A DEFENCE OF THE CENSURE, GIVEN UPON TWO BOOKS of william Charke and Meredith Hanmer ministers, which they wrote against M. Edmond Campian priest, of the Society of jesus, and against his offer of disputation.  
Taken in hand since the death of the said M. Campian, and broken of again before it could be ended, upon the causes set down in an epistle to M. Charke in the begyninge.  Sap. 3. The souls of the just are in the hand of God, and the torment of death shall not touch them: they seemed to the eyes of foolish men to die, but nevertheless they rest in peace. 
An. 1582.  
Cum Privilegio.   

The corrector of the print unto the gentle reader.  
TO the end this page should not go empty, I have presusemed (without the Authors knowledge) to put down for young scholars the true declining of a Noun, HERETIC: whereof we have more experience in these days than old Grammarians had. I may chance hereafter to set forth some examples for declaration of every part hereof: but in the mean space, he that will read but this treatise following, shall see the most points verified in M. Charke and his companions.  

NOMINIS HAERETICI REALIS DECLINATIO.  
Singulariter 
Nominativo 
Superbus.  Genitivo 
Temerarii.  Dativo 
Mendaci.  Accusativo 
Pertinacem.  Vocativo 
Seditiose.  Ablativo 
Atheo, vel Libertino.    
Pluraliter: Hij & hae Impudentes, per omnes casus.   

In English thus.  
The singular number, 

AN HERETIC  
In the Nominative or first case (to begin withal) (he is Proud.  
In the genitive case he groweth malapert.  
In the dative case he becometh a ●yar.  
In the Accusative case he waxeth Obstinate.  
In the Vocative or preaching case he is Seditious.  
In the Ablative or ending case he proveeth an Atheist, or else a Lybertine.    
The plural number, In both genders, Impudent, throughowte all cases,    

THE SETTER FORTH OF THIS book unto William Charke Minister.  
IT may be (M. Charke) that you have expected now somewhat long, or at leastwise remained in some suspense of this defence of the Censure, or rejoinder to your reply. Which Censure, being written (as I have heard) in eight or nyen days space at the most: this defence thereof hath now had the stay, more than of so many months, before it come to light. But the cause thereof is easy to judge, especially to you, which (for the most part,) are privy to the same.  
In general, every one can imagine by himself, how difficult a thing it is in England at this day, for a Catholic man to write any book: where nether liberty, nor rest, nor library, nor conference, nor being is permitted him. And in particular, thus much I must add, which you already in part do know: that soon after the publishing of your reply to the Censure, the Author thereof addressed himself to a defence, and had in great part dispatched the same, ready for the print, in such sort as the rigorous time of your persecution permitted him. But God suffering at that very instant; that the said print so long sought, and much feared by you; should be taken: there was taken, lost, and dispersed therewithal; not only all furniture there ready for this book, but also for sundry other things, partly printed; and partly in printing; concerning our defence of truth and equity, against your falsehood and violent oppressions.  
This disturbance, and loss being fallen out by gods most holy and fatherly permission: and the Author of the Censure having nether time, nor place, nor books, nor leisure to begin again, nor any hope of print when he should have done the same: being also necessarily called away at that very time, to a place somewhat farof, upon urgent business: he resolved utterly to give over the said attempt of defence, partly upon the difficulties now alleged, and partly for that in very deed your reply (M. Charke) seemed sufficiently to answer it self, being so obscure in many places, as most men without the Censure might not understand it: and so weak otherwise, as it needed little confutation of others. These were some causes: but in deed (as I understand) the principal and chief cause was, for that M. Campian (the greatest occasion, and subject of the Censure) was now also even at that time fallen into your hands, according as you had long wished: and therefore it was to be looked, that according to reason, and all your own promises, he should be disputed withal openly, public, and freely: and so the chief matter of the Censure, and your reply (without any more writing) dispatched and taken away.  
But after, when it came to hearing of the world abrode● how courteously you had used this learned man with torments, both before and after his disputations: and how without all indifferency or law of reasoning, you handled him in your conference in the Tower: & how finally you made him away by cruel death, without any show, or shadow of particular crime committed by him, against prince or country: and that yourself (M. Charke) as a conqueror of your adversary, followed him in person to the place of his martyrdom, with big looks, stern countenance, proud words, and merciless behaviour, (for all these things were commonly reported:) true it is, that divers godly men were moved therewithal (and the Author of the Censure, among other) to take in hand again the Answer of your book: aswell for the honour of Christ his martyr now in rest: as also for declaration to th● world, of what value you are in reason, learning, and weight of argument by writing: which are so fierce and violent upon gods Saints at home, in death and torments: and so Pompous in gate and speech unto the people: for gathering, or retaining some credit unto your cause.  
This (I say) shall appear partly by this book. And for these considerations was it taken in hand, after the late death of Good M. Campian. Marry yet, (as it was like enough to fall out) your spies, searchers, and other persecutors disturbed the writer thereof, before he could end the same: as may appear to the reader by the sight hereof. For this part being come to my hands, & perceiving that the author could not (●or this present) go forward with the rest. I thought it best to bestow this upon you, (M Chark) thereby to find you occupied, (if it please you to answer it) until the other part also come to be set forth.  
Thus brokenlie we are enforced to deal, through the extremity of time, as you see. Wherein, you having gotten the start before us in the favour of our Prince, you follow the same with such vehemency, and straightness, as you allow us no one jot, either of curteousie, or humanity, or of reasonable indifferency. You exclude us from speech, conference, writing, printing, disputing, or any other due trial of our cause. You watch, spy, search, examine, and persecute everywhere. You attach, drive away, put in prison, rend on rack, put to death those which speak, or write, or stand in defence of truth against you. You leave no Inns, taverns, fields, stables, barns, dovecotes, or palaces unsearched for us. And how then is it possible to answer you by writing? Or what marvel is there, if we offer you some times half a book for the whole? I doubt not but what soever extremity or cruelty you use (which shallbe no greater, nor longer than God will permit:) yet you are sure always to be answered by some means or other, that God will provide. Hitherto you have had little quiet repose in your intrusion upon god's Church, we continuing still our claymy and title. And hereafter you are like daily to have less, (as I hope) until your heresy be rooted out again, as all her sisters have been heretofore.  
It is a great argument to the people, that the credit of your cause is now crushed even in your own conceits, seeing you fly openly, and without shame, all kind of quiet trial what soever: and with fury move the magistrate only to violence against us. Which though we be ready to be are with all humility, according as God shall give us patience: yet will we never yield to you thereby in your heresies: but in the midst of our afflictions will we resist your falsehood, more than before. This (I think) you saw in the late martyrdom of good M. Campian, and his companions: who, though they died most joyfully, protesting their innocency in all and singular the slanders devised against them: though (I say) they protested pure innocency therein, both in thought word and deed: and that, upon the eternal damnation, or salvation of their own souls: though also they forgave most frankly from the very bottom of their hearts, all their unjust accusers, condemners, tormentors, executioners, and you also ministers, who of their death and torments were the only, or principal instigatours: yet did they amyddest all that humility, modesty, and Christian charity, detest with all possible vehemency of their souls, all and singular your false and fowl heresies: and so died most constant, pure, and innocent martyrs of their Lord & Master jesus Christ. Whose blood I dowbt not, but will fight against your errors and impiety, many hundred years after both you are passed this world together. And albeit, if they had lived (especially two of them) being endued with such gifts, and rare parts, as they were, (which with you were great causes of hastening their deaths,) they might (no doubt) have done much service in gods Church, and hurt to your cause: yet could they never have done it so strongly, as they have, and do, and will do by their deaths: the cry whereof worketh more forcibly both with God & man, than any books or sermons, that ever they could have made. Wherefore, I can say no more, but that they were well bestowed upon you. You have used them to the best. Our Lord & his holy name be blessed therefore. And I beseech him of his infinite mercy to pardon your great offences i● the pouring out of their blood.  
And now to speak a word or two (M. Charke as to your own person in particular: there are tw● things, which principally in this matter concern yo● The one is your writing here answered: the other; your behaviour and demeanour towards your advesarie, after that by god's permission he came to be with● some reach of your ministerial power and authority. The one of these shall somewhat declare the oath. For touching the first, the discrete reader shall easily learn by this book, that what vaunt so ever you mak● unto your friends, or how great soever your owt-facing of M. Campian might seem to be in the Tower 〈◊〉 London, by reason of your high place, gay apparel, great words, assistance of friends, countenance ●f authority, applause of protestants standing by: yet sh●l it appear, that you are not that man in deed, either f●r substance of learning, or fidelity in dealing, which y●u would be content to be taken for in the world abroge. For, as for learning, there are showed so many broad examples here, of your gross ignorance, and that in●erye common matters, both of divinity, and philosophy: as no man that hath judgement can frame my other opinion of your skill therein, than as of a t●ing utterly ungrounded in any of these two sciences: wherein it is well known that M. Campian was most excellent, and consequently, you had little cause to seek triumph over him, as you did, in this matter.  
Marry as touching the second, which is false dealing to deceive: you may have the principality, not only over him, who had (to say the truth) no talon at all therein: but even above the chief masters of your own side, most expert in that faculty. For I assure you, that of all shameless men that ever I read (whereof this age, God amend them, hath brought forth many) you may wear the garland, for both audacity, & constancy in avouching open untruths against your own conscience. The treatise following will make this plain, y almost infinite examples. Yet one or two (for a taste) will not omit to touch in this place.  
Martin Luther, after his apostasy from the Catholic church, gave counsel to all good wives, that ●ad cold husbands, 
See this handled at large afterwards in the defence pag. 56. & 57  to lie pryvilye with the next of ●ynne, or other that were of stronger complexion. And because he was yet in some fear of the pope, if he sold openly have put in execution this doctrine: h only counseled husbands for the time, to give teir secret consents hereunto. Marry afterwards, when ●artin became so strong as he feared the Pope no mo●e, for that he was now pope of germany himself: ●e said, that now he would give other counsel ●owt this matter. here M. Charke breaketh of: and ●●lleth into a sharp and bitter invective against the censurer, for charging Luther with a fowl doctrine●●at after he recanted. This seemeth a very reasonable dfence. But what are the words that immediately foow in Luther? forsooth, that now he would do w●●se than before: for now he would compel the poor hubandes to grant there wives that liberty, or else wo●lde he tug them by the locks of the head. And ca● there be any more shameless dealing than this of M. Chark? hath that man any conscience (trow you) wh●●e against his own knowleige would put this deceit in print? here can be no ignorance: for the words followed immediately, which of purpose he left out. What conscience then hath this man in defending his cause?  

See of this after: pag. 120.  another example may be this. There was a controversy between the Censurer and M. Charke, whether concupiscence after baptism be sin in the regenerate, without consent. And the Censurer, to prove that it is not, bringeth S. Augustins Authority in many plain places: whereby M. Chark being sore oppressed, findeth no other relief of his credit with the reader, but to forge a place of S. Austen to the contrary, by corruption: and so he doth For where as S. Augustin sayeth, that concupiscence is not so forgiven in baptism, that it is not: meaning thereby that it is not so taken away by baptism, but that it remaineth still to tempt us: M. Charke to deceive the reader fosteth in this word (sin) to S. Austin's text, reciting his words thus: Concupiscence is not so forgiven in baptism, that it is not sin: By which addition of the word (sin) the matter seemeth to stand clear on his side. And this also can not be excused by ignorance: but showeth open and wilful malice in the man.  
I pass over many of these and such like tricks: which can not proceed of negligence, simplicity, or ignorance: but must needs be effects of sett-malice. As where he reporting divers untruths against the Jesuits out of Gotuisus, (as he now sayeth:) concealed the author in his first book. And now, though upon necessity he confess the same: yet finding the things there reported, in his conscience to be false: where as his Author citeth always two Jesuits books for proof of the same: that is, Censura Coloniensis, (which is not to be had in England,) and Canisius his great Catechism (which every man may have and read:) M. Chark quoteth the page always in Censura Coloniensis, which he is sure can not be seen: and concealeth the page cited likewise by his Author in Canisius: for that his reader turning to Canisius his places, should find the falsehood both of M. Charke and his Author. And Sometimes also, when Gotuisus did not belie the Jesuits sufficiently: M. Charke without blushing will falsify his words, to make them more odious: as where Gotuisus his words are, that the Jesuits say the scripture is as it were a nose of wax: 
Vide postea Ar●. ●  M. Chark sayeth, their words are, the scripture is a nose of wax. Infinite such things you shall find in the treatise following: which proveth manifestly that point whereof I spoke before: to wit, that M. Charke is a man of no sincerity in matters of controversy: but purposely bend, both wittingly and willingly, by all means possible to deceive. And thus much (M. Chark) concerning your writing.  
As for your other behaviour towards M. Campian in the Tower of London, & else where: I mean not greatly to stand upon: It was such as might be looked for at a man's hands of your making, or degree The Censure somewhat noted your incivility in words, which you had uttered against him before in your book. But that was nothing to the contemptuous usage of so learned a man in open audience, with barbarous threatening of that further cruelty, which then you had in mind, and now have put in execution upon him. But above all other things, that was most ridiculous, and fit for astage, which you thought was excellent, and became you well: and that was your often turning to the people & requesting them to rejoice, & thank the Lord, that he had given you such an argument against the papists, as now you had to propose● And then when great expectation was moved, & the argument came forth: it proved not worth three eggs in may: for that M. C●mpian dispatched it oftentimes in less than half three words. These are the comedies that you exercise to get applause of the people withal. For which cause also, you had M. Norton the Rackmaister at your elbow, to repeat and urge your argument for you to the purpose. Surely it is pity that you durst not make these few disputations public, where more men might ha●e laughed, and been witnesses of your folly: especially of that in the end: when being now brought to a non plus in argueing, and thereupon the people beginning to departed: you (M. Charke) caused the doors to be shut, and no man to be let out, until with one consent, they had joined with you in prayer to thank the lord for your victory that day gotten upon M. Campian.  
O M. Chark, how greedy are you of a little vainglory? and how vain are the ways by which you seek it? think you that men have no judgement in the woorld abroad? Trow ye not that many smiled in their sleeves to behold this hypocrisy? no, no, if you had parted with M. Campian, but at an even hand: as you joined with him, with all inequality: we should have had books of Triumph set forth, before now. And this secret of yours all the people of England doth know. Doctor Fulke did but look into wisbyche castle the last year past, 
See afterward in the defence pag. 2.  and framed to himself but a certain imagination of a victory, for that those learned prisoners contemned his conference: and behold he printed presently a pamphlett in his own praise, as after is showed. And what then would you and your brethren have done about these disputations with M. Campian, if you had thought yt any way able to abide the view? And yet (as I said) you know the inequality, whereby you dealt with that man, being but one, unbookt: unprovided, wearied with imprisonment, and almost dismembered with the rack, threatened and terrified with death to come: appointed only to answer, and never to oppose. All this you know, and the world both knoweth and marveleth at it abroad. Marry we marvel not, who know your purses. For that we are sure, and dare avow to your faces, that you will never deal with us at even hand, or upon equal conditions, while you live.  
And here (M. Charke) because we are now fallen into this matter: I am in the name of all my fellow Catholics to renew our public challenge of equal disputation to you, and to all your brother ministers again. You see M. Campian is gone, whom you named in this matter our only Champion. You see also that M. Sherwyn is made away with him, whom you are wont to say (for more abasement of the other) to have been far better learned than M. Campian himself. But how soever that was, both of them have you dispatched, and thereby (in your opinion) greatly weakened our cause. Yet notwithstanding we are the same men that we were before: yea much more desirous of this trial than before. Wherefore, we request you now at length, yea we conjure you, either for truth sake, if you seek it: or for your own credits sake, if ye will retain it: that you yield us after so much suit and supplication, some equal trial, either by writing, preaching, or disputing. There is no reason in the world (but only fear) that may move you to deny us this our request. For the reason [of state] which you allege (M. Charke) in your reply is most vain. For what can a peaceable disputation granted us for religion, endanger your state: but only (that you would say) that this disputation may chance to discover your errors, and so make the hearers detest your state of heresy? For other danger there can be none to your state. And if you had the truth with you (as you pretend) whose property is, the more to show herself, the more she is examined: you should much increase your state, by this public trial. For that you should both gain more to your parte● by openning the said truth: and also confirm many of your own side, that now justly do waver upon this open discovery of your fear in trial.  
Wherefore once again I say unto you ministers: obtain us this disputation, though it be only but for a show, thereby to hold & maintain your credits. We protest before God, that we seek it only for the trial of Christ his truth: for search whereof we offer ourselves to this labour, charges, & peril of life. We ask for our safety's, but only such a warrant from her Majesty, as the late Council of Trent did offer unto all the protestāns of the wolrd: whereof you have the copy with you. We will come in what kind & number, at what time, to what place you shall appoint. If you will have your own country men: they are ready to come. If you will have strangers to dispute in your universities before the learned only: there shall not want. For yourselves, we give you leave to call all the learned protestants of Europe for your defence. We will take only our own country men, if you permit us. We give you leave to oppose or defend: to appoint questions: to choose out controversies: to begin or end at your pleasure: and to use any other prerogatives that you please: so that they impugn not the indifferency of trial. What can you allege why you should not accept this?  
If you had liefer make this trial in other countries, than at home before your own people, as perhaps you had: choose you what protestant state you list, and procure us therein the foresaid safety from the prince, and we will neither spare labour nor cost, to meet you therein also. Or if this seem hard, or like you not: then take you but the pains, some number of you, to come into any Catholic kingdom, or country, where you best please: And we will procure what security soever reasonable you shall demand for your persons: And more than that, we will bear your expenses also, rather than so good a work shall remain unattempted. And if you can devise any other condition to be performed on our parts, which I have left out: do you add the same: and we will agree (by the grace of God) to fulfil it. If we offer you reason: than deal somewhat reasonably with us again. For all the world will cry shame, and begin to discredit you, if you will neither give nor take, upon so great odds as here are offered you. If you dare not venture with disputations: yet grant us certain sermons, to encounter with you upon this matter. Or if that also be to dangerous: procure us but a little passage for our books: at leastwise you (M. Charke) shall do an honourable act, to obtain licence of free passage for this book, until it be answered by you, to the end that men having read this over, may be the better able to conceive your answer, when it cometh.   

THE ANSWER TO THE PREFACE touching discerning of Spirits.  
Master Charke besides the matter in question, maketh a preface to the reader, touching the utility, necessity, and way of tryeing spirits: alleging the words of S. john, whereby we are willed not to believe every spirit, 
1. john. 4.  but to try the spirits whether they be of God. Which (he saith) he and his fellows offer to do: and we refuse. But that this is clearly false, and a formal speech only, without truth or substance: our deeds do testify: which are always (with indifferent men) as good as words. Our books are extant, whereby we have called to trial all sectaries of our time, as they rose up, and showed new spirits: as Luther, Corolostad, Swinglius, Munster, Stankarus: and Calvin, whom our adversaries follow as one of the last. And now in England, if we had not been willing or rather desirous of this trial of spirits: we would never have laboured so much to obtain the same of our adversaries, 
Which part more desirethe trial of spirits.  in free printing, preaching, or disputation: & much less would we have adventured our lives in coming and offering the same to them at home, with so unequal conditions on our side, as we have done, and do daily, for the trial of truth. And if all these our offers and endeavours, joined with so many petitions and supplications for trial, have obtained us nothing hitherto, but offence, accusations, extreme rackings, and cruel death: me think M. Charke had little cause to make this preface of our refusing trial, and their offering the same: except it were only for lack of other matter, and to keep the custom of saying somewhat in the beginning.  
But perhaps M. Charke will say, that although we offer trial, yet not such, nor by such means, as in his opinion is lawful, sure and convenient. When we come to the combat: then remaineth it to be examined, which part doth allege best means: which shallbe the argument of this my answer to this preface. 
Who do offer best means of trial.  And I will endeavour to show, that all the means of trial which M. Chark & his fellows will seem to allow in word, (for they offer none in deed) are neither sure, possible, nor evident: but only mere shifts to avoid all trial: and that we (on the contrary part,) do not only allow, but also offer, all the best and surest ways of trial that ever were used in God's church, for discerning an heretical spirit from a Catholic.  
The only means of trial which M. Chark will seem to allow, 
Only scripture.  is the scripture: whereto only he would have all trial referred: and that which can not be tried therehence by him, must stand untried. And then, as if we refused all trial of scripture, he useth his pleasure in speech against us. But this is a shift common to all such as M. Chark is. And the cause thereof I will declare immediately. 
Li. 2. de nu. & concup. ca 31. & li. 3. count done. cap. 15.  S. Augustin doth testify it of the heretics of his tyme. And all the sectaries of our days do make it plain by experience, referring themselves in words each one to the holy scripture only, for maintenance ●f there errors, and denyeing all other means of trial, whereby the true meaning of scripture may be known.  
The causes of this shift in all new teachers are principally three. 
Three causes of appealing only to scripture  The first, to get credit with the people by naming of scripture, and to seem to honour it more than their adversaries do, by referring the whole trial of matters unto it. The second is by excluding counsels, fathers, and ancestors of the church, (who from time to time have declared the true sense of scripture unto us,) to reserve unto themselves liberty, and authority to make what meaning of Scripture they please, and thereby to give colour to every fancy they list to teach. The third cause is, that by challenging of only scripture, they may deliver themselves from all ordinances or doctrines left unto us by the first pillars of Christ his Church, though not expressly set down in scripture: & thereby assume authority of allowing or not allowing, of comptrolling or permitting, what soever liketh or serveth their turns for the tyme. So, Martin Luther after he had denied all testimony of man, besides himself, he beginneth thus about the number of Sacraments: 
De captivi. Babylon. in initio.  Principio neganda mihi sunt septem sacramenta, & tantùm tria pro tempore ponenda. First of all I must deny seven sacraments, and appoint three for the tyme. Marry this time lasted not long: for in the same place he sayeth, that if he would speak according to the use of only scripture, he hath but one sacrament for us: 
Cap. de Sacram.  that is, baptism. But yet the confession of Auspurge, which pretendeth to follow Luther in all things, 
In aeditio. vlt. loc. con.  doth allow three, by only scripture. Marry Melancthon (which professeth only scripture more than the rest, and would seem to know Luther's meaning best of all men, for that he lived with him) holdeth four, 
In institut.  by only scripture: and john Calvin holdeth two.  

