translated, to expresse the force of the phrase in our tongue, euerie one that committeth sinne. But this you count smal game, and I would it were the greatest that you haue committed in your censure. You cannot afford M. Chark to say, that he knoweth he serueth the Lord, because he hath not that knowledge by Aristotles demonstrati∣ons (you are sure) which yet are the onelie meanes of certaine science properlie. So that the doctrine of the scriptures, & the testimonies of the holie ghost, are no meanes of certaine science properlie. Yet without them and A∣ristotles demonstrations also, you are sure, that Master Charke hath no certaine knowledge, that he serueth the Lorde. Or if you suppose you can gather your sure∣nes 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Aristotelicall demonstrations, it maie please you to thinke, that Master Charke may by the same kinde of demonstrations gather the certaintie of his knowledge, hauing the maior in the holie scriptures, and the testimonie of his conscience, and of the holie spirit, for the minor and conclusion. The examples

you obiect, of Luther and Bucer altering their opinions, are not like the matter in question. For as men may 〈◊〉〈◊〉, so maie they be deceiued in their opinion of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 God: yet it followeth not, that no man maie be cer∣taine that he serueth God trulie. Where you saie that Luther had beene a protestant manie yeares, when he saide he did knowe there was a purgatorie, it is false; sor at the same time he acknowledged the Popes authoritie, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hu∣mano, by the lawe of men, as in the time of the Canstans Councell, it was the opinion of manie Papists.

Notes

• 1. Ioh. 3. 4.
• 1. Cor. 1. 24.
• 1. Ioh 3. 4. Tr. 4.