Com. in Amos.  Again, by only scripture john Calvin found the title, of head of the church, in king henry, to be Antichristian, which now, our followers of Calvin in England do find by only scripture to be most christian. 
Vide Ench. Eck. & Luth. count latom. de incendiariis.  Marry yet the Magdeburgians by only scripture do condemn the same still. In like sort, by only scripture the protestants defended a great while against Catholics, that no heretics might be burned, or put to death, whereof large books were written on both parts. But now our protestants in England, 

D. Fulk against Bris. mot. pa. 98  
Artic. 28. cont. lovan. ton. 2. wittemb ●o. 503.  
Against Br. mot. pa. 82.   having burned some themselves, have found (as they writ) that it is evident by scripture that they may be burned. Luther by only scripture, found that his followers, and the Sacramentaries could not both be saved together: and therefore he condemned the one for arrant heretics. Doctor fulke findeth by the same scripture, that both parts are good Catholics, & neither of them heretics. Finally, how many things doth M. Whittgift defend against T. Cartwright to be lawful by scripture● as bishops, deans, archdeacon's, officials, holy days, 
In his defence of his answer to the admoninition.  and a hundred more, which in Geneva are holden to be flat contrary to the same scripture? So that this appellation to only scripture bringeth good case in many matt●rs. For by this a man maketh himself judge, and Censurer, not only of all fathers, doctors, counsels, histories, examples, precedents, customs, usages, prescriptions and the like: but also of the books of scripture, and sense itself, reserving all interpretation unto himself. But Catholics, albeit they give the sovereignty to scripture in all things: yet binding themselves to other things beside, for the better understanding of the meaning of scripture, (as to counsels, ancient fathers, tradition of the Apostles, and primative church, with the like) are restrained from this liberty of chopping and changing, affirming and denyeinge, allowing and misliking at their pleasures. For albeit they having wits as other men have, might draw some problable appearance of scriptures to their own devices, as every heretic hitherto hath done: yet, the ancient interpretation of holy fathers, and received consent of the church not alloweing the same, it would prevail nothing. Marry the self-willed heretic, 
The advantage that heretics have by only scripture.  that rejecteth all things but scripture, and therein alloweth nothing but his own exposition, may run and range, and devise opinions at his pleasure: for he is sure never to be convicted thereof, allowing no man to be judge of his interpretation, but only himself, or some of his own opinion. This we see fulfiled in all heretics, and sectaries that now live: whom it is unpossible so to convince by only scriptures, but they will always have some probable show, whereby to defend themselves and their own imaginations. M. Charke therefore chanting so much upon this point of only scriptures, treadeth the path of his forefathers, and pleadeth for a privilege of ease: which whether we will allow him or no, he entereth upon it, of his own authority, and draweth scripture to every devise of his own brain, so violently, as a man may take con●●ssion to see it. I shall have many examples hereafter in this answer: but yet one, which is the chief ground of this his preface, I can not omit.  

1. john. 4.  After he had proved out of Saint john, that we must try spirits, and not believe every new spirit: (which is true:) he will needs allege out of the same Apostle a full and plain rule (as he termeth it) whereby to discern and try his & our spirits. The rule is this: 
1. john. 4.  Every spirit which acknowledgeth jesus Christ to have come in flesh is of God: and every spirit which dissolveth I●sus, is not of God, but of antichrist. Here now may be seen what difference there is in exposition of the scriptures. For the ancient fathers interpreted this place, (as of itself it is most evident) ●o be given as a rule against the jews, which denied Christ to have taken flesh: 
Diversity of inte●pretations.  Also against Ebion, and Cherinthus, heretics, now gone into the world, as forerunners of antichrist, & dissolving jesus: that is, denieing his godhead: and consequently denyeing the son of God to have come in flesh. 
Tom. 7. wittemb. Fol. 414.  Martin Luther interpreteth this place to be understood of M. Charke and his fellows: saying, That spirit is not of god but of antichrist which dissolveth Christ's flesh in the sacrament. But to us Catholics how can it be by any devise wrested, who neither deny Christ to have come in flesh, nor yet do dissolve the name of jesus, by any doctrine of ours? But yet, Mark how M. Charke interpreteth this place: and confess, that he hath a singular grace in abusing scripture.  

M. Charks grace in interpreting scriptures.  What soever spirit (sayeth he) shall confess Christ to have come in flesh as a prophet, alone to teach (as papists do not, teaching traditions besides the written word:) also, as a king alone to rule (as papists do not, defending the pope's authority:) also, as a priest, alone to sanctify (as papists do not, upholding the Mass:) this spirit is of God, and the other of antichrist. Is it marvel if these men build what they list upon scripture, when they can found so many absurdities upon one sentence thereof? I would here ask first, whether M. Chark thinketh that we exclude Christ, when we allow prophets to teach under him kings to reign under him, priests to sanctify under him, or no? If he think we exclude Christ: he is to fond to reason against sensible men, knowing not what they hold. But if he think we allow prophets, kings, and priests under Christ only, and in his name: how can he call this the spirit of Antichrist? do not the scriptures allow Prophets and teachers under Christ in the church? Ephes. 4. Act. 5? Also kings and rulers (though puritanes would have none) 1. Pet. 2. Act. 2? Also may not priests sanctify by the word of God. 2. Timo. 4? How then are these things accounted Antichristian? do not protestants teach the same? what deep Mysteries of puritanism are these, 
Their mysteries are the overthrow of all governors: as M. Whi●g. proveth against M. Cartv●. Tow●h●ng the mass.  Christ is a prophet alone, a king alone, a priest alone?  
Again, I ask what do the traditions of Christ and his Apostles (for of those only we talk when we compare them with scripture) impeach the teaching of Christ and his Apostles? what doth the spiritual authority of the pope under Christ, diminish the kingly power, and authority of Christ? how doth the priesthood of men as from Christ, or the sacrifice of the Altar instituted by Christ, disgrace Christ's priesthood, or his sufficient sacrifice ones for all offered on the cross? There is noted in the Margin, the epistle to the Hebrews, 
Heb. 7. & 9  where it is said: that, that sacrifice on the cross was once offered for ever for our redemption. Which we both grant and teach in that manner as then it was done: but yet that impeacheth nothing this daily sacrifice of ours, which must be in the church until the end of the word, (as Daniel prophesied, 
Dan. 12. ) and that in every place amongst the Gentiles: (that is, in all the world) is Malachi foretold, 
Malac. 1. In declar●. Anath. 11. Au●. 20. con. faust. c. 21. Naz. ora●. 1. in julian. Hom. 17.  being called, by Saint ciril and other fathers, incruentum sacrificium: the unbloody sacrifice: which being one and the self same with that which was offered once upon the cross, is appointed by Christ to be offered daily in remembrance and thanks giving for that bloody sacrifice, as Saint Chrisostom doth prove at large upon the epistle to the hebrews: whom, & other his like if M. Chark & his fellows would not disdain to read & believe: they would be a shamed to cavil, and blaspheme gods mysteries as they do. But for a large and full answer of this common objection of theirs, out of the epistle to the hebrews, touching Christ once bloody offered for all: I refer the reader, amongs many other, to certain particular ancient and learned fathers, of the primative church; who do handle this objection, and answer it of purpose. 
In ca 8 ep. ad Hebr.  The one is Theodoret bishop of Cyrus, who handleth this question: why Christians do now use to sacrifice in the new testament, seeing the old la with all sacrifices were abolished, by the one sacrifice of Christ? 
Ep. 23. ad Bonif.  The other is S. Augustin, who proposeth this dowbt: how we sacrifice Christ every day upon the Altar, seeing he is said to be sacrificed once for all upon the cross? And then he answereth it, both fully and largely, in that sense as I have said before: So that this objection was a cómon thing in the primative church, and commonly answered by every writer, which M. Chark & his fellows do make so much a do about now, crying out that we deny the virtue of Christ's passion, the effects of his offices, and the like. See the same answered also by Eusebius, li. 1. demonst. evang. cap. 6. and 10. And by Theophilact. in cap. 5. ad hebr.  
And so, having answered now the substance of all that which M. Chark hath in his preface, 
The adversary admitteth no trial.  I might here make an end, but that I have promised to show how we offer him and his fellows most reasonnable means of trial, and that they in deed admit none at all. For what is it to name scripture in words, when all thee controversy is about the sense thereof, wherein they admit no judge but themselves? if we bring scripture never so plain, yet will they shift it of, with some impartinent interpretation: And what remedy or further trial have we then? I will give an example or two for instruction of the reader in their proceedings. The most of the ancient fathers wrote books in praise of virginity above wedlock, & used to prove it by the sayeing of Christ: 
Math. 19  There be eunuchs which have gelded themselves for the kingdom of heaven, he that can take it, let him take it. Also by the words of S. Paul: 
1. Cor. 7.  he that joineth his virgin in marriage doth well, and he that joineth her not, doth better. Which words being alleged against Martin Luther, 
Lib. de votis Monast. in initio.  who preferred marriage (yea though it were of a vowed Nun) before virgnitie: he answered it thus: that Christ by his words terrified men from virginity and continence, and S. Paul by this speech did dissuade them from the same. Now what could be replied in this case trow you?  
another example may be touching S. john Baptist: 
Of S. john Baptist. Lu. 1. & 3. Math. 3. Marc. 1.  of whom the scripture saith, first, concerning his place of living, that he was in the wilderness until the day of his appearing to Israel. secondly, touching his apparel: john was apparelled with the hears of Camels. thirdly, touching his diet: his meat was locusts and wild honey. Of which three things, the old fathers of the primative Church did gather a great and singular austerity of S. john's life, and do affirm with all, that eremites and Monks, and other religious people did take their pattern of strait living from him. 
Cent. 5 c. 6. pag. 711.  For which cause S. Chrisostome doth often call S. john Baptist Monachum, & principem vitae monastice: a monk, and prince of Monastical life: which protestants being not able to abide, do rage marvelously against S. Chrisostome: condemning him of rashness and falsehood, for using those terms, wherefore they fall to interpret the alleged words of scripture far otherwise, saying: that by the desert wherein he lived until he began to preach, is understood nothing else, 
a Sarcer. in ca 1. Lu. & mag. Cent. 1 li. 1. ca 20. , but his private life at home in his fathers own house. And for his apparel (say they) of Camels hear, it was not strange apparel, but usual to Mountain men, 
(b) 
Mariorat. in ca 3. Math.  
Cytraeits in ca 3. Math. COSMIOS. EUPORISTOS.   that is vndulata● sayeth another:) Water chamblet, handsome, and decent, albeit somewhat plentiful in that country. And lastly, touching his diet of locusts and wild honey: it was no hard fare, (say they) for the locusts were crevices, 
c Ma. C●̄. 1. l. 1. c. 4. et 6  cast away by the fishers of jordan, as unclean by the law, but eaten of john, by the liberty of the Gospel. And the wild honey was no unpleasant thing as the fathers do imagine: 
In cap. 1. Math.  but it was (say Cossius and Strigelius) that pleasant Manna which Apothecaires use to keep in their shops: 
In cap. 1. Marc.  So that, according to these men, all that austerity of life, which the scriptures so particularly do recount, & all antiquity doth wonder at, in S. john Baptist, cometh but to this: that he was brought up privately in his father's house, clad in chamblette, & fed with crevices & sweet Manna. What great hardness was this?  
A third example may be about the controversy of real presence in the sacrament: for which we bring plain words of scripture, out of four diverse places of the new testament, 
Mat. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11.  where the same words are repeated without exposition or alteration: to wit, hoc est corpus meum: this is my body: Which words did seem so plain and clear for the real presence of Christ in the sacrament, to all antiquity: as no man might without great offence, doubt thereof, as the words of S. Ambro. 
a Lib. 4. de sacram. c. 5 , & S. Ciril. 
b Catach. 4 , are. And (as the same Ciril. 
c Li. 4. in Io. cap. 13. In Ancorano. , in an other place proveth at large) to ask only quomodo how it may be, is the part of an unbelieving jew: seeing God was able (as he sayeth) as well to do this, as to turn the rod of Moses into a serpent. To which purpose also holy Epiphanius sayeth, that albeit the host seem to us of a round form & insensible: yet who soever believeth it not to be the very true body of Christ, seeing he hath said it is: excidit a gratia & salute. 
Ho. 83. in Math. & 60. add pop. Antioch.  Such a one is fallen from grace, and salvation. And S. Chrisostom sayeth, we must not believe sense and reason in this matter. Sed quoniam ille dixit, hoc est corpus meum, credamus, etiamsi sensui absurdum esse videatur. But because Christ hath said this is my body, we must believe it, although it seem absurd to our sense: 
Hom. 24. in epist. ad Cor.  Hoc idem corpus cruentatum, lancea vulneratum, & quoth in caelum extulit. This is the very same body, whose blood was shed, and which was wounded with the spear, and which he carried up with him to heaven. All which notwithstanding, our adversaries have found out a new exposition of these words, this is my body, affirming, that it must be construed, this is only the sign of my body. For the which construction, as they have neither scripture, nor ancient father for their warrant or example: so agree they not amongst themselves of this exposition. For Luther in his time, numbereth up eight diverse and contrary expositions of Sacramentaries upon these words, 

In confess brevi. tom. 2. germ. fol. 257.  
Claud de San. l. 1. rep. 1. de Euch.   coming from eight diverse spirits of the devil, as he affirmeth. And a learned bishop of our time hath gathered 84. given by diverse sacramentaries upon the same: So that, once go out of the high way, and there is no end of erring.  
And because I have here made mention of Doctor Luther, a man by M. Charks opinion, illuminated singularly by the holy ghost, and compared to Elias by the common phrase of all protestants: I will repeat here what he had revealed to him by his holy spirit touching this interpretation of M. Charke and his fellows.  
First, he writeth thus to the protestants: 
The letter beginneth thus: Charissimis in Christo ami cis & Christianis Argentinae.  that is, to the true Christians, as he calleth them, of Argentina: 

This was an honest man in the mean space, which laboured to pervert this sacrament, thereby to hurt the pope.  
Luther's latin words are, ex capi ●e vertiginoso confictis.   Hoc diffiteri nec possum, nec volo, si Corolostadius etc. This can I not, nor will deny, but if Corolostadius, or any man else could for this five years, have persuaded me, that there had been nothing in the sacrament but bread and wine: he should have bound me to him by a great good turn. For I have taken great care and anxiety in discussing this matter, and have endeavoured with all my power, & sinews stretched out, to rid myself of the same. For I did well see, that by this thing I might hurt the pope more than in any other matter. But I do see myself captive, no way being left to escape. For the text of the gospel is too plain and strong, and such as can not easily be overthrown by any man, and much less by words and gloss devised by a fantastical head. For I myself (God forgive me for it) am too prone to that par●e, so far forth as I can perceive the nature of my own Adam.  
Again, the same prophet in an other place, after many most detestable words uttered against M. Chark and his partners, sayeth thus: 

Epis. a. I0. har●agium Tipographum. Argentinensen: cuius etiam mentionem vide apud Biblioth.  
Gesneri fo. 501.   his spiritibus credat doceri veritatem: si quem perire delectat etc. Let him believe that these spirits do teach the truth, who delighteth to damn himself, whereas in deed they began not their doctrine, but by manifest lies, and now do defend the same only by lies, divulging the same by corrupting other men's books, not vouchsafing to hear the anguishes of our consciences, which cry, & say, the words of Christ are clear and manifest: 
* Mat. 26.  eat, this is my body. And again, in a certain treatise entitled 
* Tom. 7. wittemb. page 380.  against the fanatical Spirits of sacramentaries: He sayeth, talking of this interpretation of the words: This is my body: Age ergo quando adeo sunt impudentes etc. Go to then, seeing they are so impudent, therefore I will give them a Lutheran exhortation: accursed 
* 
A Lutheran exhortation.  
O pleasant Martin.   be their charity and concord for ever and ever. And after coming to the exposition of the said words he sayeth thus. Doctor Carolostad wresteth miserably this pronoun (this:) Swinglius maketh lean this verb (is:) Oecolampadius tormenteth this word (body:) other do boucher the whole text: and some do crucify but the half thereof: so manifestly doth the devil hold us by the noses. And again in the same work: he hath these words. To expound the words of Christ as the sacramentaries do, (this is the sign of my body:) is as absurd an exposition, as if a man should interpret the scripture thus. In the beginning God made heaven & earth, 

Gen. 1.  
Currucam cum ossibus.   that is, the Cuckoo did eat up the Titling or hedge Sparrow, together with her bones Again, in S. john: 
john. 1.  And the word was made flesh that is, a crooked staff was made a kite. This was the opinion of holy Luther touching our adversaries interpretation, or rather evasion, and shift: which I have alleged somewhat more at large against M. Chark, for that he esteemeth and defendeth the man, as a rare instrument of the holy ghost. Which if it be true: then woe to M Charke and his comparteners, whose spirit is so contrary to this man's holy illumination.  
By this now it appeareth, that the controversy is not between us, which part provoketh to scripture, & which doth not: but (as it hath always been betwixt heretics and Catholics) which part allegeth true meaning of Scripture: which thing according to the council of wise Sisinius to Theodosius the Emperor, 
Socrat. li. 5. hist. ca 10.  we desire to be tried by the judgement of ancient fathers, indifferent in this matter, for that they lived before our controversies came in question. But our adversaries will allow no exposition but their own: whereby it is easy to defeat what soever is brought against them either scripture or doctor.  
For example's sake, 
Examples of shifting scriptures and doctors.  to prove that we may lawfully make vows, & are bound also to perform the same being made: we allege the plain words of the prophet: vovete & reddite domino: vow ye and tender your vows to god: how will the adversary avoid this, think you? M. Fulke answereth: 
Psal. 75. Against the rock. pag. 153.  this text belongeth only to the old testament. But what may not be wiped away from us that live under the new testament by such interpretations? Again, to prove that there is some state of life of more perfection in Christianity than other, we allege the clear saying of Christ: 
Math. 19  Si vis perfectus esse, vade, vend quae habes, & da pauperibus, & habebis thesaurum in caelo, & veni, sequere me: If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have a treasure in heaven, and come, follow me. What answer have they trow you to this? M. Fulke answereth: 
Against the rock. pag. 154.  this was spoken only as a singular trial to that young man alone, and not to others beside him. What a devise is this? May not he as well say also, that the other words immediately going before, were only spoken to this young man: to wit, Si vis ad vitam ingredi serva mandata: if thou wilt be saved, keep the commandments: and so deliver all his gospelers from the burden thereof? what difference is there in these two speeches of Christ, seeing they are both spoken to that young man, and both in the singular number, as infinite other things of the Gospel are to other particular persons, as to the Cananaea, to the Adulteress, to Nichodemus, to the Centurio, to Zachaeus, to the blind, deaf and others, which notwithstanding are common to all, in that they touch either life or doctrine?  
The like absurd shifts I might repeat in a hundred other points. What can be more plain than the words of scripture: 
jacob. 2.  videtis quoniam ex operibus iustificatur homo, & non ex fide tantum? Do you see how that a man is justified by works and not by faith only? But yet it availeth nothing. Why so? they avoid it by interpretation. S. james (say they) understandeth of justification before men, and not before God. 
D. Fulke loco citato.  O poor devise: S. james hath in the same place, (talking of faith without works:) Nunquid poterit fides saluare eum? Can faith without works save him? doth S. james mean here of salvation before men, or before God? Again, when S Paul sayeth, 
Rom. 2.  factores legis iustificabuntur: the doers of the law shall be justified: which is the very same thing that S. james in other words sayeth, that men shallbe justified also by works: Doth S. Paul mean before men or before God? If you say, before men: the text is against you, which hath expressly, apud deum, before God. The like evasion they have when we allege the words of S. Paul: 
1. Cor. 7.  qui matrimonio iungit virginem suam, benè facit: & qui non iungit, melius facit: he that joineth his virgin in marriage doth well: and he that joineth her not doth better. Whereof we infer, that virginity is more acceptable, & meritorious before God, than marriage, although marriage be holy. No (say our adversaries) S. Paul meaneth only, that he doth better before men, and in respect of worldly commodities, but not before God. But this is absurd: for they grant the former part of the sentence (he that joineth his virgin doth well) to be understood before God: for that it is said also in other words, non peccat, he doth not sin: which must needs be understood in respect of God. How then can they deny the second clause, (and he that joineth her not, doth better) not to be understood in respect of God also, and in respect of merit and reward in the life to come, especially whereas Christ promiseth the same reward to virginity in an other place, where he sayeth, 
Math. 19  there be eunuchs which have gelded themselves for the kingdom of heaven, he that can take it, let him take it?  
You may see now by this little (and I might show by many more examples) how bootless it is to bring scripture, when we agree not upon the interpretation. 
How protestants deny all fathers.  What then? shall we bring the ancient fathers and doctors of the primative church, for the understanding of scripture? shall we interpret it as they do? understad it as they understood it? No, that our adversaries will not agree unto, but only in matters indifferent & out of controversy. Where soever in matters of controversy between us and them, the old fathers do make against them (as in all points they do:) there will they deny their exposition. For example: The consent of ancient fathers (is alleged against M. Fulke) attributing superiority to Peter, upon the words of Christ: Thou art Peter, & upon this rock will I build my Church: 
Math: 16.  but he avoideth it very lightly, thus: It can not be denied but diverse of the ancient fathers (otherwise godly and learned) were deceived in opinion of Peter's prerogative. 
Against the rock. pag. 242.  S. Ambrose, Jerome, Chrisostom, cyril, and Theodoret are alleged for expounding a piece of scripture against M. Fulk, joh. 5. about Antichrist. How doth he shift it? thus: 
Against the roke. pag. 291.  I answer, they have no ground of this exposition. S. Jerome with all the ecclesiastical writers are alleged for interpreting of the words of Daniel cap. 7. against the protestants: 
Ibidem.  M. Fulke, I answer, that neither Jerome, nor any ecclesiastical writer whom he followeth, hath any direction out of the scripture for this interpretation. S. Austen is alleged for interpreting David's words: he hath placed his tabernacle in the Sun: of the visibility of the church: Fulke: 
Psal. 14. Against the fortress pa. 52. Against purge. pag. 262.  Austen doth wrongfully interpret this place. S. Ambrose, Ephraim, and Bede are alleged for interpretation of certain scriptures. Fulke: God's word is so pitifully wrested by them, as every man may see the holy ghost never meant any such thing. S. Chrisostome is alleged for certain interpretations of scripture: Fulke: 
Against purge. pag. 237.  he allegeth in deed scripture, but he apply it madly: and yet he often apply it to the same purpose● alas good man. The consent of fathers is alleged for interpretation of certain places of scripture, of the prefiguration of the cross of Christ. Fulke: 
Against the cross, pag. 146.  The fathers do rather dally in trifling allegories, than sowndlie prove that the cross was presigured in those places.  
I might here make up a great volume, if I would prosecute this argument, to show how these new doctors do contemn & reject all authority, antiquity, wit, learning, sanctity of our forefathers, 
How protestants reject the interpretation of their own writers  & of all men (in effect) that ever lived beside themselves: yea, of their own new doctors and masters also, when they come to be contrary to any new devise, or later fancy of theirs. This is evident in Luther rejected by his offspring about the real presence, number of sacraments, images, books of the Bible, order of service, and the like: 
LUTHER CALVINE  Also in Caluine rejected about the head of the church in England, and about all the government thereof in Geneva. And I could allege here diverse examples where he and Beza both are rejected by name in diverse points, both of puritanes and protestants in England, when they differ from them: but that this preface would grow to be too long. Wherefore I may perhaps (if this book come not otherwise to be too great) add a short table or appendix in the end, to show by examples the unconstant dealings of our adversaries herein, and that in very deed, when all is done and said that may be, 
The final conclusion of protetestants for trial.  and all excuses made that can be devised: the very conclusion is that, only that must be taken for truth which pleaseth them last of all to agree upon: and their bare words must be the proof thereof. For those books only be scripture in the bible which they appoint: & in those books, that only is the true sense which they give out: the fathers erred in all things where they differ from them: the new doctors, (as Luther, Calvin, and the rest) saw so much only, of the truth, as they agree with them, and no further. This is the saying of our adversaries: this is the saying of all the other sectaries of our time: this hath been the saying of all heretics from the beginning: and this must needs be the saying of all heretics for the time to come. For, except they take this way: it is unpossible to stand or increase against the Church. And by this way a man may begin what heresy he will to morrow next, and defend it against all the learning, wit, and truth of Christendom. adjoin now to this, that our adversaries (notwithstanding all request suit, offer, or humble petition that we ca● make) will come to no public disputation, or other indifferent and lawful judgement: but do persecute, imprison, torment, and slaughter them which offer the same: and then let the reader judge whether they desire & offer just trial or no, ● M. Charke affirmeth.  
Now for our parts (as I have said) we offer unto them, 
The variety of trial. that Catholics do offer.  all the best, surest, and easiest means that possibly can be devised, or that ever were used in God's Church for trial of truth, or discovering of heresy. For, as for the books of scripture, seeing we must receive them upon the credit and authority of the ancient Church: 
1 Books of scripture.  we are content to accept for canonical, and allow those, & none other, which antiquity in Christendom hath agreed upon. Next, for the contents of scripture: 
2 Expresse-woordes.  if our adversaries will stand upon express and plain words hereof, we are content to agree thereunto, and we must needs be far superiors therein. For what one express plain text have they in any one point or article against us, which we do not acknowleige literally as they do, & as the words do lie? but we have against them infinite, which they can not admit without gloss, and fond interpretations of their own. For example sake, we have it expressly said to Pete● (that signifieth a rock) upon this rock will I build my church: 
Supremacy.  Math. 16. they have no where the contrary in plain scripture. 
HEGOUMENOS.  We have expressly (touching the Apostles) he that is great among you let him be made as the younger. Luc. 22. they have no where, there is none greater than other among you. We have expressly: this is my body: 
Real presence.  Math. 26. you have no where, this is the sign of my body. We have expressly, the bread that I will give you is my flesh Io. 6. they have no where, it is but the sign of my flesh. 
justification.  We have expressly, a man is justified by works and not by faith only, jacob. 2. they have no where, a man is justified by faith alone: No, nor that he is justified by faith without works, talking of works that follow faith, whereof only our controversy is. We have expresseselye, whose sins ye forgive are forgiven: whose sins ye retain, they are retained, joh. 20. 
Absolution.  They have no where, that priests can not forgive or retain sins in earth. We have expressly. The doers of the la shallbe justified, Rom. 2. They have no where, that the law required at Christians hands is impossible, or, that the doing thereof justifieth not Christians. We have expressly, Vow ye, and render your vows, Psal. 75. 
Vows.  they have no where, vow ye not: or, if you have vowed, break your vows. We have expressly, 
Traditions  keep the traditions which ye have learned, either by word or epistle, 1. thess. 2. They have no where, the Apostles left no traditions to the church unwritten. We have expressly, if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments: 
Commandments.  and (when he said he did that already) if thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all thou haste, and give to the poor, and follow me: They have no where, that either the commandments can not be kept, or that we are not bound unto them, or that there is no degree of life, one perfecter than an other. We have expressly, work your own salvation with fear and trembling Philip. 2. 
Works  They have no where, either that a man can work nothing towards his own salvation, being helped with the grace of God: or that a man should make it of his belief, that he shallbe saved without all doubt or fear. We have expressly, do ye the worthy fruits of penance. Luc. 3. 
Penance.  They have no where, that faith only is sufficient with out all satisfaction, and all other works of penance on our parts. We have expressly, that every man shallbe saved according, to his works, Apoc. 20. They have no where that men shallbe judged only according to their faith. We have expressly, that there remaineth a retribution, stipend, and pay to every good work in heaven. Marc. 9 1. Cor. 3. Apo. 22. Psal. 118. They have no where that good works done in Christ, do merit nothing. We have expressly, it is a holy cogitation to pray for the dead. 2. Machab. 12. 
Prayer for the dead.  They have no where, it is superstition or unlawful to do the same. We have an express example of a holy man that offered sacrifice for the dead. 2. Machab. 12. 
Sacrifice for the dead.  They have no example of any good man that ever reprehended it. We have expressly, that the affliction, which Daniel used upon his body, was acceptable in the sight of God. Dan. 10. They have no where, 
Voluntary corporal afflictions.  that such voluntary corporal afflictions are in vain. We have expressly, that an Angel did present Tobias good works, and alms deeds before God. Tob. 12. 
Alms.  They have no were, that Angels can not, or do not the same. We read expressly, that jeremias the p●het after he was dead prayed for the people of I●rael. 2. Mach. 15. 
Prayer of saints.  they have no where the contrary to this. I leave many things more that I might repeat. But this is enough (for example sake) to prove, that albeit our adversaries do vaunt of scripture: yet when it cometh to express words: they have no text against us in am of so many as I have here repeated against them: nor can they show, that we are driven to deny any one book of the Bible, nor to gloze upon the plain words of any one plain place of scripture, as they are enforced to do.  
But now if they will not stand only to plain and express words of scripture, 
3 Necessary collections upon scrippture.  but also (as in deed they must) to necessary collections made, and inferred of scripture: then must we refer our selves to the ancient primative church, for this meaning of God's word. For it is like they knew it best: for that they lived nearer to the writers thereof (than we do) who could well declare unto them, what was the meaning of the same. And then our adversaries well know, how the ancient fathers do ground purgatory, prayer to saints, sacrifice of the Altar, use of the cross, and other like points of our religion, (besides tradition) upon the authority of scriptures, also expounded according to their meaning: albeit our adversaries deny the same to be well expounded.  
If our adversaries will yet go further for the trial of our Spirits: we are well content, and we refuse none that ever antiquity used for the trial of a Catholic and heretical spirit. The old heretics Samosatenus, Arrius, Macedonius, Nestorius & Eutiches were tried and condemned by the councils of Antioch, Nice, Constantinople, and Chalcedon: 
4 councils  and other heretics by other councils since. We are content to refer ourselves to all the Christian councils that ever have been sense Christ died. And all men know that the last most learned godly and general council of Trent was gathered for that purpose, & offered all safe-conduct to our adversaries to come thither to trial: but they refused it.  

5 
Doctors of the old Church.  
Li. 1. contra julian. c. 2.   Besides this, the ancient fathers have used diverse times, diverse other means of trial: As first, by referring the matter to the trial of old doctors, which lived before the controversies began. This mean used S. Austen against julian the pelagian, and produceth the consent of fathers, both of the east, and of the west Church until his time: and there asketh him, who he is that dareth to oppose himself to the credit of these men: to call them blind: to say they were deceived: where as they were the very lights of the city of God? The like way did Theodosius the Emperor take by the counsel of Sisinius, and suggestion of Nectarius, to bring the Arrians heresy to some end, as Socrates writeth. 

Socr. li. 5. hist. ca 10.  
Li. 2. contra here.   And Epiphanius I sayeth, this is enough to say against all heresies: Ecclesia Catholica haec non doevit: Sancti pa●res haec minimè receperunt. The Catholic Church hath not taught this, the holy fathers have not admitted this. Now, how our adversaries do fly this means of trial, they are not ashamed to confess it openly.  

6 The Catholic Churche●  another way is to consider which is the Catholic or universal Church, or great multitude of Christians, out of which the one part first departed. This way used S. Austen against diverse heretics, as namely against the Manacheis, when he sayeth: Multa sunt quae in Catholicae ecclesiae gremio me iustissimè teneant: 
Cont. ep fundam. cap. 4.  tenet consensio populorum atque gentium, & tenet ipsum Catholicae n●men: There are many things which upon good cause do hold me in the lap of the Catholic Church: for the very consent of people and nations doth hold me: Also the very name of Catholic church holdeth me. And Vincentius Lirinensis living about the same time writeth to the same effect against heresies. 
In his book against the profane innovations of all heresies: in the beginning  In ipsa Catholica ecclesia magnoperè curandum est, ut id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum: etc. Sed hoc ita demum fi●, sv sequamur universitatem, antiquitatem, consensionem. Sequemur autem universitatem hoc modo: si hanc unam fidem veram esse fateamur, quam tota per orbem terrarum confi●etur ecclesia: Antiquitatem vero ita, si ab hiis nullatenus sensibus recedamus, quos, sanctos maiores ac patres nostros celebrasse manifestum est: Consensionem quoque itidem; si in ipsa ve●ustate, omnium vel certè penè omnium sacerdotum & magistrorum definitiones sententiasque sectemur. We must greatly take heed, in the Catholic Church, to holde● that which hath been believed in every place, always, & of all Christians etc. And this we shall do, if in our belief we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality, 
Universality.  if we confess that only faith to be true, which the Church spread over all the world doth confess: we shall follow antiquity, 
Antiquity.  if we depart not from that meaning and sense of scripture which is evident that our forefathers and ancestors have held: we shall follow consent, 
Consent.  if we embrace the definitions and opinions either of all, or of the most part of priests and teachers in antiquity. The like way doth S. Jerome take against the Luciferians: and other fathers against other heretics. And how quicquelie our adversaries spirit were tried by this way of Antiquity, universality and consent, all men that have understanding may judge.  
another way there is also, and much used by the fathers against heretics: and that is, 
7 Succession of Popes.  to prove their religion by the succession of bishops in the See of Rome: wherein the successor always, teaching the doctrine of his predecessor, it must needs be a strong argument to prove the descent and continuance of one and the same faith from the Apostles time. 

Contr. ep. fundam. cap. 4.  
john. 21.   This argument useth S. Austen in the place before alleged: Tenet ab ipsa sede Petri Apostoli, (cui pascendas oves post resurrectionem dominus commendavit) usque ad praesentem episcopa●um successio sacerdotum. The succession of priests in the Church of Rome even from the chair of Peter (unto whom our lord after his resurrection commended his sheep to be fed) unto this byshoprik that now is, doth hold me in the Catholic Church. The same way of trial he useth, and much more at large, in his hundred three score and five epistle, where he reckoneth up all the bishops of Rome from Peter unto Anastasius (which was bishop in his time,) and thinketh this a good proof against the donatists, that none of those held or favoured their opinion. The like way of trial used Optatus Milevitanus against the same donatists before S. Austen, 
Li. 2. cont. Donatist.  reckoning up all the bishops of Rome until SIRICIUS, that sat in his time. The same way of trial used holy Irenaeus, 
Li. 3. cont. haer. cap. 3.  before either of both these men, against the heretics of his time, reckoning up all the bishops of Rome, until Eleutherius that held the See in his time, adding that by this succession, he did confownd the pride of all heretics that durst to teach otherwise than this See had held. And after, concluding thus: est plenissima haec ostensio, unam & eandem vivificatricem fidem esse, quae in ecclesia ab Apostolis usque nunc sit conseruata & tradita in veritate. This is a most full proof, that one & the self same quickninge faith hath been delivered in truth, and commended from the Apostles unto this day. But now this way of trial I know our adversaries will not admit.  

8 Infection● with old heresies.  another way of trial is to examine what part doth hold any old condemned heresy. For as an heretic having once lost the habit of faith given him in baptism, is easily moved to cope with any heresy new or old that cometh in his way, and serveth his turn: so most certain it is, that the true Catholic church can never admit or defend any heresy. 
1. Tim. 3.  For otherwise she could not be the pillar of truth. And we believe with holy Athanasius in his creed: that he which holdeth not the faith wholly in all points shall perish eternally, how soever our adversaries do salve the matter in their prophet's Berengarius, Husse, Wikliffe, and Luther, whom they say to have been holy men, & yet to have erred in divers points of faith, 
Mark this gentle reader.  and to have held their erreurs obstinately to the day of their death. But we believe the contrary, as I have said. And therefore who soever could show but one confessed heresy to be defended by our church, there needed no more disputation about the matter.  
But now for the right use of this way of trial, 
Two conditions.  there be two conditions to be observed of his part which will object an old heresy to an other. The first is, that the party do in deed hold that thing which he objecteth, and not a certain likeliehoode of it. For that were to slander, and not to object. 
Injurious dealing of our adversaries.  As when our adversaries do object to us the heresy of Pelagius about free will, it is a mere slander. For we hold that man's will being prevented and helped with the grace of God may work well: but he held that it could do the same by the power and force of nature, without the help of god's grace, as S Augustin proveth at large in his book of free will. The like injury they do us, in many other things, which they object against us: as the heresy of those which did sacrifice to our lady, and the like, which we do not. The second condition is that the heresy objected be in deed such as was accounted and condemned for an heresy, in the primative church, and not only that an heretic held it. For heretics do hold diverse truths always together with falsehood: And for lack of this condition do our adversaries often abuse the simple people. As M. Fulke oftentimes sayeth: prayer for the dead is an heresy, because the Montanists (which were heretics) held it. But let him prove that ever this was accounted one of Montanus his heresies, & then he proveth somewhat. But that he can never do: for he granteth, Austen, Ambrose, Chrisostom, jerom, and others ●o have used prayers for the dead, who notwithstanding were great enemies to Montanus, and all his errors. Wherefore this is a very malicious kind of abusing people. And I here say again, that let him and all the protestants in the world prove, that we do hold in deed, but any one thing, which was accounted an heresy in the primative church, & we will grant that we are not the Catholic Church, but that in all other things we err besides.  

Protestants do hold old heresies.  But we in charging them with heresies do observe always the foresaid two conditions. As for example, we charge them with the opinion of Aerius, which denied prayer for the dead: And that they hold this very same opinion, they will not deny: And that it was accounted an heresy in the primative church: 

Aug. li. de he. ad quod vult. haere. 53. Epipha. haer. 75.  
Against Brystoes' motives pa. 15.   we allege for witnesses S. Augustin and Epiphanius. How do they avoid this? No way, but by saying that Augustin and Epiphanius were deceived, in recording that for an heresy which was none: for that is M. Fulks answer: which is to condemn all that age: for that those holy fathers wrote down heresies as they were taken in those days by the church. The like we do about vigilantius: whose opinions were (among others) that Saints were not to be prayed to, nor their relics to be honoured: Now that the protestants hold this, no man doubteth: And that this was accounted heresy in the primative church, 
Li. count vigilantium.  we cite S. Jerome for a witness which wrote against him. What shift is there here? None, but to deface S. Jerome and commend vigilantius, and to deny it to be an heresy: for so doth, M. Fulke, 
Against the motives. pa. 54.  saying further, that Jerome rather raileth than reasoneth, and that vigilantius was a good man, and his opinion sound. The like order we take in a number of other old heretical points, which we charge them withal: as may be seen in the tables and books set out of this matter. Now if our adversaries could bring us to any such confession of heresy, the matter were ended. But they can not: and therefore I know they will never admit this way of trial.  
The last way of trial (whereof I will speak at this time) is to consider the manners of old heretics, 
9 The manners of old heretics.  & to compare the same with ours. And here I would have also the former two conditions observed: To wit, that we consider such qualities only as were accounted heretical in them: that is, proper to heretics: and to examine them truly without partial affection in ourselves. For example: 
Lib. 2. cont. lit. Petil. cap. 51.  S. Augustin doth note it as an heretical property in the donatists to hate the See of Rome, and to call it cathedram pestilentiae, the chair of pestilence. Doth this agree to protestants, or to us? As also the defaming of the said See, for the evil pretended life of some particular men? 

De unitare ecclesiae. cap. 12.  
Li. 3. contr. lit. peti. c. 4.  
Lib. 2. ca 9 contr. epi. parm. & ep. 169. ad Euseb.  
Li. 1. cont. maximinun.  
Lib. 6. cont. Donat.  
Victor depersecutione vandalica.   As likewise he noteth it as an heretical trick in them, to persuade the people that the visible church had erred, and oppressed the true church, banishing her from the sight of the world. Do not our adversaries say the very same? Also he noteth the same heretics for hating and condemning the life of monks, as also for drawing nuns out of their cloisters, and joining themselves with the same in pretended wedlock. Finally he noteth it as heretical in the Arrians, to appeal from traditions to only scripture. Now before S. Augustin, Optatus noted it as heretical in the donatists to break altars whereupon the body and blood of Christ were kept, as the words of Optatus are. And about the same time Victor Vticensis wrote his story against the vandal heretics: where he setteth forth most lively the state of our time, by the manners and behaviours of those heretics, in breaking chalices: profaning of holy Chrism, spoiling of church vestments, throweing the blessed sacrament of the altar on the ground, with other most horrible abuses to the same, not to be repeated: in prohibiting mass to be said by edicts and proclamation, and a hundred things more: which are the very exercises of our adversaries now. The like things in many points doth S. Basil object as sacrilegious against julian the Apostata and his followers: 
Orat. 1. & 2. in julianum.  wherefore I think our adversaries will not admit   


The cause inforcinge the author to break of: pag. 1.2.3.  
M. Charks untruth and hypocrisy pag. 5.6.7.8.  
A Challenge to M. Charke and all his brother ministers for disputation: page, 9 10.11.  
why protestants appeal to only scripture. pa. 13.  
The dissension among heretics of our time upon only scripture. page. 14.  
Protestants do admit no trial at all: page. 18.  
An absurd & heretical interpretation of scripture, touching S. john Baptist his place of living, apparel, and diet. page. 19  
Evident testimonies of scriptures and fathers for the real presence in the sacrament: page. 20.  
Luther's misliking of Corolostadius, Zuinglius, Oecolampadius & others touching the real presence. pag. 22.  
M. Fulk his arrogant kind of answering. page. 25.  
The protestants kind of trial is, only that to be truth, which they will have to be truth: page. 26.  
Catholics offer many kinds of trial of spirits. pa. 27.  
As, by books of scripture and the express word thereof Ibidem.  
By necessary collections upon scripture. page. 29.  
By councils. page. 30.  
By doctors. Ibidem.  
By the Church, and her notes: Ibidem.  
By succession of bishops. page. 31.  
By agreement of the doctrine of our adversaries with old heresies. page. 32. 33. 34.  
By agreement of our adversaries with ancient heretics in manners: page. 35.  
How heretics falsely accuse Catholics of old heresies: page. 33.  
How all heresy is Beggary: page. ●6.  
How the Catholic cause is honourable. page. 36. 37.  
why the Author hath put down the Censure it self in this defence which followeth: pag. 37.    

A DEFENCE OF THE CENSURE AGAINST WILLIAM Charke, minister.  

THE CENSURE.  

THE PREFACE.  THERE came to my hands two books of late, in answer of M. Edmund Campiane his offer of disputation: the one written by M. Hanmer, the other by M. Charke: of both which, (under correction,) I mean to give my short Censure, until such time as either he, to whom the matter appertaineth, or some other do make more large and leardned reply: Advertising notwithstanding the reader, that in mine opinion, this offer of M. Campian, and so many other as have been made, required not so much answering in writing, but shorter trial in disputation. But yet seeing there can be had nothing from them but words: I will examine a little, what they say at least to the matter.   

THE DEFENCE.  
HERE, even at the very entrance, the replier loseth his patience, for that we require short trial in disputation. who is Campian (sayeth he) or who are the rest of these seedmen, that they should presume to auow● popish religion, that hath nothing to uphold it but tyranny, nothing to defend it but lies, nothing to restore it but hypocrisy and rebellion? O M. Charke, remember yourself. We now but begin: you will be far out ere we end, if you tread the first step with so much choler. If the very naming of disputations make you sweat: what will the thing itself do, if it should be granted? you began very hoot with M. Campian in the Tower, but his quiet behaviour cooled you with shame. He took at your hands reproaches and injuries, yea torments also, and death itself, with more patience, than you can bear a most reasonable and just request But (say you) what can they get by reneweing the battle, so often and so lately refused by their fathers and captains? and you note in the margin D. Watson, & M. Fecknam. 
Entitled: a conference between M. D. fulk, and the papists in wesoiche castle.  We know (M. Charke,) the foolish vain pamphlet set fourth by D. Fulke in his own commendation, touching his being at wesbiche castle, and conference with the learned & reverend fathers, imprisoned there. But as they did wisely in contemning his pride, coming thither upon vanity, without warrant for that he offered: so beside the falsehood of that scroll, discovered sense by letters from the parties themselves, there is nothing in the same, that turneth not to your own discredit: being confessed therein, that after you had deprived them of all books, yea their very written note books, 
The manner of protestants disputations.  (which to learned men are the store house of memory:) you asked them whether they would come to Camebrige to dispute or no, if leave peradventure might be procured? And because they contained so pert & cockishe a merchant, that for matter of glory, cam● to pose them without authority: therefore you publish both in books and sermons, that these learned men refused disputation, where as, at the very same time, and both before and sense, hothe we and they have sued by all means possible, to be admitted to a lawful, equal and free disputation, either in Cambrige or any place else, that shall be appointed.  
What dealing is this? what proceeding M. Charke? where are now the lies and hypocrisy you talked of? on which part do they appear? As for tyranny (being an odious word) I will say nothing, nor will not turn it to you again: let racking and quartering of those that offered disputation be accounted scholastical reasonning with you. But this I must say to you ministers, for your good: that it were far better, you confessed your fear in plain words, than so much to manifest it in deeds, and thereby to discredit the rest of your sayeings.  
Next after the matter of disputation, M. Charke taketh an other thing in grief, and that is, that the Censure should say: seeing there can be had nothing from them but words etc. And for himself, he referreth men to his answer. But for M. Hanmer he answereth, that he hath brought more reason with his words, than may well be answered by me. But suppose all this were true, and that both his words and M. Hanmers' also were reasonable words: yet are they but words in respect of the desired disputation, which is a deed. And so me think the Censure doth offer them no injury. But how reasonable M. Charks words are, it appeared partly by the Censure, and shall do better by this defence. For M. Hanmer, 
of M. HANMER.  as I thought him then, not worthy of particular answer: so much less do I now, remaining worse satisfied by his second book than by his first. But yet, as I omitted him not in the Censure when occasion was offered: so will I not in this defence: although finally I must confess, that albeit I am not willing to increase a proud humour where already it doth abound: yet do I attribute more to M. Chark, than to him, for some discretion in answering to the purpose.  
But, for that M. Charke will needs so frendelie take upon him the avouchement of M. Hanmers' doings, as though he had not enough to defend his own: I will out of a heap of foolery & falsehood, (pached together by M. Hanmer, after the fashion of their sermons) allege a few things: requiring M. Charke in his next writing, to answer for the same. And if he find it somewhat hard: Let him blame his own tongue, for meddling in matters which he might have avoided. Nether will I touch any thing now, mentioned before in the Censure, for that these things shall have their own place to be discussed after. Now purpose I only to note a few points of many, 

Entitled an answer to a Jesuits challenge.  
In 2. thes. 2   which shall declare sufficiently the man's constitution. He hath in his first book fol. 12. That lyra sayeth: Ab ecclesia romana, iam diu est quòd recessit gratia: Which he interpreteth thus: It is long sithence the grace of God is departed from the church of Rome. Whereas the words are Graecia, Greece, and not grace, signifyeinge, that the Greek church was long since departed from obedience of the church of Rome. How will you excuse this M. Charke? For suppose there were any corrupt book that had (by error) Gratia, for Graecia (which I may scarce imagine:) But yet to help him to an excuse, suppose it should be so: yet lyra his whole discourse upon S. Paul's words, 
2. Thes. 2.  nisi venerit discessio primum: Except a revolt be first made, the end of the world shall not come: with all the circumstances, and other examples there alleged of the Romans empire, must needs have showed him (if he have sense,) that he talked only of the country of Grece, and not of the grace of God.  

Entitled the Jesuits Banner. A foul lie.  In this second assertion of his second book, he attributeth this sentence to the Jesuits: All and every the things contained in holy scripture are so wrapped in obscurities, that the best learned can gather thence no certain knowledge. This is impudent. For they have the plain contrary in the very places by him cited to wit, that not all, but some places, are hard in scripture: as is to be seen in Payvas Andrad. li. 2. pag. 12. 
Diego Payvas Andradius de orthodoxis explicationibus.  which words also M. Hanmer without shame allegeth.  
In his eleventh assertion he sayeth thus: The Jesuits hold, that there be many things more grievous and more damnable, than those that repugn the law of God, and yet the law condemneth them not, namely, traditions, man's laws, & precepts of the church. But this is shameless also: for the Jesuits do teach the clean contrary: to wit, that what soever is sin, is 〈◊〉 condemned by the law of God, and what so ever offendeth the law of God, if it be done wittingely and with consent of heart (for otherwise it offendeth not the law,) is sin: 
In opere catechistico. pag. 350.  and this may be seen in the definition of sin extant in Canisius, a jesuite. And for traditions, they hold that if they be such traditions as came from Christ and his Apostles: then is the wilful breaking of such traditions, sin directly against God himself. But if they be but traditions or precepts of the church: then the breach thereof (as also of all other our superiors commandements) are offences against men: but yet consequently also against God: for that he hath commanded men to obey their superiors, which rule them, and that in conscience as S. Paul proveth. Rom. 13.  
In his fiftenthe assertion he saith: 
Most false.  The Jesuits say, that justification is none other, than the seeking or searching of righteousness or (to speak philosophically) a motion unto righteousness. But this is folly, besides malice, shewing that he knoweth not what he speaketh himself. For the Jesuits have no such word: but do give a more learned description of our justification, than (I think) he can conceive: which is this: 

The description of our justification.  
Gal. 4.  
Tit. 3.   justfiication is the translation of a man from that state wherein he was borne the son of the first Adam, into the state of grace and adoption of the children of God, through the second Adam jesus Christ our saviour: Canis. pag. 748. What shall we now say of this man?  
In his Nyententhe and twentieth assertions, he sayeth that the Jesuits hold a twofold justification, a first and a second: This is true: but what more? And that our works are necessarily required for the first justification, & do merit the amplification of the second: This is clearly false: and except this man be besides himself, I marvel what he meaneth by this shameless behaviour. For the jesuits do teach the quite contrary: to wit, justificari nos gratis, quiae nihil eorum quae justificationem praecedunt, sive fides, sive opera, ipsam iustificationis gratiam promeretur: 
Canis: in op●re C●te. pag. 764.  These are their very words, which are englished thus: we are justified freely with out works: for that nothing going before our justification, whether it be faith, or works, doth merit us the grace of our justification. Which words also of thes fathers, do convince M. Hanmers' other slander in the 21. assertion, where he sayeth. The Jesuits, hold that the works that are before justification, are meritorious: Which is most false: for besides the place alleged, they teach the plain contradictory thereof: to wit, that merit proceedeth only of grace in them, that are now justified. Canis. pag, 786. So that you see this man hath no conscience what, or how, or wherein he lieth. I omit many examples more of his malice: 
Assert. 26. & 27.  as where he sayeth, that Jesuits hold, that the lords prayer may be said to saints, and that their relics may be honoured cultu latriae, with the honour due to God himself. 
Assert. 2.  Also where he falsyfyeth manifestly the Council of Trent, sess. 4. cap. 1. By putting (51) to their words, about traditions, and so perverting the whole meaning. But I will add only an example or two of his ignorance, and then let the reader judge whether folly or malice be greater in this minister.  


The unlearned bolye of Meredith Hanmer.  
Li. de vera reli. c. 14. lib. 1. petr. c. 13. sess. 6. c. 18  
jerom. in expos. simb. ad Dam. Augu. ser. 191. de tempore●   In his fifth assertion against the Jesuits he citeth as blasphemous this sentence of theirs. Sin is so voluntary, as if will were not, it were no sin: Where as this sentence is not theirs, but S. Austin's, and that twice repeated in two several books of his: Vsque adeò peccatum voluntarium est malum, ut nullo modo sit peccatum, si non sit voluntarium. Again, in his eight assertion he citeth this sentence (as blasphemous) of the council of Trent: We accurse them that say, the commandments of God to be impossible to a man justified, and in state of grace. Where as the very same is both in S. Jerome, and S. Augusten: whose words are: Execramur blasphemiam eorum, qui dicunt impossible aliquid homini a deo esse praeceptum. Again, in his seventh assertion he reprehendeth the council of Trent, for affirming, that, all sins are quite taken away by baptism, and not razed only: 
Sess. 5.  where as the very same is, word for word, in S. Augusten: Dicimus baptisma auferre crimina, non radere. 
Li. 1. cont. 2. ep. pelag. c. 13.  By which is evident, that this man hath either red little, or borne little away, besides certain notes of railing, as appeareth: And therefore I thought it needless to answer him any further. Now therefore will I return to the Censure, which briefly giveth the effect of both M. Hanmer and M. Charke his book as followeth.   

THE CENSURE.  
Meredyth Hanmer answereth more quietly, 
The effect of M. Hanmers' book  plainly, and more good follow like, excepting a foul lie, or two, whereof I must tell him when place serveth. He offereth also liberally for his part, disputation: who notwithstanding is not like to be one of the disputers, if the matter should come to that pass. He had gathered some notes out of Sleydan, kemni●ius, and friar Bale against the pope, and in derision of the Catholic religion, which he struggleth to utter in diverse places, without occasion given. He oppugneth feercelie and confirmeth diverse things, nether said, nor denied, nor thought of by M. Campian. He frameth to himself an adversary in the air, and manfully fighteth and assaulteth the same. Finally, his book seemeth to very little purpose, but only to spread abroad the copies of the others reasonable offer, which was some labour before, to write out to so many hands as desired it.   

THE DEFENCE.  
To this no man in particular answereth any thing. M. Charke letteh it stand, and M. Hanmer only sayeth in general: 
Cap. 1. In ini●io.  That these are unreverent speeches against his persone● Which I deny: for that only is to be counted personal reproach which toucheth manners, and this only concerneth his fashoode and folly in doctrine. And for his person God knoweth I hate it not, but could be content to wish him as good a parsonage, as he desireth, so it might be without the hurt of his parishonners. But yet, that I may not seem to have given this censure of his book, without all cause: I will briefly run over the principal points thereof. I said therefore that he answered more quietly and plainly: for that he railed in his first book less than william Charke did, as may appear in that which followeth, where both their words against the Jesuits are put down: also, more good fellow like: For that he draweth not all things to treason as the other doth, but joineth familiarly with M. Campian, calling him his fellow student in Oxford, 
Fol. 2.  though himself were but a poor lad, when M. Campian was of credit and woorshipp in that place. And finally he persuadeth: M. Campian to take part of felicity with him and his fellow ministers, 
Fo. 5. & 26  to leave his vows to be performed by other Jesuits beyond the seas, and joining with them, to abandonne this austerity of life, and to taste, how sweet the lord i●: which is as much to say, as to take a wife and a benefice, and other sweet morsels which commonly fall to ministers lots in England. Is not this spoken like a good fellow, trow you?  
As for, the foul lie or two, that I charged him withal, they are to have their place of examynatyon after. That, he was not like to be one of the disputers, if the matter came to disputation: was but only my conjecture. Marry yet since, the sequel hath proved it true: for there hath been disputation, and M. Hanmer no disputer. His notes against the pope, gathered out of Sleidan, friar bale, and others, & uttered from the purpose, & without just occasion: do appear in every page of his book. That, he oppugneth and confirmeth m●ni● things, neither said, nor denied, nor thought of by M. Camp●an: and consequently frameth his adversary in the ●ayer: I might show by many examples throughout his book, as fol. 6. where he proveth by many authorities, that the place maketh not a man holy, if he have no spirit: 
Impertinent matters followed by M. Hammer  but who denieth this? also. fol. 7. where he laboureth to confirm, that under a holy garment there may lurk wickedness: but what then? Also, fol. 9 where he bestirreth himself vehemently, to show by scripture & doctors, that we must obey superiors and temporal magistrates: who dowbteth of this? And yet this course he holdeth throughout that little book, which were to long to repeat in particular. And therefore I might well conclude, that, this book was to small purpose, other than to spread abroad the copies of M. Campians equal offer, to their hands which either could not, or durst not have it in writing before. Whereof I dare say many gentlemen in England will bear me witness: who took security of getting or retaining the same by countenance of this book, which before they could not safely do. And this shall suffice for iustifyeing of this first Censure. Now to M. Charke.   

THE CENSURE  
William Charke dealeth more subtly: 
The effect of M. Charks book.  for he reporteth the Challenge only for his purpose, and that also sometimes falsified, except it came corruptly to his hands. He uttereth also much more malice, by drawing every thing to disloiltie & rebellion, which is done by the Catholics for conscience & religion. He flattereth the higher states, which can pleasure him, palpably. He wearieth his hearer with the infinite repition of the worn out terms, of pope and popery. He exceedeth in invention of rayletive speech. He undertaketh all manner of lies without blushing, and ventureth upon any assertion what soever, for the bringing of the Jesuits in discredit with the reader.  
Upon this answer therefore of M. Charke, I mean to enlarge myself a little, in brotherly charity, not omitting to remember also the other, where occasion shall be given. And for the restraining of M. Charks roving, to some certain points, I mean to consider first of that which he uttereth touching the Society of Jesuits. 
The order & division of this book.  Secondly, touching the man whom he answereth. thirdly, touching the matter or demand propounded. lastly, touching the Apostata brought in, for the defacing of Jesuits and the Catholic religion.   

THE DEFENCE.  
All those things appertaining to the Censure of M. Charks book, though misliked and denied by him, yet for that they come after to be verified, in their particular places: I pass over now without examination: only advertising the reader, that thexceptionexception he taketh against my order and division of parts in the Censure, as devised for mine own ease, thereby, to be large or short, touch or pass by, answer or omit at my pleasure, is a causeless quarrel. For that I chose this method of necessity, as well for M. Charks ease in replyeing, as for mine own in answering: & especially for the reader's commodity, in understanding the whole matter, when the pith of all that, which lay dissolutely before in his book, environed with long and bitter invectives, embreved with spiteful and contumelious speeches, and every way cast about with odious accusations, light suspicions, insufficient collections, and vain surmises of treasons, rebellions, dissimulations, practices, & what soever else a fond malicious head could devise to object, should be drawn out clearly and orderly to four general points, and therein, indifferently and without choler be examined to the reader. The which thing if I have not performed my desire was at least to perform, and my endeavour shall be now to supply any thing that wanted then. Albeit I persuade myself, that nothing was omitted then of any weight or importance in M. Charks book, as may well appear both by his and M. Hanmers' replies. Now then let us enter upon the first part of the division set down by the Censure.   

THE FIRST PART OF THE CENSURE, touching the Society of Jesuits.  

THE CENSURE  
Master Charke employeth all his power, and laboureth painfully, to bring in defiance the oder of jesuits, containing most notable, learned & virtuous, men. For the which purpose he useth diverse means: and first his ordinary way of railing, by calling them. 
1 Nickenames against Jesuits.  A blasphemous sect, new and detestable jesuits, a weak and shameful order, Scorpions, heretics, jebusites, poisoned spiders, wicked monkish friars, and frierly monks, scouts to rebellion, frogs and caterpillars of Egypt, absurd and blasphemous doctors, bellows to kindle persecution: of Beggarly estate, traitors, swarms of grasshoppers, noisome beasts. To whom M. Hanmer addeth, That they are the brood of a cryppled soldier, and of the lowsiest order of all. All which, I let pass without answering, for that it proveth nothing but one, which is, that they lack all Christian and honest modesty, which abuse so much so many good men, whose wisdom, learning, and honesty of life is better known to the world, than any such railers can be credited to the contrary.   

THE DEFENCE.  
To all this M. Charke answereth by this confession, I acknouleige my labour employed to bring in discredit the jesuits, And again, also, I grant the speeches which in all hatred of popish practices I uttered: And yet he complaineth grievously in his preface that the papists, fashion is, to discredit the men for their doctrines sake. But let us pardon him this, for that he confesseth hatred to have been the cause, Yet notwithstanding I do not see, how any learned or common honest man, and much less a pretended preacher of god's word, can justify such uncivil and outrageous terms against his brother, by any pretence of Christianlike or tolerable hatred: such as M. Charke (I suppose) would here insinuate: And that which he would seem to allege for his excuse in the reply, that, for ten lines of railing, gathered against him, he might have gathered ten leaves against me: is neither to the purpose, nor true. Not to the purpose: for that if I had answered him with bitter speech again, being provoked by his example and injury: what excuse had this been for him which began without example? secondly, it is apparently false, that he sayeth of me, & excusable by no other figure, than by the licence of a lie. For if we talk, of leaves as printers account them: there are but half ten in the whole Censure. But if he take leaves, as they are folded in that book: yet ten leaves, do take up a good part thereof. Which if I filled up with railing terms only, such as now I have repeated out of M. Charke: I do confess myself to have been overseen, and fault worthy in writing. But if it be not so● as the reader may see: them M. Charks tongue hath overslipped in following rather the Rhetorical phrase of line and leaves, than the fathefull report of a true accusation.  
I may not pass over this matter so soon. For that I think it of importance to descry the spirits of us that are adversaries in this cause. You know the saying of Christ, ex abundantia cordis os loquitur. 
Mat. 12. Luc. 6.  Our mouth speaketh according to the abundance of our heart. I mean, a man may be known by his speech, as S. Peter said to Simon Magus, upon his only speech, In fell amaritudinis, & obligatione iniquitatis video te esse. 
Act. 6.  I see thee to be in the very gall of bitterness, and in the bondage of iniquity. And the scripture is plain in this point. Qui spiritum Christi non habet, hic non est Christi. 
Rom. 8.  He that hath not the spirit of Christ appertaineth not to Christ. Now then, if we consider the quiet, calm, and sober spirit of Christ, and of all godly Christians from the beginning, and the furious, reproachful, & unclean spirit of Satan, and all heretics, from time to time: and do compare them both with the writings of Catholics & gospelers at this day: we may easily take a skantlinne of the diversity of their spirits. I will not talk here of every hoot word uttered in Catholic books by occasion of the matter, (neither is this in question) for both Christ and his Apostles, and many holy fathers after them, used the same, some times upon just zeal, especially against heretics, with whom old S. Anthony (as Athanasius writeth being otherwise a milde● Saint) could never bear to speak a peaceable word. 
Athan. in vita S. Anthonii Eremitae.  But for railing, and fowl scurrility, such as protestants use ordinarily against us, & among themselves, when they descent, I dare avow to be proper to them, and their ancestors only.  
What more venomous words can be imagined than those of, 
THE PROTESTANTS Railing & scurrility in uritinge. Hanmers' scurrility.  Scorpions, poisoned spiders, and the like, used by M. Charke against reverend men? M. Hanmers' terms of lousy & crippled, are but jeastes. For I passed over his scurrility, where he said in his first book: The first of your gentry was Ignatius the cripple, standing under Pompeiopelis tower, and giving the pellet out of his tail. What a shameless slowen is this, to write? Show me Allen (if thou cannest) for thy guts (sayeth D. Fulk: 

Against purgatory pag. 241.  
D. Fulks talent in railing.  
In his retentive against the motives.  ) is not this a Ruffianlike spirit, in a preacher of the gospel? But if you will see more of this man's spirit: read but his answers to D. Bristol, D. Allen, and the rest. Against. M. Bristol he hath these words, with many more. Lewd lozel, unlearned dogbolt, traitorous papist, shameless beast, of blockish wit, impudent Ass, vauntparler, barking dog, and most impudent yolpinge cur, leaden blockish and doltish papist, proud hypocrite, of stinking, greasy, antichristian, and execrable orders, blundering, blind, boosting bayard, blasphemous heretic, blockheaded Ass. And in his two books against. M. D. Allen, besides the former speeches, and other infynitelye repeated, he hath these: 
In his answer to the book of purgatory & prayer for the dead.  Brazen face, and iron forehead. O impudent blasphemer, brainless brabbling Sycophant, reckless Ruffian, unlearned Ass, scornful caytise, desperate dicke. O horrible blasphemer. O blasphemous, barking, horrible hellhounde. In his book that beareth a show of answer to M. D. Stapleton, he useth these terms amongst other: 
Entitled AN OVERTHROW of Stapletons' fortress of faith.  Cankered stomach papist: senseless block: worthy to be shorn in the pole with a number of crowns: popish swine: popish boars, gods curse light upon you: brazen face Stapleton: blockedded papist: shameless dogged of stomach slanderer: of gross and beastly ignorance: drunken flemminge of douai: more like a block than a man.  
Thus much he hath against thes learned and reverend men, whereof each one, for many respects may be counted his equal, to say the least, & therefore in common civility, setting a side all consideration of gods spirit (whereof these good fellows make vaunt above other men,) thes terms or the like were not to be used, as in deed amongst the gentiles they were not, nor of any honest or Christian writer since. I might repeat a great deal more of this ministers scurrility, against many men, whom (forsooth) he answereth: (for as one said well of him, he is the protestants common post horse, to pass you any answer without a bait, to any Catholic book which cometh in his way,) but it were to long and loathsome to repeat all, only hear more what he sayeth in his book against M. Martial, 
Entitled. A REJOINDER to Marshal's reply.  and by that, judge of his style against the rest. He calleth him by one vile name or other in every page of his book, as, dogbolt lawyer: wranglinge petifoggar: egregious ignorant usher: goose: ass: prating proctor, meet for a bomme court: arrogant hypocrite: impudant ass: blockhedded and shameless ass: blasphemous beast: filthy hog, beastly grunter, shameless dog, & blasphemous idolater, railing Ruffian, & slanderous devil. And is there any jot of Christian modesty or gods spirit in this man? is he (to speak indifferently) more fit for a pulpit, or for an ale bench? surely, if the pot were not at hand, when he wrote this: he discoverethe a fowl spirit within his breast, but yet not unmeet for a man of his occupation.  
And this now of the scholars: but think you that the masters were not of the same spirit? read john Caluine and you shall see that his ordinary term against his adversaries in every chapter almost, 
john Calvin his spirit in railing.  especially when he speaketh against his superiors, as bishops and the like, is to call them Nebulones knaves: which word beside the foul gall whereof it proceedeth, is an unseemly term, even as that of M. Fulke, when he calleth a counsellor to an emperor Rascal Staphylus: 
Against Stapletons' fortress pag. 75.  It is unfitting, and argueth excess of fond and foolish malice. For if an enemy of mean condition should call an English counsellor rascal: should he not discover thereby his own rascality, and lack of wit?  
But of all other Martin Luther, 
Luther's prerogative in railing. Rom. 8.  as the first father of all these new imppes, had primitias spiritus, the first fruits of this spirit in full measure, (even as the Apostles had of the holy spirit) to the end, he might impart due portions to his children and successors. I could allege infinite examples in this kind, but that I desire to be short, and shall have occasion to touch some part of the same in other places after. Only as it were for a taste, I will cite some few out of his boo●e written against our most noble and famous king Henry, the eight, the most learned, and wittiest prince that ever England had. But yet, hear what the furious spirit of this our new prophet uttered against him, & then consider whether he could be of God or no. The book is extant to be sold in England, 
Lib. count regem An. To. 2. wit. temb. fo. 331.  and I will note the leaf, to the end I may not be imagined to feign, or aggravate any thing. First then, in his preface of that to Sebastian Scrike Earl of passune, he defaceth his Majesty intolerablie, saying: that he is an envious mad fool, babbling with much spittle in his mouth. Then at length, coming to the book itself, he sayeth that the king is more furious than madness itself: 
Fol. 333.  more doltish than folly itself: endued with a blasphemous and railing mouth: with an impudent and whorish face: full of dastardy: & without any one vain of princely blood in his body: a lying Sophist, compounded only of igorance and poisoned malice: a damnable rotten worm: 
O impure spirit of a prophet.  who when he could not avoid the venomous poison and Snevell of his envy, by his lower parts, sought occasion to vomit it up by his filthy mouth: it were a shame for any beastly whore to lie as he doth: a basilisk, and progeny of an adder: to whom I do denounce (sayeth he) the sentence of damnation: 
Fol. 334.  this mad buggish Thomist: miserable book-maker: 
Fol. 335.  a God lately borne in England: I say plainly, this HARRYE lieth manifestelye, & showeth himself a most light scurril? Of this crime do I luther accuse this poisoned Thomist: I talk with a lying scurril, covered with the titles of a king: a Thomisticall brain: a clownish wit: a doltish head: a bug and hypocrite of the Thomists: 
Fol. 337.  most wicked, foolish, and impudent HARRYE: this glorious king lieth stoutly like a king: & here now must I deal not with ignorance & blockishenesse only, but with obstinate and impudent wickedness of this HARRYE: 
Fol. 338.  for he doth not only lie like a most vain scurre, but passeth a most wicked KNAVE in detorting of scripture: 
How intolerable is this in a renegade friar.  see whether there be any spark, in him of an honest man? surely he is a chosen vessel of the devil. I would to God pigs could speak, to judge between this HARRYE and me, But I will take asses that can speak. judge you (ye Sophists of the universities of Paris Lovan, 
Fol. 339. See the pride of an apostata against three famous universities.  and Coolen) what this HARRIES● logic is worth. I am ashamed (HARRYE) of thy impudent forehead, which art no more a king now, but a Sacrilegiouse thief, against Christ's own words. I will feign here certain kinds of fools and mad men, to the end I may set out my king in his colours: and show that my bedleme king, doth pass all bedlemnesse itself. What need had I of such pigs to dispute withal? thou liest in thy throat, foolish and sacrilegious king: this block my Lord Master HARRYE hath taught together with his asses and pigs: 
Fol. 442.  & now he is mad, and crieth & foemeth at the mouth: neither could I with all my strength make this miserable king so filthy and abominable a spectacle to the world, as he by fury maketh him self: what harlot ever durst brag of her shame, as this most impudent mouth of his doth? 
Fol. 345.  this fool must have a dictionary to learn what a sacrifice is: Oh unhappy that I am, to be enforced to lose time, with such monsters of folly, and can not get a learned man to contend with me.  
I leave infinite despiteful, slanderous and scurrile words, which this impudent apostata useth against his Majesty, and some are so dishonest, as I am ashamed to english them: as where he sayeth: 
Fol. 333.  Ius mihi erit Maiestatem Angelicam stercore conspergere. And again. Sit ergo mea haec generalis responsio, ad omnes sentinas insulsissimae huius laruae. 
Fol. 337.  Again, Haec sunt robora nostra adversus quae obmutescere coguntur, Henrici, Thomistae, Papistae, & quicquid est fecis, sentinae, latrinae impiorum, & sacrilegorum eiusmodi: Sordes istae & labes hominum, Thomistae & Henrici, sacrilegus Henricorum & asinorum cultus: furor insulsissimorum asinorum, & Thomisticorum porcorum: os vestrae dominationis impurum & sacrilegum. And a hundred more sentences like. Whereof if ever good or honest man (and much less a prophet) used the like: I am content to be of the protestants religion: but if never either ruffian, or rakehell, used such speech to a prince before: then may we be sure, that this man was no elect vessel of God, which hath no part of his spirit in him.  
I might here repeat the like spirit of his in writing against the Caluinists, 
Luther's speech against calvinists and of calvinists against him. Tigurini tract. 3. cont. supremam Lutheri confess●onem.  and the Caluinists against him, but that I have occasion to speak somewhat of it afterward. But yet one place I will cite in stead of all the rest, and that is of the church of Tigurine against Luther, whose words are these Nos condemnatam & execrabilem vocat sectam etc. Luther calleth us a damnable and execrable sect. But let him look that he do not declare himself an archeheretique, seeing he will not, nor can not have any society with those, that confess Christ. But how marvelously doth Luther here bewray himself with his 
* 
Ergo luther had devils: which after Charke denieth.  
Et nunc & semper & in saecula saecul●rum. In sathana si●tum, & supersathanasiatum, & persathanasiatum Pag. 61.   devils? what filthy words doth he use, and such as are replenished with all the devils in hell? for he sayeth that the devil dwelleth both now & ever in the Zuynglyans, and that they have a blasphemous breast insathanized, supersathanised, and persathanized, and that they have besides a most vain mouth, over which Satan beareth rule, being infused, persused, and transfused to the same: did ever man hear such speech pass from a furious devil himself? Hitherto are the words of the Tigurine calvinists, which may easily refute M. Charks shameless lies in defence of Luther, as after shall be showed. And here would I have the reader to consider with what conscience Charke doth call Luther a holy and divine man a little after, and whittaker in his book against M. Campian calleth him, a man of holy memory, seeing the Tigurine calvinists, who say their masters do call him an archeheretique and a furious devil: is not this open disimulation and blinding of the people? but hereof you shall see more after, when we come to speak of their dissension. And this shall be enough of this matter for this time. Now we come to examine whether the Jesuits be a blasphemous sect or no, as M. Charke calleth them, and the Censure denieth: for thus it followeth upon that which went before.    

OF sects and sectaries.  

THE CENSURE.  
Marry I cannot let pass to tell M. Charke, that to call the Jesuits, 
jesuits no Sect.  A blasphemous sect, seemeth not only lewed, but also unlearned. And as for their blaphemies, they come to be examined after: but how they may be termed A sect, I cannot see. For if living more straitly than the common sort, 
1. & 2.  in apparel, diet, or order of life, do make a sect: than not only Jesuits, 
4. Reg. 1. 4. Reg. 2. Dan. 1. Marc. 1.  but Elias, Elizeus, Dani●l, and john Baptist, are also to be called sectaries, for that they are reported in the scripture to have led a different and more strait life in those points, than the common sort, and yet are commended in scripture for the same. But if sectaries are only made (as in deed they are) by cutting themselves of, 
3 The description of sactaries.  in opinion of religion from the general body of the Catholics church, as branches from the tree, and by holding a several faith in religion to themselves: then can not Jesuits (by your own confession) be any sect, who differ not one jote in opinion of religion, from the universal Catholic church, but (as you say) defend every little point of the same, be it never so untrue or absurd in your sight. Wherefore, unfeignedly you call them a sect, as also unseemly you scoff at their name of Jesuits, 
4 The name of jesuits.  which they challenge not to themselves, nor ever use it in their writings or speech, but only naming themselves, a Society dedicated peculiarly to the honouring of the name of jesus, by preaching the same in all places of the world, without any reward, and with what danger bodily soever.   

THE DEFENCE.  
The answer to this is somewhat confuse and unorderly. But I will reduce it to the order here set down. To the examples alleged he sayeth: As for the examples of Elias, Elizeus, Daniel, and john Baptist, they are no less wickedly than unlearnedlye alleged to avow the Jesuits order. This is a hoot entrance (as you see) joined with a manifest cavil. For these examples are not alleged to avow the Jesuits order absolutely, but in one point only of different life from the common sort: which point notwithstanding is found also in other besides Jesuits. But mark his reason. 
1 OF ELIAS and whether he be a pattern of monks.  What are you able (sayeth he) to bring out of the word of God, why Elias should, after more than two thousand years, be brought in for a patron of friars? I answer, first, as before, that these examples are only brought to prove, that different apparel, diet, or strait order of life, do not make sectaries, as you have affirmed, and now can not defend: and therefore having nothing else to say, you make these vain and idle interrogations, in stead of proofs. For you ask again, what was there in Elias, Elizeus or Daniel, that may liken them to jesuits? I answer, there was (to our purpose now in hand) different manner of life from the common sort of men, which notwithstanding made them no sectaries, as you would have the jesuits to be, for that cause. To this I add (which is more than I need) that S. jerom. proveth plainly that Elias and Elizeus were the beginners, 
Ep. 13. ad paulinum & ep. 4. ad rusticum.  captains, and patrons of Monks, and monastical life, whom he calleth (for that cause) Monachos veteris testamenti: monks of the old testamen: 
Elyas & Elyzeus monk● of the old testament. Goe 2. 3. 4.  The same, hath Sozomenus of Elias L. 1. Hist. cap. 12. Now deal you with these men (M. Charke) about the matter. And as for the number of two thousand years, which you cite so precisely, as though antiquity should let these prophets to be examples of monastical life: It is an argument worthy such a divine as you are: for by that reason, nether Adam could be a patron of married men, nor able of shepherds, nor Cain of husbandmen, nor Enoch of citizens, nor jabell of dwellers in Tents, nor jubal of Musicians, nor Tubalcain of smiths: for that they lived twice as long a go as Elias did. And yet the scripture saith they were beginner's and patrons of all these things: Genes. 2.3.4.  

2 OF S. JOHN Baptist whether he were a precedent to monks.  To the example of S. john he answereth: john Baptist that may seem to make most, maketh nothing at all for you: for that it is to be thought he was an extraordinary & a perpetual Nazarete, & therefore his calling warranted him for his austere & extraordinary attire, & die●, which restraint, or the like, is not now laid upon those which teach in the church. You always do wilfully mistake the question, M. Charke. For we affirm not that extraordinary austerity of life, is laid upon any man of necessity, but only that it is, lawful, and maketh no sect, when it is voluntary taken and used. Moreover if we grant S. john were a Nazaret, yet that proveth not, that all his austerity of life was laid upon him by necessity of that vocation, as may appear in the book of Numbers: 
Cap. 6. Plin. li. 5. c 17. nat. hist.  where the life of a Nazaret is described: and Pliny with josephus describing the life of Esseans much harder than the Nazarets, do mention no such great austerity, as the scriptures do in the life of S. john Baptist. 
joseph. li. 2. ca 7. de bello judaico.  Wherefore though he were a Nazaret, yet most of his austerity was voluntary, and so might be an example, & platform to Monks, especially seeing Nazaretes also did make a religious vow, for their dedication to God (as our religious people also do use) as appeareth in the book of Numbers. 
Cap. 6.  And finally that S. john was a Monk of the new testament, and a pattern of Monastical life, (though this be more than I am bound to prove, all these father's foloweinge do testify with one consent. 
S. John a monk of the new testament.  S. Gregory Nazianzen: orat. de S. Basilio. S. Chrisostome, ho. 1. in Marc S. Jerome ep. ad Eustochium Cassianus, collat 18. cap. 6. Sozomenus li. 1. hist. c. 12. Isidorus li. 2. de divin. office 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 sectary, 
3 THOUCHINGE the true definition of a sectary.  saying: that it bewrayeth great want of learning, for that it confoundeth heretics with sectaries, and maketh no distinction between the general and the special: for all heretics are sectaries (sayeth he,) but all sectaries are not heretics. For learning here I strive not: let the opinion thereof fall where it best liketh the reader to place it. But in matter of truth M. Chark is greatly over seen in this place, and doth unwoorthelie challenge the credit of a learned man for this answer: having incurred two gross errors in the same. For first among divines & Ecclesiastical writers, 
The difference betwixt heresy and a sect.  an heretic and a sectary is all one, & there is no general and special between them, as he imagineth. Which appeareth also by the scripture itself. For act. 28. where both the latin translation and their English hath a sect, the greek hath heresy, So likewise gal. 5. the same you may read act. 24.26. & 2. pet. 2. And if in old time there were any difference between these words among the gentiles: heresy was the more general: clean contrary to that M. Charke imagineth. 
The signification of heresy more general then of a sect.  For that heresy (signifyeing an election of some private opinion) was the general name to all the particular sects of philosophers. As to the sect of stoics, platonikes, peripatikes and the like: as most learnedly do note S. jerom: in cap. 3. ep. ad Tit. And Isodorus l. 8. etym. cap. 3. Theophilact, in ca 2. ep. ad col. And Tertulian. l. de prescript: So that this was a great over sight in M. Charke.  
The second argument which M. Charke useth to prove a difference between a sect and an heresy, and so to overthrow the definition, is, 
A fond argument.  for that if one man (sayeth he) cut himself of in opinion, he shall not be called a sect except there be many. But he shallbe called a sectary M. Charke: as also for the same cause, he shall be called, not an heresy, but an heretic. I marvel where your wit was, when you devised this difference without a diversity. But you adjoin to this, two examples of scripture: the one of the Corinthians sharply rebuked of Schism by S. Paul, for that, one said he was of Paul, an other of Apollo, an other of Cephas, an other of Christ: 
1. Cor. 1.  who notwithstanding did not differ in matters of faith (say you:) but therein by your leave, you are greatly deceived. For albeit S. Paul doth use the greek word Shisme in that place, 
Schism.  which (in his proper signification) is but a degree to heresy, (as S. Augustine proveth by example of the donatists, 
Ad quod vult. hae. 69.  first shismatikes & after heretics:) yet schism in his large & ample signification (whereby it signifieth all division) comprehendeth not only, heresy, but also all error of faith, whereby men are divided in belief, 
Heresy. Error.  which is not always heresy, except it be defended against the church with obstinacy. And such schism o● division in belief was the schism of the Corinthiás, (as S. Austen well noteth) for that they erred in a point of faith, 
Tract. 5. in joh.  esteeming the virtue & power of Baptism, not to depend only of Christ, but of the dignity of the Baptiser. 
The erroneous schism of the Corinthians. 1. Cor. 1.  And therefore, one bragged, as baptised of Paul, an other of Apollo, an other of Cephas: & some (following the truth in deed) said, that by what minister soever they were baptised, yet held they only their justification & sanctification of Christ, as concurring equally with all his ministers in Baptism. This is S. Augustens' Catholic exposition, & besides this, 
The exposition of S. Paul's words. 1. Cor. 1.  the words of the text do manifestly prove the same. Is Christ divided (sayeth S. Paul?) that is, doth he impart himself more in one man's baptism than in an others! or doth he not equally and wholly concur in every of his ministers baptism? Again: was Paul crucified for you? to wit, thereby to be able to sanctify you of himself, by his baptism? Or were you baptised in the name of Paul? No: but in the name, power, and virtue of Christ, who only sanctifieth in every baptism. I thank God that I have baptised none among you, but Chrispus, and Caius, and the house of Steven, less any man might say that you were baptised in my name. By this it appeareth plainly that the Corinthians were divided in matter of faith, about baptism. Wherefore, as this example maketh nothing to the purpose, for which it was brought: so is it fondly and maliciously applied by you against Catholics, who say, I follow the rule or order of life of Benedict, I of Augusten, I of Basil, I of Francis: wherein there is no difference of faith at all: 
An example  No more to this purpose (though the matters be unlike) than if you ministers should say among yourselves in the contrary sense of liberty, I will live unmarried after the order of my Lord of Canterbury: I will take a wife after the platform of my Lord of London. I will have two wives together, after the fashion of M. archdeacon of Salesburie: I will have a wife and a wench besides, after the custom of some other archdeacon and preacher in England.  
Your second example is of the pharisees, who were a notorious sect (say you) and yet did not cut of themselves by heresy from the church. 
Heresies of the Pharisees  Wherein again you overslipp foully. For in that they were a notorious sect, they held particular heresies, as the passing of souls from body to body, & the like, whereof you may read in joseph: L. 2. de bello judaico, cap. 7. & in philastrius in his catologe of heresies upon the word phariseus. 
HOW THE Pharisees were a sect in two senses.  And this is to be understood of some of the Pharisees. For other wise I confess that the Pharisees were sometime called a sect or heresy, in good part, for that they defended the immortality of the soul, and were divided thereby from the Saducees, 
A sect or heresy may sometimes be taken in good part. Act. 26.  who denied the same: act. 23. And in this sense spoke S. Paul, when he said before the judgement seat (touching his life passed before his conversion) I lived a pharisee, according to the most certain sect of our religion. Where is to be noted, against M. Charke again: that S. Paul in greek useth the word heresy, which in his general signification, importing only a choice of any opinion (as I have noted before) might be taken in good sense, even as this word Tyranny, 
Tyrannis.  might, and was taken of the old writers, though now by use and appropriation, both the one and the other be taken in evil part. And (to the end M. Charke may confess his oversight in this matter) I will allege him the words of one of his own doctors, M. Fulke by name: who of this matter sayeth thus. 
Against Bristows Motives. pag. 14.  S Paul himself openly acknouleged that he was a pharisee, when nothing was understood by the name, but one that believed the resurrection of the dead, although the term of pharisee was otherwise the name of a sect of heretics, which maintained many damnable errors, from which the Apostles were most free.  
By this now is defended the definition of sectaries given by the Censure: and overthrown that fond new definition devised by M. Charke, and called by him a truer definition, according to the true etymology of the word: 
M. Charks definition of a sect.  to wit, A sect is a compagnie of men that differ from the rest of their religion, in matter or form of their profession. Touching the true etymology, which he speaketh of, I can not tell what he meaneth, nor (I think) himself. For in greek the scripture useth the word heresy for i● (as hath been showed) which can yield no etymology, to maintain this definition. And in Latin, Secta must needs come, either a secando or a sectando: both which being referred to matters of the mind (as necessarily they must) do include alway a diversity of opinion, as hath been showed: & M. Charke can not give one example to the contrary, for the maintenance of this absurd definition of different form in profession etc. Whereby he would make all them sectaries, which differ in any external form. By which reason, all their own bishops, ministers, judges, lawyers, and the like, are sectaries: and all diversities of states are sects. 
Great absur●●●●●●  For is there not a different form in making of a bishop and of a minister? is not there diversity in their authorities? in their apparel? in their state, and form of life? notwithstanding that both do profess ministery of the word? The lay man and the preacher, do profess one religion, and yet is there no difference in the form of their profession? is the ministers form of apparel, of preaching, of ministering the sacraments, of obedience to his byshope, of observing the statutes of college or church wherein he is, nothing different from any other lay man? or is he a sectary for this? who would say this, and much less print it, but only william Charke?  
I leave the beginning of his definition as too too childish & ridiculous for him, 
M. Charcks fond oversight.  that professeth learning, where he sayeth: a sect is a company of men: as if a man should say, an heresy is a compavie of men: or an opinion is a company of men: or a frenzy is a company of fantic men. When S. Paul saith: I lived a pharisee according to the most certain sect of our religion: 
Act. 26.  will ye say, he meant, according to the most certain number of men of his religion? or rather according to the most certain divided opinion of his religion? for the number of pharisees were not certain. Again, when S. Paul sayeth: 
Gal 5.  the works of the flesh are manifest, as sects etc. Will you say here multitudes of men are works of the flesh? where as the greek hath heresies? So like wise, 
2. Pet. 2.  when S. Peter sayeth) of false prophets) they bring in sects of perdition, in greek heresies of perdition: will you say, multitudes of men of perdition? I omit many other examples in scripture, which do convince your absurdity, and besides that, do prove our principal point, that sects and heresies are all one. Although I am not ignorant, that in common speech, this word sect, may improperly signify the men also which profess the same, but not in a definition, where the proper nature of each word is declared.  

Whether the Jesuits be a sect by M. Charks definition.  After this new definition set down, M. Charke proveth the Jesuits to be a sect, by the same, for whose disgrace only he devised it. His collection or argument, is this: Seing therefore the jesuits receive a peculiar vow to preach, as the Apostles did, every where: to do it of free cost: to whip and torment themselves after the example of a sect called by the name of whippers, and condemned long a go: seeing thy are divided from all others, and do follow the rule of Loyolas: it appeareth plainly they are a sect. A substantial conclusion, for a man of your making, These be like the conclusions ye made in the tower against M. Campian. I mean not of your last conclusion, to dispache him at Tyburn, for that was unanswerable, although nothing following of the premises: I mean of your pretended disputations with him. But to our matter: what is there in this illation that can make the jesuits a sect, if it were all granted to be true? that they vow to preach as the Apostle did? You know, the scripture doth allow and commend the dedication of a man's life by vow to god's service: Num. 6. Psalm. 131. What then? To preach every where and at free cost? This you should be a shamed to say, seeing Christ himself commandeth it to his Apostles: 
Nath. 28. Mark. 16. Math. 10.  Teach all nations: preach the gospel to all creatures: you have received it freely, give it freely And S. Paul glorieth much that he had taught the gospel of free cost. 2. Cor. 11. What then maketh them sectaries? To whip and torment themselves, if it were true? why? for what reason? It is written of S. Paul by himself, that he chasteyned his own body. 1. Cor. 9 yea and that he carried the brands of Christ in his flesh. 2. Cor. 4. And the scriptures do talk much of mortyfyeing our members: of crucifyenge our flesh, 

Coloss. 3. Gal. 5. & 6. Rom. 12.  
Chastizing of our bodies.  
Mat. 3. Marc. 1. Heb. 11.   and the like: and never a word of pampering the same. And ecclesiastical stories do make large mention of great severity of the ancient fathers and Saints herein. As of the severity in life of S. john Baptist and other Saints Also of the Saints of the old testament: who went about (as S. Paul sayeth) in camels hears, in goat's skins, and the like. And he that will see great store of examples gathered together out of all antiquity about this matter: let him read but one chapter of Marcus Marulus de castigatione corporis per flagella, 
Ca 10. li. 3.  of chasteyning the body with whips.  
S. jerom. testifieth of himself (by an occasion given) to a secret friend, 
Ep. 22. ad Eustoch  of his: 
* But you will say S. jerom. was no protestant.  That his skin, was now become as black with punishment, as the skin of an Ethiopian. And joannes Cassianus that lived about the same time, hath infinite examples of the practices of holy fathers in this point. And albeit Peter Martyr a renegade friar, after he had now coped with a wench, doth jest at S. Basil and S. Gregory Nazianzen, for the hard handling of their own bodies: 

In ca 16. li. 3. Reg.  
An offer of cooling physic to the ministers of England.  
In London. In Banberie.   yet there is reason to think, that they knew what they did as well as he. And if you ministers of England would use a little of this salve sometimes also: possible, the world would go better with you, & fewer eaton's should need to stand on the pillory, for lying with their own daughters: & fewer hynches fly the country for ravishing of young girls, especially being preachers, and having wives of their own besides: And many other foul enormities (in this kind) would easier be avoided. But if you will not practise this remedy yourselves, for contristing or making sad the holy ghost within you, as your phrase is: yet impute it not as Schism and heresy to them which use it moderately, as you may imagine the Jesuits will, being not fools, nor having iron bodies, but sensible, as yours are.  
And as for the last reason you add, of their following Loyolas his rule of life, and that they are divided from others: & made schismatics thereby: I have showed before, that being but a particular direction of life and manners, grounded on the scripture and practice of ancient fathers, and allowed by the superours of the Church: it can be no matter of sect or heresy, neither are jesuits separated from others by this, but rather nearer joined with all the godly: for that virtue is but one, and he that leadeth the most virtuous life, is joined nearest to Christ, and to all good Christians.  

Charks belyeing of the Jesuits.  And this now may be answered, supposing that all were true that you report in this place of the Jesuits life and vocation, which is not so. But as well here, as commonly in all other places, you lay down some invention or addition of your own maliced against them. As for example: In this place, it is most false that you affirm of them: that they take a peculiar vow to whip and torment themselves. There was never any such vow either taken or talked of, much less is it true, that they take that vow to do it (as you say) after the example of a sect called by the name of whippers, condemned long ago. You are a great enemy to whippers (M. Charke) and you think it good sleeping in a whole skin. I do not blame you for it. Nether are you a greater mislyker of all whippers in general, than I am in particular, of those whom you here name: 

Gab. prateol. in haer. de flagellantib.  
Ger. tract. count flagel.  
The heresies of whippers.   for they were heretics, (as you may read in prateolus and Gerson) teaching that the baptism of water had now ceased, & the baptism of voluntary blood, by whipping, was ordained in place thereof: without which none could be saved: and therefore they whipped themselves openly: teaching also many other heresies beside: for which they were condemned. And what doth this make against the sober & moderate chastisement, which good men use in secret, upon their own bodies, at such time as they esteem themselves (for mortification) to need the same? was there ever honest man but yourself, would have objected so impertiment a thing in print? but you make me laugh when you say a sect condemned long ago. How long ago I pray you (M. Charke) or by whom were they condemned? the story is evident: they began in Italy about the year of our Lord 1273. 

Pratcolus ubi supra.  
Alphon. lib. 3. cont. haeresee.   under pope Gregory the tenth, and were condemned both by him and his successors. And is this condemnation authentical with you? if it be: you know Luther & Calvin were condemned by like authority. And thus for lack of matter, you lay hold on any thing though it make never so much against yourself.  
The last point is about the name of jesuits, 
4 THE NAME of Jesuits.  against which, for that you quarreled much, the Censure did show that the name was not taken to themselves of arrogancy (as you objected) but given them by common speech for brevities sake, where as their true name in deed, by foundation of their order, was, societas nominis jesu: a society dedicated to the name of jesus. Now against this you reply, that I do call them jesuits in" my book. But what is this to the purpose? is it not lawful for me to follow the common phrase of speech? or because I call them so, doth that prove that they challenge that name to themselves? secondly you say that Turrian a jesuit calleth them so: and what if he did, following the common manner of speech? doth that convince that they appoint that name unto themselves? but yet you are too too impudent to attribute this to Turrian, especially with such vehement asseveration as you do. 
Impudency.  For I have read the two chapters by you alleged twice, and that with as great diligence as I could: and albeit he doth call them by the name of the society of jesus fifty times in the same: 

Turianus in apologetico cap. 1. & 5.  
Fond exclaiming for nothing.   yet doth he not once name them jesuits. Wherefore this showeth with what conscience you write. And this being so: let the reader judge what cause you had to cry out in these words: What blasphemy is this, to abuse the most blessed name of jesus, for a colour to their blasphemous practices? Every thing is blasphemy with this angry gentleman, though it be but the moving of a straw but hear his reason: They draw to th●m selves alone (sayeth he) the comfortable name of jesus, which is common to all: No, (Sir william) you may have your part, if you exclude not yourself. For when any men leaveth all other cares and business to serve the Queen only: 
An evident example.  (for examples sake,) and professeth the same by some special name of her majesties devout servant: doth he injury other subjects hereby? or doth he take from them their interest in her Majesty? But the truth is, that malice would have you say somewhat against jesuits: marry their good life and virtue excludeth you from matter: you might have done well to have consulted with Eldertons' 
* Entitled. Gentle girckes for Jesuits to be-come true israelites.  rhyme, who proveth that they can not be called jesuits, for that they can not raise the dead, cure the lame, restore the blind, nor walk upon the water, as jesus did. Which proveth also, that they can not be called christians: for that Christ did the same things, and they can not: Nor yet old Elderton (I think) himself.    

OF religious men, and their vocation.  

THE CENSURE  
secondly you seek to deface the Society by contemptuous depraving of all (1.) religious men: calling them, Base & beggarly monks & friars, popish orders, 
Monks and friars.  and the like: wherein you follow the (2.) old heretics of the primative Church, whose property hath been from time to time, to hate and deprave those kind of men above all others, as S. Austen testifieth of the Manachies', 
In psa. 132 Li: 11. hist. cap. 3.  and Rufinus of the Arians. And petilian the donatist, following the same spirit, scoffed at S. Austen for being a friar, as S. Austen himself writeth in these words. 
Li. 3. cont. li. Petil. ca 40.  After this, Petilian proceeded on with his slanderous mouth, to speak evil of monasteries, and of monks, blaming me also for that I had set forth this kind of life, the which life either he knoweth not, what it meaneth, or else feigneth himself not to know it, though it be notorious to all the world. S. Austen saith this kind of life (of monks and friars and other religious men) was notorious and known to the world in his time, both in respect of the famous men, that had lived in the same, as Anthony, Paul, hilarion, basil, Nazianzen, Martin, Austen himself, and others: as also of the infinite books and treatises which holy fathers of the primative Church had written in defence and commendation of that kind of life: 
Books written in the commendation of monks and friars.  as Athanasius in the life of S. Anthony the abbot: beside a peculiar treatise entitled: An exhortation to monks or to Monastical life: S. basil also written a great volume entitled, Constitutions or laws for monks: beside divers other treatises of that argument, written both by himself, and by Gregory Nazianzen. S: Chrisostom hath four homilies extant in commendation of the life of monks: and two whole books, of the comparison between the Mounke & the king, wherein he preferreth the life of the monk, before that of the king. Also he written a book against you (M. Charke) entitled: Against the blamers of Monks and Monastical life. johannes Cassianus a little after, written 12. books entitled, Of the laws and ordinances of Monks. Severus Sulpitius written a dialogue containing the notable conversation of the Esterlie monks, with S. Martin Abbot of eighty monks. And finally, S. Austen (for I will come no lower) hath written many treatises of Monks, commending highly that excellent kind of life, and defending it against the detractions of heretics of his tyme.  
Let any man read his hundred thirty seven epistle, whereof the title is, That for a few evil monks we should not infame all monks. In which epistle he shall see all the slanderous arguments of all heretics, against this kind of men, answered. Wherefore M. Charke and his fellows in condemning and depraving the lives of monks and friars, follow their ancestors, and make war with all the Saints of Christ his holy Church, who have so much reverenced and commended the said life. In like manner, by calling them so often, Base and Beggarly, he showeth what, spirit he is of: 
Luc. 9 Ioh 11. Mat. 19  that is, far differing from the spirit of Christ, whose voluntary poverty is noted in the scripture, and the same most highly commended by him, to all his followers.   

THE DEFENCE.  

1 Of the word religious D. Tho. secunda secundae. q. 18. art. 1.  To this in effect is replied very little, beside a vain cavil or two, and certain ordinary evasions. for first, he misliketh greatly, that Monks, Nouns, and the like, are called religious people, as though they only (sayeth he) had religion in them. But this is a mere cavil. For these were not called religious by antiquity, for that they only had religion in them, but for that they made profession of more perfect following of Christian religion, than others, by removing worldly impediments, according to the counsel of Christ touching perfection: 
Marc. 10. 1. Cor. 7.  Mat. 19 & 16. & Esa. 56. where chastity, voluntary poverty, and abnegation of our own will, are commended and counseled to perfection, and the countraries thereof in other places of scripture showed to be great impediments. Now the vanity of this old heretical quarrel against religious, may be showed by a thousand examples. When we say, learned men, we mean only such as make profession of more excellent and deep learning, than the rest: and yet, we mind not thereby to exclude all other men from all learning and knowledge, besides them. When we call ecclesiastical persons, the clergy, that is, (according to the signification of the word) the lot or inheritance of God, 
C●EROS.  as all antiquity hath called them, namely the first council of Nice, almost in every Canon: And Origen and S. jerom. prove the use thereof out of the twelfth chapter of jeremy: 
Orig. ho. 7. in jere. Hier. in 12 jerem.  we mean not hereby, to exclude other Christians from all inheritance of Christ (as such a wrangler as Sir william, might cavil:) but that these men are more peculiarly, dedicated to god's service than other. The like, when we call only twelve Apostles: (which signifieth sent) we mean not that none were sent by Christ but they only: For we read of diverse others sent by him also Math 6. & Luc. 10. which in that sense are truly also Apostles: but we mean that those twelve were principally sent, and therefore by a certain excellency, only called Apostles. By which examples and infinite more it appeareth, that this man weygheth not what he sayeth, so he say somewhat.  
The second thing which he answereth is, 
2 Of Good & evil religious.  that he is not like the old heretics, for that they dispraised the good, and he only spoke against the bad religious people: As also S. Augustin himself & Barnard doth. Which I confess: and if M. Charke would stand to this his saying: we should quickly be at an end for this controversy: For we all speak against, and condemn evil monks, as we do also evil pryests, evil bishops, evil princes: And we say that their damnation shallbe far greater than the rest. But yet, we neither condem●e all to be evil, and much less (for the wickedness of some) do we condemn the whole state, and order of life. And in these two points we differ, aswell from the old heretics (as may appear by S. Augustine alleged in the Censure,) as also from M. Charke and his fellows: who both condemn all religious people, of our time to be lewd, (which is wicked presumption clean contrary to the scripture forbidding to judge, Rom. 2. & 1. cor. 4.) and for their supposed evil life, do also condemn their whole vocation: 
Against S●●pleton pag. 96. &  which is an heretical sophistry, as S. Augusten proveth ep. 137. I confess (sayeth M. Fulke) there were colleges of virgins and Monks within the first six hundred years, after Christ, but they differed as much from your nuns, as these from honest women: and as much from your popish boars, as Angels do from: devils. If I had not named this doctor: you might have known him, by his tongue, especially if you have any skill in ruffianlie speech: But by this you see that these men's last refuge against Monks and nuns, is to say they are not like the old monks and nuns of the primative church: and the differences you shall now hear out of M. Charke: It is a plain injury (saith he) ●o match those ancient monks of the primative church wi●h those of the popish orders. For the old Monks lived in their houses without vows, as students of divinity in colleges: they were ho●ie, painful, and learned: ●hey laboured with their hands: their societies were Nourices of good learning and godly life, to furnish afterwards the church: whereto being once called they ceased to be Monks, and left their Monasteries.  

WHETHER THE State of our monks & No●●es be the same as was in the primative church  here are in effect, four or five differences given between our monks and those of the primative church, to prove that their states of life are not the same. All which (except only the first) if they were proved or granted as they lie, do not prove one jot of diversity in their state of life, though somewhat in their manners. As we may easily grant, that the men of no state do live so perfectly now, in their vocation, as they did in the primative church: and yet this doth not alter their state or vocation. For example: If I should reason against the bishops of England, as M. Charke doth against Monks: 
1. Cor. 4.  our bishops are not so learned painful and holy as they of the primative church were: ●hey do not labour with their hands, as the first bishops did, they do not go a foot, preach of freecost, watch, pray, & fast, as they did: therefore they are no bishops, or their vocations is not the same that the others was: is this a good argument? no surely, nor you shall never find it used by a Catholic man. For by this means we might overthrow all states, seeing that they live not so well as man of their calling in the primative church did. We can distinguish between the life of men and their vocation or state of life. And though we mislike the one, yet we can permit the other. Only troublesome heretics from the beginning (to engarboyle common wealths) have impugned the states of life, 
Heretical consequences.  for the vicious manners (either true or supposed) of some private men: as for that some pope lived evil, therefore no popedom, no authority to be granted him. For that some monks or nuns have lived wickedly, and contrary to their vocation: therefore no monks or nuns are to be permitted.  
And this is now upon supposal, that all were true which M. Charke saith of these differences: 
Charks bold slandering of all religious people.  which is nothing so. For with what modesty, or conscience can he, sitting in England, give sentence of all the monks and friars in Christendom abroad, that they are unlearned, unpainful, and unholy, having never had experience of all their lives himself, and seeing so many learned works written by them daily? he might hear (if he were in these places) infinite preachers of them (through out Europe and further) with great example of virtue, to labour painfully in god's church: argueth not this an intolerable and indiscrete malice then, to condemn them all so peremptorily as he doth? And as for labouring with their hands, though it be not necessary ●o any, if they be occupied in greater matters: yet there is no monastery where in some do not exercise that function also: those I mean, which are not otherwise employed in service of the church, preaching, or ministering of the sacraments. And for the last point, of not yielding ministers to serve the church: It is too open and apparent a slander. For as I have said of preachers: so may I say of bishops, chosen every where out of monasteries to govern in god's church. And Pius Quintus within the space of five years, chose 70. learned men for bishops, out of one only order of religious men, besides all other. Wherefore this man (as you see) talketh of all Christendom, from his poor benefice by London, as barbers are wont to do, of common wealths, by report only of such as frequent their shops to be trimmed.  

TOUCHING RELIGIOUS VOWS.  But in deed the first difference which he putteth is to the purpose, and of great importance: (I mean touching vows) if it were true, that is, if he were able to prove that the monks of the primative church, made no vows as he affirmeth. For I do confess, that the making of those three vows, of poverty, obedience, and chastity, are the essential points of a religious life. And therefore if old monks did not vow: I confess their state of life, was not the same with that of our religious people at this day, And therefore M. Chark should have proved this point substantially: and then in deed he had done some what. But he bringeth not so much as one syllable for the proof thereof besides his own credit, which is not worth half a syllable in this matter against monks, whom he hateth so insatiablie. But yet mark his subtility. S. Augustin doth make mention of some things by him named, 
De mor. eccl. cap. 31 de opere monach● c. 14. & 15. Cogginge & foystinge.  as for example, of the holy conversation and labour of monks in his time: under pretence whereof M. Charke q●otethe him in the margin, and placeth the quotation over right against the matter of voweinge: that under that shadow, he might tell a lie or two, with some credit, as he hath done. For S. Augustin hath no one word against the voweinge of Monks in his time: but clean contrariwise he testifieth the same most plainly. As for example, 
In Psal. 75. circa finem.  where he showeth a reason to a monk why he could not live out of his monastery, as other do, without damnation, he sayeth to him: 
Questione vel regula 14. fusius explica●a.  Illi non voverunt, tu vovisti: they have not vowed, thou hast vowed., And S. Basil before him confirmeth the same saying, that Monks in their profession, solenni se voto obligabant Deo: Did bind themselves to God by a solemn vow, which to break, was, sacrilegii se sce●ere obligare: To inwrappe themselves in the heinous sin of sacrilege. 
Ep. 6. ad Theodorum lapsum. Heb. 13.  The same doth S. Christsostom teach, writing to a monk that would gladly have take a wife, and alleged for himself S. Paul, (as our men do) that marriage was honourable in all men. But S. Chrisostom answereth: honorabiles fateor nuptias at vero in te adulterii nomen a●cip●et, si volveris unquam (quod abs●t) nuptias cogi●are. I confess, that marriage is honourable in others, (sayeth he:) But in thee it shall be adultery, if ever (which God forbid,) thou showldest think on marriage. Nay, he addeth further: Adulterio illud peius aff●rmo: I do affirm it to be worse than adultery.  
The like have they of Sanctimonialls or nuns, 
nuns.  in respect of their vow. Sanctimonialis si nupserit (sayeth S. Augustin) Christi adultera reputabitur: 
In psa. 83.  If a Nun marry she shallbe esteemed as adulteress to Christ And S. jeron. sayeth, 
Lib. count jovinian.  damnationem habebit, quia primam fidem irritam fecit: she shallbe damned, for that she hath broken her first faith. And S. Cyprian sayeth. She committeth incest. 

Li. 1. ep. 11.  
Li. de vir. cap. 29.  
Li. ad vir. lap. cap. 5.  
De bono v● duitatis c. 9●  
Ibid. ca 8.   Chrisostom sayeth: Intolerabili scelere se astringit: she bindeth herself with an intolerable wicked deed. S. Ambrose sayeth: she committeth spiritual adultery, for punishment whereof no death can be devised severe enough. Finally, S. Augustin saith. Etiamsi non nubat, velle nubere damnabile est: Albeit she marry not, yet is it damnable unto her, to have but a will of Marriage. Wherefore he giveth this counsel generally to all, Proinde quae se non continent, nubant antequam continentiam profitean●ur, antequam Deo voveant: quod nisi reddant, iure damnantur: Therefore, they which can not contain, let them marry before they profess continence, before they make their vow to God: the which vow except they keep, they are justly damned.  
What will M. Charke say now to this, and to much more that might be brought for this matter? may not he blush to have made (in saying that the religious of the primative church made no vows) so open and manifest a lie? but he cacheth hold of a hem of my garment, saying, that how soever the matter go otherwise, yet all the wisdom of your Censurshipp can not make our Augustin a friar. Which is your Augustin (M. Chark) I can not tell, but if you mean S. Augustin the holy doctor, that I last alleged: me think (by that he sayeth) you have small cause, to call him yours. If you should ask my lord of hereford, or any other coupled friar in England: I think he would scarce call him his. But I know you say this in disclaiming of the other S. Augustin, which was our first Apostle, and planter of Christian faith in England. 
Against purge. pag. 333. and against stapl●t: pa. 14. Against bristoe pag. 19 and against staplet. pag. 1.  Whom M. Fulke termeth a proud, cruel, and unlearned Monk that perverted the Saxons, and corrupted the sincerity of our country, by working of lying and false miracles And S. Bede a credulous and fabulous man which comm●nded Austen so much. A small reward for so great a benefit. But I would fain know of you (M. Charke) that are a preacher, why you do give out this difference and distinction to your followers of Augustin the doctor, and Augustin the Monk: were they not both Monks? doth not S. Augustin the doctor confess it of him self here in the Censure alleged? if that do not suffice: read the same confession of himself in diverse other parts of his works, as in ep. 89. and tract. 1. de come: vita clericorum: and read Possidius in his life, who lived 40. years with him, and addeth, that diverse of S. Augustins Monks, instituted many monasteries in his life time. 
Whether S. Augustine were a friar or no.  But (say you) he was no friar. In deed the english names of friar or Monk were not then extant, for that we were not yet Christians. But the Latin names frater and monachus were attributed to him, as may appear in the places alleged. Which, joined with the vows, whereof I spoke before, do prove the thing, what soever you may wrangle of the English name. But what require you more to make him a friar after the english fashion? if you will have me guess at his apparel, it were hard; and nothing pertinent, for that only the vows make the vocation, as hath been showed. yet S. Ambrose maketh mention de nigro cucullo, & c●ngulo ex corio: 
Scr. 94.  Of the black hood, and the girdle of leather, that S. Augustin did wear. Now they which know the habit of Austen friars, let them consider how nigh this goeth to that matter. Albeit (as I said) the weed little importeth, when we have the substance of the vocation.  
The last words of the Censure touching Christ's spirit of voluntary poverty, 
Of the voluntary poverty of Christ.  offendeth greatly our replier. The example of Christ (sayeth he) is alleged most blasphemously against his Majesty. Still the word blasphemy, must be one. But what is the reason? when did Christ ever whip himself saith M. Charke? Yet the choler of whipping is not past from M. Charks stomach. But I answer: he had no rebellion in his flesh as we have, by reason of the conflict of concupiscence left us: for resisting whereof we use mortification of our body, according to S. Paul's counsel, coloss. 3. Neither is it necessary that we should do nothing in this kind, but what we read expressly Christ to have done: Albeit, to give us also example herein, 
Marc. 6. & 9 Luc. 6.  we read of his great fasting, and long praying, with lying all night on the ground, which not withstanding I think you ministers will not imitate. But you add: Christ frequented public assembleys, & was sometimes entertained at great feasts. Yea marry, this is for good cheer: this is more pleasant than the doctrine of the whip. And did you never hear (Sir) of religious men invited also to a feast or assembly? You are wont to call them belly gods for that cause: and how is this ●tile so soon changed? O malice, how blind and frantic art thou? But you ask again. 
Sap. 2.  What worldly blessings given him by his father did he at ●ny time abandon? how doth his example recommend voluntary poverty? I ask you (M. Charke) if he that was Lord of all, chose to live of alms, and of such things as were sent him: 
Luc. 14. Math. 19 Marc. 10. Luc. 18. & 12.  as the scripture signifieth Io: 12. Luc 8. was not this voluntary poverty in himself? And he that counseled men to renounce all they possessed, for his service, and to give all to the poor, that would be perfect: did not he recommend voluntary poverty to other, though he commanded it not? If the Apostles left all propriety, and did live in common, 
Act. 2. Act. 4. & 5.  as the scripture noteth: and many good Christians chose to sell all they had, and to offer it to that community (though not upon constraint as S. Luke testifieth:) And if Ananias and Saphira for breaking their vow of poverty, made with the Apostles (as S. Basil and S. jerom, 
S. Basil. ser. 1. de insti. monach. S: jer. ep. 8. ad demetriadem.  and other ancient fathers do testify,) were so terribly punished by death, for the terror of all vow breakers: then no doubt, but this was done either by the example, or by the recommendation of Christ, which you make so strange, as you stick not to affirm it, Anabaptistical condemning of propriety. Good God, how far may fond fury drive a man, that hath no guide? 
In c. 19 Mat. & ep. 8 add dame. In reg. fusius explicat: interrogat. 9 Li. 17. de civi. c. 4.  I pray you read but S. jerom, upon the words of Christ, go and sell all: Also S. Basil upon the same words: As also S. Chrisostome upon the words of S. Paul. Sa●utaete pris●am: and perhaps you will alter your judgement, espiciallie if you will credit S. Augustin, who proveth out of the same chapter, that the Apostles themselves votum paupertatis voverunt, made a vow of poverty.  
But as for the worldly blessings which you talk so much of in this and other places of your booke● I know that all creatures are blessings of God, but yet all use of all, is nether commanded, nor commended to all. You know who sayeth: All things are lawful, but all are not expedient. 
1. Cor. 6. & 10.  The carnal jews were much enticed by those blessings in the old testament: but in the new testament, you shall never find Christians either alured to them, or dandled and smoothed in them, as you do your followers: but rather to the contrary, many threats and hard sayeings are uttered against richemen, 
Mat. 19 Marc. 10. Lu. 6. & 18 1. Tim. 6. Apo. 18. Rom. 16.  and such as live in pleasures and ease of this world. And therefore your often repeating, and tickling fleshly hearts with naming carnal and worldly blessings, proveth you (if I be not deceived) to be one of them, whereof the Apostle sayeth: they serve not Christ, but their own belly, and do seduce innocent hearts by sweet words and blessings.   

THE CENSURE.  
thirdly, you endeavour to bring the Jesuits in contempt by their obscure conception (as you term it) from one Loyal as a Spaniard, and had not their fulll creation and commission until about thirty years past, from pope paulus quartus. Wherein you err: for it was from Paulus (1.) 
1.  tertius, the third pope before Paulus quartus, and the third pope after lo decimus, in whose time Luther began. So that there is not much difference, between jesuits and protestants, in their antiquity of name, marry in matter very great: for the protestants faith and belief began at that time: but the Jesuits, following with humility the faith which they found in the Catholic Church, only began a straiter kind of life in manners and behaviour, 
The true life of jesuits.  than the common sort of people used: for reforming of whose vices, they dedicated themselves to God, and to all kind of labour, pains, travail, and peril, with abandoning all worldly pleasures, and all possibility of preferment in the same, so far forth, as none of that Society hath, or may take any spiritual or temporal livings, or commodities what soever, though divers great princes have pressed them often times with the same, but of free cost they preach & teach in all places where they are sent, with all humility of spirit, and without intermeddling with matters of estate, as shallbe showed more hereafter. Wherefore M. Charke offereth them the greater wrong in charging them with the contrary. 
M. Hanmers' notorious lie.  And M. Hanmers' impudency is the more to be wondered at, who blusheth not to put in print so notorious an untruth in the sight of all the world, and to repeat, urge and amplify the same so often in his book, saying, that one (2) 
2.  Theatinus a jesuit hypocritically got to be Cardinal and pope, 
Vide jaco. payvam: li. 1. de ortho. explicat.  meaning thereby Paulus quartus, called before johannes Petrus Caraffa of the order of Theatines, and not of jesuits, which all the world knoweth to be two several and distinct orders of religion. And therefore M. Hanmer with friar Bale, whom he citeth in the margin, may be ashamed of so false a slander, both towards the man, and also the religion.   

THE DEFENCE.  
Little defence needeth here, for that the replier hath nothing in effect to say, beside a railing sentence or two against the jesuits: saying, that they eat the sins of the people. 
Os●e. 4.  Whereas these men, neither taking any charge of souls upon them, nor receiving any tithes or other commodities for the same, (both which things M. Chark doth) the reader may easily judge, whether her or they stand more in danger of that sentence. His error of taking Paulus quartus for Paulus tertius, he excuseth by saying, that kemnitius writeth so. But this rather accuseth than excuseth the fact, adjoining also wilful malice to the error, which might have seemed before of ignorance only. For he had read kennitius reproved for the same by Andradius, 
Li. 1. ortho. ●xpli.  (as he confesseth) which was sufficient, being in so manifest a matter, as all christendom can bear witness of the same. And he easily discovereth his conscience of kemnitius his false and absurd writing of the jesuits, in that he passeth over, as unanswerable, the lie objected to M. Hanmer, taken out of kennitius also, about the said Paulus quartus whom he calleth Theatinus. But M. Hanmer, 
HANMERS' LIE.  for saving his honesty, answereth it, marry with such success, as men that take in hand to amend old tub by knocking, wherein often in stead of stopping one hole, they make many. For first he sayeth, that in denyeinge Paulus quar●us to be a jesuit, I confess him to be an hypocrite. Behold a new crack. For my answer in the Censure showeth the contrary. secondly he sayeth, that I will have only Andradius payva a jesuit and a partial writer, to be of more credit in this matter, than many other learned men. Behold an other breach & that a great one. For payva was no jesuit, nor could write partially in this matter, being a matter only of fact, and that public to all the world. For it is as evident and well known that Paulus quartus was never jesuit, as it is, that the king of France was never franciscan friar. And although diverse Lutherans of germanie following kemnitius his error, and their own blind hatred against Popes, have written the contrary: yet (the matter being so apparent) it little importeth, seeing there may be alleged ten for one, to the contrary, if the thing were doubtful, or worthy dicussing.   

THE CENSURE.  
But because M. Charke objecteth against the jesuits, 
Loyolas & Luther's life.  their first father Loyolas, whom contemptuously he calleth a soldier: And M. Hanmer, a cryppled soldier, which lived in the same time with friar Luther, progenitor of the protestants: Let us consider in two or three words, the difference between these two men: whereby it may appear, which of them had the better spirit, and whether of them may more justly give credit and commendation to their followers. The lives of them both are extant, written by men of their own times, which knew them and lived with them, and therefore I shall easily discharge my credit, for that which I shall out of these writers report of them.  
IGNATIUS DE LOYOLA was a gentleman of a noble house in spain, 

Ignatius the beginner of Jesuits.  
Vide Laco. payvam li. 1. orthodo: explicat & Pe. Mass un. in vita Ignatij de Loyola.   which yet remaineth, who being chief captain of Pompeiopolis, & defending it against ●he frenshmen, in the year 1536, was hurt & taken ●ris●ner by the same. But afterwards being perfectly ●ealed, and courteously restored to liberty again, and ●ow in great possibility of honour and preferment in ●is country, resolved himself to serve God, only for the time to come, and to take pains for the gaining of heaven. Whereupon leaving all his friends, & distributing all that he had to the poor: stole away from the Court, and be took himself to a marvelous strait life, and after he had with continual labour of many years, gotten learning, & gained many souls from sin, unto virtue, and from the devil unto almighty God, by his example of austere life & godly persuasions: there adjoined themselves unto him, nine others of diverse nations in the university of Paris, to the like travelsome life for gaining of souls. Which kind of life was afterwards (after diverse examinations and probations of their spirit & purpose) allowed and confirmed by pope Paulus ter●ius, and so consequently (diverse whorthie men leaving the world, and taking upon them that order of life) was made a distinct order, of religious men, in the which this Ignatius both lived and died with singular example of all humility, virtue, & holiness, but especially in zeal of gaining of souls and recalling men from sin, & his posterity after him hath by imitation of the same virtues, brought forth infinite fruit into the world.  


Luther beginner of the new gospel.  
Vide joan. Cocle: in vi. Lutheri. & Lindan. lib. de fug. Ido. ca, 8. & 9   MARTIN LUTHER walking in his youth in a certain meadow, was strooken with a thunder boolt, & thereupon suddenly for very fear made himself an Austen friar, where after in the Abbay of Erford, serving in the church upon the third sunday in lent, when the gospel was read of the deaf and dumb devil thrown out by Christ, he suddenly fel● down on the pavement, and the devil cried horribly out of his mouth, saying: I am not, I am not dumb, I will speak yet unto the world. After this, upon a certain emulation and contention, between him & the friars of S. Dominiks' order, he left his religion, cast away his habit, broke his vows, married a Nun, and by little and little began to preach strange new doctrines, especially tending to all liberty and carnality, as for example saying.  
There is no sin but incredulity: nether can a man damn himself, do what mischief he can, except he will refuse to believe. 
Luther's do strine.  In his book de capt. babil. ca de bapt.  
The ten commandments appertain nothing to us. Serm. de Moys.  
It is a false opinion, and to be abolished, that there are four gospels. For the gospel of john is the only fair, true & principal gospel. In prefat ad nowm testan. And this he said, because the other three gospels spoke too much of good works.  
If any woman can not, or will not prove by order of law, the insufficiency of her husband: let her request at his hands a divorce, or else by his consent, let her lie privily with his brother, or with some other man. lib. de matrim. in epithal supper 1. cor. 7.  
If the wife will not come, let the maid come. Serm. de matrim.  
Matrimony is much more excellent than virginity. lib. de vot. evang.  
Christ and S. Paul did not counsel, but dissuade virginity unto Christians. lib, de vot. Monast.  
It is as necessary for every man to have a wife, as it is, to eat, drink, or sleep. lib. de vot. coniug, & in assert. art. 16.  
All Christians are as holy, and as just, as the mother of God, and as the Apostles were. Serm. de Tri. de B. Maria, & come. ep. 1. pet.   

THE DEFENCE.  
M. Charke, as wanting matter of just reply i● this place, wriggleth at the beginning to & fro, to avoid the force of this comparison between Ignatius and Luther, saying: That it is impertinent: But the reason thereof is laid down, in the Censure: And as for the fond arguments which he would enforce out of my meaning, to prove, that Ignatius might begin a society, and Luther distain their gospel. (Which notwithstanding he granteth not to be set down expressly in the Censure,) I leave to M. Chark, as poor devices to solace his own miseries with all in this his distress, when taking upon him to make a book, and his promise being passed to his friends of the same, he now findeth nothing to fill up pages, except he wander out, to such Idle imaginations, as never came in the Censurers head to think upon. But at length, yet, let us hale him to the matter, and see what he sayeth. For Ignatius, (he saith) I will pass over. For Martin Luther (before he cometh to the matters objected) he exclaimeth greatly against me for alleging Coclaeus, Hosius, Lyndanus, and Saints, as witnesses in my reports, being (as he sayeth) of our religion, and enemies to Luther. But consider (I beseech you) the equity of this complaint. If I did allege these men's judgements against Luther in matters of controversy: his exception might seem to have some reason, but seeing I allege them only in matter of fact, known to other men aswell as to themselves: why should M. Chark take the matter so grievously? by this reason no story should be credited, if the reporter were of a contrary religion. I say not this to justify all histories. 
john Sleidan a famous liar.  For it is well known of the eleven thousand lies written by Sleidan in favour of the protestants, and refuted by Bartholomeus Latomus, even by the testimony of them, which were present at the doings, as shall be showed after. But when there is no reason, nor proof, to deny a fact reported by such men, as now I have named, whereof the most were Germans, and knew Luther well, and the first of them lived with him, 
Cocleus.  and took upon himself to write the particular story of his life, while Luther lived, & to set it forth, when all Germany could reprehend him, if it had not been true: And the other being reverend and learned bishops, and had great means and occasions to know the truth of the facts they writ: why should M. Charke take it so impatiently, and think it such unjust dealing, to allege their authorities, not in matters of judgement and doctrine (as I have said) but only in report of facts, which they could not devise of themselves, without damnable wickedness, nor report to the world without open shame, and reproof, if the things had been false?  
But let us examine the reports themselves, perhaps they will yield some occasion of justyfieinge their reporters. And first (to discredit mine Authors with all) M. Charke beginneth with a report of his own, and not of mine: 
Whether Luther were begotten of a devil.  saying, that I left out for shame the report of Prateolus, that Luther was begotten of a devil. But yet this is nothing to the discredit of the other four Authors named before, if Prateolus had reported amiss of Luther, and I concealed or passed over the same. For nether could I in that little book, nor was it necessary for me to recite what soever I found written of Luther. secondly, M. Charke greatly bewrayeth his falseholde in this point, and justifieth our true dealing. For Prateolus followeth not the fashion of protestants in affirming absolutely, 
The difference of protestants & Catholics in reporting.  what so ever they hear, or can imagine against us: but rather the good conscience of a Catholic man, which is to lay down things as in deed they are, without adding or amplifieing the same. He sayeth then, that diverse men had written this thing of Luther, and a matron of Lipsia in Germanye did affirm it. 
Gab. prateol. lib. 10. de haeres. pag. 27.  But he himself neither affirmeth nor denieth it. His words are these: Sunt qui Lutherum scribunt ex incubo natum, qui eius ma●rem balnei publici seruulam oppressit●sed nescio cuius sit fidei: fides sit penes lipsicam illam Matronam, cui matter eius fuit notissima: There are, that writ Luther to have been borne of an Incubus (that is of a filthy spirit abusing women in place of man) which oppressed his mother, when she was a servant in a common bathe in Germany: but I know not of what credit it is: the credit dependeth of that matron of lypsia, which reported it, and knew well his mother.  
Here now you see the modesty of Prateolus his report, and the bold impudency of w: Chark; in saying that he avoucheth that, which (as you see) he avoucheth not. But yet, whether M. Charkes impudency or folly were greater, I can not tell, in making mention of this thing, being so fowl a matter against their first prophet. For what will he say? that it is false? yet at least there remaineth a shameful suspicion, upon the report of diverse writers, and the asseveration of a Matron, which belike had it of the confession of Luther's mother herself. And the probability of the thing seemeth not have been so great in those days, as Erasmus believed it, which yet, by M. Charkes judgement, was no papist. For in his purgation ad epistolam Lutheri non sobrianis. That is, to Luther's drunken epistle, he alludeth to the same, saying, Mirum est impio & blasphemo sermoni non addidisse de ineubonibus etc. It is marvel that Luther had not added somewhat of Incubons, or filthy spirits that abuse women, to the rest of his wicked and blasphemous speech.  
But now if M. Charke will stand upon the denial, not so much of the fact, as of the nature of the thing itself, as impossible, that spirits can so abuse lewd women that will consent to their lusts: I will oppose S. Augustine against him, 
Li. 15. de ci ui. dei. c. 23.  who sayeth, it were impudency to deny it, and proveth it by many ways, as also Ludovicus vives doth upon the same place of S. Augustine. What then hath M. Charke gained by mentioning of this which I left out?  

Whether Luther were strooken with a thunder. bolt.  Touching the matter of the Thunder bolt, though M. Charke denieth it stoutly, and (as Lyndans report only) would seek to discredit the same by objecting certain things against Lindan, which are not true: yet is it not B. Lyndan only that doth report it (as he well knoweth) but the consent of other writers besides. 
Prateol. conhaer. li. 10. an. 1517.  Prateolus his words are these. Martin Luther after the study of law, when he had been stricken down in the field with a blow of lightning, and terrified by the death of his companion, professed himself an Austen friar. here are touched two things: his striking down, and the death of his companion: which could be no jest. And albeit there appeared in his body no wound of the thunder bolt (as M. Chark cavyleth:) yet might he be stricken down with the fear thereof. And Melancthon himself, who otherwise dissembleth most diligently all matters turning to the dishonour of his Master: yet maketh he mention both of this fear, and also of the death of his companion, and granteth it to have been one principal motive of his entrance into religion. 
In praefat. tom. 5. operum Lutheri, wittemb. anno. 1562  His words are these: Hos terrores seu primum, seu accerrime sensit eo anno, cum sodalem nescio quo casu interfectum amisisset: Luther felt thes terrors & fears, either first, or most sharply that year, wherein he lost his companion, slain, I know not by what chance.  
Nay, Martin Luther confesseth the matter himself, 
This epistle was written 21. of novemb. 1521. & is prefixed before his book. De votis monasti cis. tom. 5.  in an epistle to his father john Luther, to whom he yieldeth a reason of his running out of religion, by his unlawful entrance thereunto: Memini nimis (sayeth he) present cum iam placatus mecum loquereris, & ego de coelo terroribus me vocatum assereren. Neque enim libens & cupiens fiebam monachus, sed terrore & agone mortis subitae circumuallatus vovi coactum & necessarium votum. I do remember too well when you being pacified, talked with me present, & I affirmed that I was called by terrors from heaven to enter into religion. For I was not made a friar willingly, and of my own desire, but being environed with terror, and with the agony of sudden death, I made a vow upon necessity and enforcement. here the matter is evident by Luther himself, which M. Charke so confidently denieth, and crieth out against bishop Lindan for reporting the same: 
Belyinge of Lyndan.  saying: That he will not believe Lyndan in this, no more than he will believe his report that the calvinists do worship the Image of the devil. 
De fugiendis Idolis.  In deed he sayeth that Caluinists do adore their own imaginations suggested by the devil, above all authority or proof besides, (as all other heretics do) and in that sense do honour the devil. Again, he sayeth that in the year of our lord 1572. when calvinists went to overthrow a monastery at a town called Leyden in flanders: they erected the sign of the devil in their public banner, which never Christians did before. If M. Chark could have refuted any of these particulars: he should have done well. But by his general report, though he seek to bring Lyndan in hatred: yet it turneth to his own discredit, & relieveth nothing his cause in hand. 
The devil cryeing out of Luther's mouth.   
For the devil crying out of Luther's mouth, though M. Chark would seem to deny it: yet bringeth he not one syllable in disprofe thereof: & so many particulars are put down by Coclaeus, who lived with him: as every man may see that the matter was evident. And no protestant in Germany (where the matter was done, as where also (being Lutherans) they do esteem Luther's honour more than calvinists do) never yet hath been able to reprove the same. But now come we to the doctrines of liberty and carnality, which the Censure affirmeth Luther to have taught, after he had once coped with a Nun. 
Luther's lying with a Nun in the lord.  Which M. Charke after his ministerial phrase expresseth in these words. When the lord had opened his eyes, thinking himself no longer tied to his unadvised and superstitious vow, he married in the lord, and all this was lawful. But how soever you name the lord (M. Chark) to cover this lascivious lechery of a renegade friar with his vowed lady: yet I have showed before, out of the ancient fathers, that this pretended marriage, on both parts was esteemed worse than adultery in the primative church: whereof he that will see more, let him read. S. Basil de monast. const. cap. 22.34. & 35. Also quest. 14. fuse explicat. Also S. Augustin in Psal. 78. & 99 also council. Chalced. cap. 26. Also fulgentius de fide ad Pet. ca 3. And finally S. Leo. ep. 92. ad Rusticum.  
But now to the doctrines themselves, 
Of Luther carnal doctrines.  in which I will be as short as I may in defence of my reports, being most true, as shall appear by luthers own words, and that in those books of his, and editions which are to be had in England publicly: So that the adversary shall have no more refuge to say he can not find the book. And as M. Charks untrue dealing hath been indifferently descried by that which went before: so shall it be much more by these doctrines of Luther. And because both M. Hanmer and M. Charke have taken upon them severally to answer the same: I will couple them together, where soever they have any thing worth the noting, advertising the reader by the way, that whereas Luther hath diverse editions of his works, and diverse of them diversly translated, 
Why the same book in Luther sometimes hath divers titles.  out of duche into latin: he must not marvel if the same book some times have diverse titles, though I mean now to city them under such names (as nigh as I can) as they are to be seen, in the edition of wittenberg set forth, and as I have seen them myself in England by melancthon Anno 1562.  

The first doctrine.  
first then, 
No sin with Luther but incredulity.  I affirmed Luther to teach, that there is no sin but incredulity: neither can a man damn himself, (do what mischief he can) except he will refuse to believe. M. Hanmer denieth not this doctrine: but defendeth it: 
M. HANMER.  only adding, that I have racked Luther's words upon the tentors of prejudice: and then showeth at large how all sins do lie sooking in the root of incredulity. Which is some what too fine for me to understand. M. Chark goeth further, saying: 
M. Charke  I may plainly pronounce that in this place you do in words and matter report an open untruth: For M. Luther hath no such doctrine. here is no agreement in the deffenders, the one grauntinge it, & the other so flatly denyeing the same. But who would think M. Charke could answer thus without blushing? 
De capt Babil. c. de Ba. to. 2. wittenb.  hear Luther's own words: Ita vides quàm dives sit homo Christianus, sive Baptizatus, qui etiam volens non potest perdere salutem suam, quantiscunque peccatis, nisi nolit credere. Nulla enim peccata eum possunt damnare nisi sola incredulitas: So thou seest how rich a Christian man is, who can not lose his salvation (though he would) with never so great sins, except he will not believe. For no sins can damn him but only incredulity. Again, in the same tome he sayeth: 
Pag. 73.  Infidelitas sola turbatio est conscientiae: only infidelity is a trouble of conscience. Is not here now as much as I have said? If nothing must trouble a man's conscience, but only unbelief: then nothing is sin but only unbelief. Again, if a man can not lose his salvation if he would, never so fain, (by committing never so great sins) except he will not believe: then may a man do what he will, so he fall not into incredulity. But yet to shame these shameless men; a little further, and to show the wicked licentious doctrine of this lose apostata: hear more what he sayeth in an other place. Nihil prawm facit praeter infidelitatem. Nothing maketh a man evil besides infidelity. 
Concione. prima super dom. post trini.  And a little after he concludeth thus: Ex hiis omnibus sequitur, qd nullum usque in terris sit peccatum preter incredulitatem: Of all this that I have said, ensueth that there is no sin any where upon the earth besides incredulity. Now let the world judge whether I have reported Luther amiss, or whether M. Chark be a true man, in denyeinge the matter so absolutely & with such vehemency as he doth, affirming that Luther nether in words or matter hath any such thing. Will you believe him in other things which faceth a lie so openly in this. But a lack the poor man must say somewhat, for credits sake in their broken cause.   

The second doctrine.  

The ten commandments by Luther appertain nothing to us.  secondly I reported Luther to say, the ten commandments appertain nothing to us: Which very words both M. Hanmer and M. Charke do grant to be in Luther. Marry they make long discourses upon his meaning, whereby it is easy to put on a colourable defence or excuse upon any thing. But let the reader considered how these words do sound in the ears of the people, especially being joined with the doctrine going before, of only unbelief to be sin. And albeit it be true which M. Chark showeth out of S. Paul that we are not under the ceremonial law of the jews any longer: Yet this can not verify Luther'S words that the ten commandments appertain nothing to us. No, nor that which M. Hanmer allegeth out of Luther as interpreting himself, saying, that the ten commandements appertain to all, but not for that they were commanded by Moses: but for that they are written in the nature of every man: For that by this means they should no more appertain to us than unto gentiles, into whose nature also they were writé. But S. Augustin doth prove that the ten commandments do appertain to Christians, 
Tract. 3. in johan.  not only more than unto Gentiles, but also more than unto the jews themselves, to whom they were prescribed by Moses. And Christ saith, talking of this part of the law, called Moral: 
Math. 5. Rom. 3.  I came not to break the la, but to fulfil it. And S. Paul sayeth: We do not destroy the la by faith, but do establish the la thereby.   

The third doctrine.  
thirdly, 
One only true gospel by Luther.  I reported of Luther that he said: It is a false opinion & to be abolished, that there are four gospels. For the gospel of john is the only fair, true, and principal gospel. This report M. Hanmer granteth wholly. M. Chark granteth the effect of the first and chief words, but the latter, concerning S. john's gospel he findeth not: And thereupon thinketh that Luther never wrote any such preface to the new testament as I city, and therewithal inveigheth against me, as citing at large, and often times books which are not found: as that de missa angulari: Also as layeing down one title for an other, and the like. For answer whereof & other such cavylls of our adversaries against us in citing of Luther's works, 
Touching variety in alleging of Luther's works.  it is to be noted, that Luther wrote not all in latin, but many things in duchy, which are notwithstanding alleged by many men in latin, skilful in the duchy tougue● After this, diverse men translated diverse parts of Luther's works, & gave them titles according as it seemed good to them, as may appear by the diverse titles alleged here by M. Chark and me, of the self same work. Beside this, there be diverse prints and editions of Luther's works, which do greatly vary. Whereupon hath ensued great quarrel in Germany between the rough and the soft Lutherans, about the false and corrupt edition of Luther's works. And this treatise, 

Walteru● con●ra au●ifabrum de corrupta editione operum Lutheri. An. 1566.  
In Catalogo de libris lutheri. In blibliotheca sua. fol. 503.   which M. Charke doubteth of, de Missa angulari so printed, and alleged by all learned men hitherto, is now come forth (except I be deceived) in the edition of wittenberg (thoghe much altered) under this title de Missa privata, & unctione sacerdotum. Marry yet Gesnerus a Caluinist maketh mention of five treatises de Missa privata, which are not to be gotten in England, as I imagine: and yet it were no reason to say therefore, that no such treatises were ever written by Luther, as M. Charke doth. Further more, Luther himself often changed his own works: as the same Gesner testifieth that the book which he wrote against king henry in latin, was nothing like that he wrote before against the same in duchy. Beside this, diverse other did alter Luther's works, both Suinglians and lutherans even in Luther's own time, thereby to draw him to their devices, and parts. 
Ep ad ●o. haruagium tipographun Argen●inē sem.  And of Suinglians, Luther himself complaineth grievously, against Martin Bucer. And of Lutherans, it appeareth not only by the contention above named, about the corrupt edition of Luther's works: But also by the often altering of the confession of Augusta, written by Luther and Melancthon, and accounted as a Gospel among the German protestants, yea preferred before the Epistles of S. Paul, 
Alas●o in epistola sua ad regem Poloniae. In harmonia confess. Augustanae.  as Alasco a Caluiniste doth write, but yet many times altered, as ye may see in Andrew fabritius, which hath put forth all the editions from the beginning, much differing & repugning one from an other: by all which appeareth, that heretics do prepare themselves starting holes for all needs.  
But now to the matter: Albeit M. Charke and M. Hanmer do gloze upon the words of Luther, & would have him say only, that the four gospels were but one gospel, and the like: yet the matter is plain to him that is not partial, that Luther speaketh in detraction of the three former gospels: for which cause he sayeth in the place by M. Charke alleged, 
In enarrat in epist. pet. Tom. 3. witenb.  you may more rightly call the epistles of Paul a gospel, than those things which Matthew, Mark, & Luke have written. Which signifieth some tooth against these three gospels. Now for the last point touching S. john's Gospel, it is to be seen in the preface by me alleged: which if you can not find: it is not my fault. 
It was oversight then for M. Chark to say that no such preface was ever written.  For that such a preface is extant, & that in latin: if you will not believe me: read but the Index of Luther's latin works in Coclaeus, where you shall find it named: As also in Gesnerus (one of your own religion) in the catalogue of Luther's works, fo. 504. suae bibliothecae. And in that preface you shall read, not only so much as I have affirmed: but also these words: The epistles of Paul and Peter do far pass the three gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke: 
The great impudency of our adversaries.  Which yet more proveth Luther's evil opinion of those three gospels. And immediately it followeth: jacobi autem epistola, prae illis straminea est: The epistle of james is of straw, in respect of those of Paul and Peter: which I have added, 
In his answer to M. Campians first reason.  to show the intolerable impudency of you & your fellows in the Tower against M. Campian: for that he could not presently show out of your books, where these words were written by Luther: especially of M. Whitaker: who (to the admiration & laughter of all other nations) hath set forth in latin, that Luther never called the Epistle of S. james Stramineam, a strawen epistle: this is that (I say) that maketh men to think, that you are given over to a desperate resolution, to maintain an evil cause, even against your own consciences, when you blush not to avow such open untruths. 
* The same also hath Luther in his preface to S. james epistle in the duchy testament, as more at large is showed in the answer to whitaker.  For I am sure that whitaker being a reader in divinity could not choose but have red those words alleged by learned men, above an hundred times against Luther: and yet he denieth them as confidently, as if he had never heard of the matter. What may be said to such men?  

Whether ●. John dohe speak ●esse of good works ●hā the for●er three Evangelists.  For my anotation, annexed to Luther's words: expounding them as uttered against the former three gospels, for that they speak to much of good works: though you affirm it to proceed of want of exercise and judgement in scripture, (wherein you think yourself only to excel:) yet is it most true and descried by Luther himself in the place alleged, and argueth in you some ignorance joined with more pride, in not knowing, or dissembling that these three gospels have many things touching good works, (contrary to Luther's bare faith and credulity,) which are not set down in S. john expressly: as of the necessity of the commandments, and life everlasting, given for keeping the same Math. 19 Of the pay due unto good works Math 20. Of the retribution which they shall have in the resurrection of the just Luc. 14. Of the reward of every cup of water given for Christ: Math. 10. Marc 9 And many other the like, which are not set down expressly in S. john: though I know, he writing with the same spirit, could not but have many things to the same effect.   

The fowrthe doctrine.  

●ow Lu●●er termeth the ●ood wife ●● lie with ●●er husband's ●rother.  The fowrthe doctrine of Luther was, If any woman can not or will not prove by order of law, the insufficiency of her husband's: Let her request at his hands a divorce: or else (by his consent) let her privily lie with his brother, or with some other men. This M. Hanmer utterly denieth, and calleth it my shameless report, with other most bitter words, as if their had never been any such things written by Luther. 
1. Hammer.  Marry M. Charke taketh an other way in answering. For he 
* ● Charke ●● Goodly decreement: ●t yet such ● comm●̄●● is in ●●ending ●●is.  confesseth the whole matter, but seeketh to return the shame thereof to us. True it is (sayeth he) Luther gave this evil counsel, but as he answereth himself, he did it when he was yet among you But now (sayeth he, speaking of the time after his conversion) my mind is to give other counsel. And then M. Charke (as having taken a great advantage against me) exclaimeth with all his force: What holy writings can be free from your foul reproaches, if you will thus read a piece of a sentence against the manifest purpose of the writer? 
Extreme impudency of a lying minister.  You have reason M. Chark: and if the matter go so clear against me, as you make it: I ask no pardon, but let me be discredited for ever. But if you have showed here such a piece of wilful and shameless dishonesty, as can not be excused: how will you look your own friends in the face hereafter? Let us then examine the matter. First I grant that Luther sayeth, that he written this counsel for confessors, or such as heard confessions, when he was yet in fear of the pope. For so are his words. But yet that this was after his Apostasy from the Catholic Religion, or (as you term it) after his conversion to your Gospel, (for many years after he stood in fear of the pope, and said nothing against confession): 

Ser. de Matrim. tom. 5. wittem. fo. 120.  
Ergo he was no papist when he written this.   it appeareth evidently by his whole discourse in the place alleged: where he sayeth plainly (beside other things) that the papists did seek advantage against him for this opinion of his, and to that end did misreport his words (as he sayeth:) besides, you know that papists teach no such doctrine, but the plain contrary, & therefore he could not mandare literis as his words are that he did: that is, he could not put in writing & publish such a doctrine among us, but he would have been resisted presently, if he had been of our church at that tyme. So that this shift of yours is evidently false: that he wrote it when he was a papist, For albeit, he being not yet sufficiently fortified with friends to defend him stood in fear of Antichrist, as he termeth him, and consequently durst not break any further to the open execution of this beastly doctrine, as afterward he did: yet had he left papistry, as you call it, a good while before, as appeareth by his own words; and by computation of the time wherein he wrote this book.  
But now to the second point, which is the chiefest. You affirm (and I confess) that Luther sayeth: But now I would give other counsel: But what? would he revoke that he had said? speak M. Chark, or else you are shamed. Would he revoke his sentence (I say) being now out of the fear of the pope●no: 
M. Charke his notable false dea●ing.  but he will do much worse. For whereas before he did but counsel the husband to permit his wife to lie with an other: Now being pope himself of Germany, & out of fear of the pope of Rome, he will compel him to it. And how, trow you? as the pope of Rome doth compel men, by excommunication? No, but by taking him by the locks (for those are his ruffianlie words) he would touse him except he did it. I will recite luthers own stile, that you may see where true and false dealing ys.  
Thus than he giveth the wife counsel and authority to speak to her husband. 

Ser. de matrim. ut supra.  
Mark Luther's counsel to a man's wise.   Ecce marite, debitam mihi benevolentiam praestare non potes, meque & juvenile corpus decepisti etc. fave quaeso ut cum fratre tuo, aut proxime tibi sanguine juncto, occultum matrimonium paciscar, sic ut tu nomen habeas, ne res tuae in alienos haeredes perveniant: ac sine ut sponte tua a me decipiare, quemadmodum & tu praeter voluntatem meam imposuisti mihi. Perrexi porro, maritum debere in ea re assentiri uxori: quod si renuat, ipsa clandestina fuga saluti suae consulat, & in aliam profecta terram, alii etiam nubat. Consilium tale iam tum impertii, cum adhuc me detineret pavor antechristi: nunc verò secus longè consulere animus esset, talique marito, qui adeo mulierem deludat dolis, vehementius lanificium (immissa manu) convellerem, ut vulgo dici solet. Idem de muliere judico, quàmquàm id rarius sit quâm in viris. In english thus: Behold husband, you can not perform the friendship you own me, and you have deceived both me and my youthful body: be content (I pray you) that I bargain a secret marriage with your brother, or with some next of your kin, in such sort as you may still bear the name, to the end your goods may not pass to strange heirs: And permit yourself to be deceived willingly of me, as you have deceived me against my will. And I went yet further (sayeth Luther) and affirmed that the husband ought to give consent to his wife in this matter: and that if he refused: then she might provide for her health by secret flyeing from him: and going into an other country, might marry an other. This counsel I gave when I was yet in fear of Antichrist. But now my mind should be to give far other counsel, 
* Here M. Chark breaketh of the sentence as though no thing followed.  that is, layeing my hands upon the locks of such a husband that should so craftily deceive a woman, I would shake him (as the proverb is) and that vehemently: and the same is my judgement of the woman also: albeit it falleth out more seldom in women than in men to need this counsel.  
Now let the reader judge, whether M. Charke be a true man or no, in cutting of the words that followed immediately in Luther, after the sentence by him alleged: 
* Consider-also what a face MEREDITHE HANMER. hath, in denieing the whole matter, and saying that Luther hath no such thing.  and notwithstanding, with a most impudent face to cry out, and insult against me, as reading a piece of Luther's sentence, against the manifest purpose of the writer? can this be excused from extreme impudency, and most wilful falsehood against his own conscience? Let him defend this if he can with all the helps and devices of his fellows: or else let the reader by this one point of open dishonesty discovered, judge of the rest of their dealings with us, & of their slandering of us without all conscience, in their sermons, where they are sure not to be controlled. Luthe● goeth on to inveigh against that 
* It may be Luther had some kinsmen in whose wives, he would have some interest by this doctrine.  husband, that would not in this case permit his wife to lie with an other, he being not able to serve her turn himself, & concludeth egregie deberee solucre eiusmodi imposturam: that he ought to pay sweetly for deceiving her so. And in an other place he sayeth: 
Exegesi. ad c. 7. ep. 1. ad Cor. tom. 5. Erasm. Alber. li. contra Carolost. Doct:  that if a man have ten wives or more fled from him upon like causes, he may take more: & so may wives do the like in husbands. Whereupon Alberus (one of your own religion) noteth, that JOHANNES Leidensis took many wives, and one KNIPPERDOLLINGE took thirteen for his part. So that this doctrine was not only taught, but also practised upon Luther's authority.   

The fifth doctrine.  
fifthly, Luther is reported to teach, 
If the wife will not come, let the maid come.  If the wife will not come: let the maid come. To this M. Hanmer answereth: You ●ather upon Luther an impudent slander being not in deed his own words, but alleged by him as spoken by an other. M. Charke granteth them absolutely, to be Luther's own words, but seeketh an interpretation for Luther's meaning: saying, In this place Luther speaketh of a third cause of divorce, when the woman shall obstinately refuse her husband's company. So that these men do little care what they answer, so they say somewhat: and we may see how trimly they do agree. But the truth is, they are Luther's own words delivered to the husband to use to his wife: as the words before were for the wife to use against her husband: and they can not be excused either by M. Hanmers' shameless denial, or by M. Charks impartinent interpretation: thus they stand in Luther: 
Serm. de Mat. tom. 5. wittemb:  Hic nunc oportunum est, ut maritus dicat: si tu nolueris, alia volet: si domina nolit, adveniat ancilla. Here now is opportunity, for the husband to say to the wife: if you will not, an other will: if the mistress will not, let the handmaid come. And that this was practised in Germany, 
In profess. Cathal. impressa Colon. 1580.  (to all kind of lasciviousenesse) yea among the ministers themselves Sebastian flask (a preacher once of Luther's own family) doth testify. And when you are not a shamed to defend the doctrine: you are more bold than the Lutherans themselves, who for very shame do suppress the german book, 
Crom. lib. 1. colloquiorun. Smide. apud staphylum, in 2. defence. apol. count Smidelinun.  wherein it was written, as Cromerus a German testifieth. And Smideline hath no other way to answer it against Staphilus, but to ask, why Luther might not retract this, as S. Austen did mani● things? but yet proveth not that ever he offered to recant it. Now whereas you seek to cover this dishonest doctrine of your prophet, by alleging two positions of the Catholics about divorce in marriage, as absurd in your sight as this: the one, that a man may divorce himself from his wife, for being a bondwoman, if he kuew it not before the marriage: the other, that he may do the same for covetousness in her, by Peter lombards: opinion the first is true: & allowed by all laws of nature, Civil, and Canon, & that upon great reason: for that he which marrieth a bondwoman unwittingly, loseth his free choice by ignorance, 
Can. si quis ingenius: 20. q. 2. & Can si foemina. 29. q. 2.  nor can not have power over her body (as marriage requireth,) she being in bondage to other. Also he can not beget children but bond, cum partus sequatur ventrem: And consequently can not bring them up, at his pleasure, nor instruct them necessarily: which things do repugn to the state of marriage. The second, albeit it be but the saying of one man, yet his meaning is, that if this covetousness, or other notorious vice of the wife, should break out to the husband's notable damage, or danger, (as if she should fall to stealing, or the like:) than he might dimittere eam (as lombards words are:) that is, dimisse her from his company: but not dissolve the knot of wedlock: as both S. Thomas doth expound 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 lascivious doctrine of Martin Luther?   

The last four doctrines.  
The other four doctrines following, for that you graun● them as they lie, & think them sound enough to stand with your gospel: I need not to repeat, in particular, or allege other places, where Luther holdeth the same. By your Censure they are currant, Catholic, and good. But yet in the first where you prefer matrimony before virginity, 
Matrimony before virginity.  it may be noted of the reader for examples sake, how far you differ from the spirit of the primative church, which condemned this position, as an intolerable heresy, in JOVINIAN and others, only to make equal matrimony with virginity: as appeareth by S. Jerome in his two most learned and vehement books against jovinian: and by S. Augustin, recounting the 82. heresy of his time. 
Ep. 81.  And by S. Ambrose also in his epistle to Syricius the pope, and by other fathers. And if this ancient church, (which our adversaries in words will grant to be the true and pure church) did detest this heresy in JOVINIAN, HELVIDIUS, & BASILIDES: I mean, to affirm matrimony paris esse meriti cum virginitate, as their words are: that is, to be of equal merit with virginity: what would the same church do to M. Luther, & M Chark, for preferring marriage before virginity? And if (to omit all others) S. Cyprian, Athanasius, Basil, Ambrose Chrisostom, and S. Augustin, 
Cyp. de disc●pl. virg. Basil. praefa●ione ad ascetica.  did write whole books in commendation and preferment of virginity above all other states of life, comparing it to the life of Angels, and affirming the dignity thereof, to be incomparable: what would they have said, if they had heard the base scurril, & impious words of M. Luther de natura statuum in sese, 
Luther exeges: ad c. 7. ep. 1. ad cor. witten. fo. 107.  as his own explication is: that is, of the very nature of these two states in themselves, with out respect of abuse or good use: to affirm (I say) matrimonium esse velut aurum, the state of matrimony to be as gold: and the other state of virginity and continency to be uti Stercus ad impietatem promovens. Like stinking dung promoting to impiety. 
Esa. 56. v. 4. Math. 19 v. 12. 1. Cor. 7. v. 38.  Can any thing be spoken more abject, or more contradictory to the scriptures, & fathers than this? can hell be more opposite to heaven, than the carnality of this apostata to the spirit of all saints?  
Again in your second doctrine, where you affirm that Christ & S. Paul did not counsel but dissuade virginity to Christians: 
Whether Christ & S. Paul did dissuade virginity. 1. Cor. 7. Matt. 19  can any thing be more contrary to Christ and S. Paul's sayings, or the ancient father's interpretation of their words? I have no precept from Christ, but I give counsel (sayeth S. Paul:) he that marrieth his virgin doth well, but he that marrieth her not, doth better: Is this to dissuade or to counsel, M. Chark? There be eunuchs which have gelded themselves for the kingdom of heaven: he that can take it: Let him take it, sayeth Christ: doth this dissuade or rather provoke to virginity & continency? Quasi hortantis vox domini est (sayeth S. jerom) & milites suos ad pudicitiae praemium concitantis, qui potest capere capiat, qui potest pugnare pugnet, superet ac triumphet. 
Com. in c. 19 Math.  It is the voice of our lord, as exhorting and stirring up his soldiers to the reward of chastity: he that can take it, let him take it, he that can fight, let him fight, conquer and triumph. With S. Jerome do agree all the holy fathers in this exposition: And william Charck can not bring me one in this case to the contrary: that is, to speak for preferment of him and his wife before virgins.  
The third doctrine, 
Whether a woman be as necessary as meat & sleep.  touching the necessity of a woman to every man, to be as grea● as the necessity of eating: drinking or sleeping, (which also importeth that he may not well miss her four and twenty hours together,) I marvel you were not a shamed to maintain: especially if you add that other sentence of Luther to it: 
Serm. de matri. edi. witenb. fo. 126.  verum est profectò eum lenonem esse oportere qui matrimonium fugiat, postque marem & faeminam commixtionis & multiplicationis causa deus condidit. It is true verily, that he must needs be a bawd that flieth matrimony, seeing God hath created man and woman for copulation and multiplications sake. A wise reason of a lecherous apostata: for by this, every man must either couple and multiply, or else be a bawd. How say you then of your present superintendents of Canterbury & Salesburie? will you say they are bawds? Nay, how say you to all those true holy bishops named before, of the primative church, as Athanasius, Cyprian, Ambrose, Chrisostom, Basil, and Austen, who, both lived without women themselves, and wrote several books in the praise and commendation of that life, were they all bawds without exception?  
For your last doctrine whereby you hold your selves, and all Christians, to be as holy and just as the mother of God and the Apostles were: 
Pride the badge of heresy.  I marvel not. For if you had not this badge of intolerable pride, you should not be known to be as you are. And albeit you would seem to mollify the matter, by saying, 
Serm. de naetiui●. B. marry.  all are equal in respect of Christ, notwithstanding there may be inequality in their guysts. Yet Luther's words are plain: omnes Christiani aeque sancti sunt ac matter dei: all Christians are as holy, as the mother of God. And (to exclude your gloze of inequality of gifts) he addeth, 
Com. in 6. ●. ep. 1. Petri  pares sumus Petro & Paulo & deiparae virgini, bonaque omnia habemus tam largiter quam illi: we are equal to Peter and Paul, & to the mother of God, and we have all goodness as plentifully as they had. If all (M. Charke) then was there no inequality in measure, 
Whether all men be equalye holy and just.  as under hand for a mollifycation you would seem to grant: but yet in deed you may not, in this our case. For we talk of the measure of those things only, which make men more just and holy: that is, of grace and merit: The which if you grant to be more in measure in the saints, than in yourselves: then grant you them to be more holy, and so, flat against your own position here defended. If you deny it: & make them no more holy than yourselves, or any other Christians (as in deed you do:) then (besides the apparent absurdity of the thing,) have you against you S. Cyprian de disciplina virg. S. jerom. li. 2. cont. jovin. S. Augustin de S. virg. cap. 26. And Theodoret in c. 15. ep. 1. ad cor. which prove of purpose both by scriptures, examples, and theological reasons, that the merits of men and rewards are unequal. Also S. Ambrose in ca 6. Luc. S. Chrisostom hom. 22. in ep. ad hebr, S. Augustin l. 22. de civit. ca 30. And S. Gregory hom. 15. in Ezech: which prove expressly, the in equality of grace given to men in this life, and different glory correspondent to the same grace, in the next. Also you have against you all the primative church, which condemned your opinion for a flat heresy in jovinian as S. Augustin testifieth in heresi 82. and S. jerom. l. 2. contra jovin. which church also condemned the same heresy in a Council of Aphrica called Thelense, almost twelve hundred years gone, approved by S. Ambrose in an epistle of his to Siricius the pope: 
Am. ep. 81.  where also he addeth: agrestis ululatus est diuersorum gradus abrogare meritorum: it is a barbarous howling to abrogate the degrees of diversity of merits. And the same Ambrose answereth your frivolous objection, that God is no acceptour of persons, 
2. Gal. 2: Ambros. in c. 3. ad Ga.  thus Acceptor deus personarum non est, sed meritorum atque virtutum: God is no acceptor of persons, but yet an acceptor of merits and virtues. Finally, albeit you rail at Dionysius Areopagita for this matter, calling him, bastard Denice, whose legitimation (besides infinite other testimonies) was acknowledged in two general counsels: not much less than a thousand years gone: 
Concil. const. act. 4. can. 2.  yet the matter is plain by experience, if not otherwise. For if he be just and holy according to S. john's definition, qui justitiam facit: 
1. Io. 3.  that worketh righteousness: (which comprehendeth all manner of virtues and just life:) than your neighbours (I ween) will bear witness, that you ministers are somewhat behind S. Peter and S. Paul, and the mother of God, in holiness and rigtuousnesse of life, what soever you say in your own commendation, to the contrary.  
And thus now have you seen these nyene points alleged (for examples sake) out of martyne Luther's doctrine, which M. Charke calleth, divine and clear doctrine &, defended by him faithfully, as he saith, against my slanders. But whether I have justified my reports or no, so often named false and intolerable slanders by M. Chark: I leave to the judgement of my very adversaries themselves. But whether M. Charke have defended fai●hefully or no: the former discourses have declared. And finally, whether the doctrine be divine and clear, as M. Chark affirmeth: I refer it to the consideration of the discrete and godly reader. For clearness I will not strive: for you see it is uttered with full mouth (according to his fashion) from Martin Luther: but surely for divineness I see little therein, except M. Chark mean black divinity, such as Martin's familiar could teach him: whereof we shall have presently more occasion to entreat.  
Marry to call it licentious and carnal doctrine (as the Censure did) me thinketh there was great reason. 
The conclusion of the premises.  For if a Christian man can not damn himself with any sin except he will refuse to believe: And if the ten commandments appertain nothing to him: Again, if to keep virginity & resist the pleasures of the flesh be neither commendable (for that marriage is far better:) nor possible, seeing a wife is as necessary as meat drink or sleep: beside this, if when he hath tasted one wife, he may upon causes, lie with her sister, or the next of her kin: and if these would be obstinate, he may take the maid in stead of the mistress: and with all this, may be (notwithstanding) as holy, and as just as ever was Peter, or Paul, or the mother of God herself: if all this (I say) be true, as Martin Luther warranteth us, 
Math. 7. Luc. 13.  & william Chark defendeth: who can complain of the hard way to heaven? who can say justly, the gate is strait, seeing this good friar, and his friend have eased it so favourably? but now let us hear the rest of the Censure.  
Other doctrines of Luther, and of Caluine and Beza.    

THE CENSURE  
I Leave other infinite beastly (1.) 
1.  doctrines which he taught: for the invention whereof he had much conference with the 2.) 
2.  devil himself, whom bishop Lindan, 
Lib. de f●g. Idol. c. 8. Lib. de missa. a●gu●. pag. 228. to. 7. & lib. de missa priva.  and divers others write● to have been seen talk bodily with him, by men of very great credit. And Luther himself confesseth in his works, that he had often and familiar speech with him, and that he was first moved by him to write against the Mass, in the year 1534. He also describeth his voice, saying, that it was so terrible, huge, and dreedefull, that he was like to die divers times, after the nights conference with him. And that divers men were slain by such conference. Notwithstanding it was his chance to escape, albeit (as he sayeth) he did eat more than a bushel of salt together with this devil. But yet nevertheless he was deceived in the end, as all men are that deal with such Merchants (3.) 
3.  For Luther going one night drounke to bed (as Hosius writeth) was found there the next day dead, 
Hosius li. 1. de heres. Claud. de Saint. li. de reo eucha. Linda. lib. de fag. id. cap. 8.  slain (as it thought) by this familiar devil. For he was a pitiful creature to look on (as Saints describeth) all black, with his tongue lying out, as a man strangled And this was the end of Luther after almost thirty years living in all kind of sensuality, pride, and dissension, not only with the Catholic church (4) 
4.  but also with his own brood, 
Luth. ep. ad Argē●. & ep ad Io. Har. Bucer● ep. ad Luther.  and offspring Carolostadius, Oecolampadius, Bucer, and Zuinglius, parents of the protestāns religion, whom he persecuted, cursed and condemned, to the very pit of hell, for damned heretics, as yet appeareth in his books written against them. Wherefore, whether the protestants, or the jesuits, may be more a shamed of their first father, let the indifferent reader judge (5.) 
5.  There is the like life or worse, written of Calvin by a fenshe man that lived with him, of the same religion at that time, and was translated into English by a country man of ours, & had been put in print ere this, had not my Lord of London, by an evil chance, gotten the copy in to his hands.   

THE DEFENCE.  
M● Charke would have men think that I use but a Rhetorical figure, in saying, that I pass over many other absurd doctrines of Martin Luther: whereas in deed (by his saying) I have cited all I can. But I am sure, he is not of that mind himself, having read some part of Luther's works, as appeareth by his reply: wherein are to be seen; so many gross absurdities, 
Absurdities of Martin Luther.  as never the like in any man that ever wrote. Which hath happened by the special providence of God, to discover the spirit whereby this new prophet was directed. For matter of licentious liberty the examples before recited may suffice, for a taste. In matter of ribaldry I could allege more: of scurrility infinite: of shameless falsehoods, without number. But I will note only one or two things of impiety, as they lie together in one treatise, that you have in England, and defended by him obstinately, after they were condemned by the church, being in deed certain positions, which cut the very sinews of all virtue, & do open the high way to all dissolution, As for example, 
In assert. ar. 36. condemn. ●er ●●●. 10. In assert. ar. 36.  when he holdeth that the very just man in every good work doth sin mortally: How doth he discourage all men from doing good? when he sayeth, A man hath not in his power to do evil: how doth he encourage all lewd people ●ō wickedness, delivering them from the fault thereof? When he teacheth, 
In assert. ar. 34.  that to fight against the Turk is to resist god himself: what a path maketh he to the Empire of infidelity? When he reprehendeth the pope for defining beside scripture animam esse immortalem: 
In assert. ar. 7.  that the soul is immortal: and calleth it portentum sterquilinii Romani: A monster of the dunghill of Rome: what ground of impiety doth he not lay? when he affirmeth and maytaineth, 
De capt. Bab●●. tit. de B●pt.  that neither man nor angel on earth can lay any one la upon any one Christian, further than he will himself: What foundation doth not he overthrow of all Christian common wealths?  
For the bodily and sensible conference which Martin Luther had with the devil: 
Whether Luther had bodily conference with the devil. See before pag. 18.  it is a wonder to see with what face M. Chark can deny it, (as he doth) and rail at the reverend bishop Lyndan for reporting the same: seeing the Tigurine calvinists (as I have showed before) do give testimony of it: and Luther also confesseth it himself, in the places alleged in the Censure. And albeit M. Charke hath a shift to say, that he can not find the book of Luther cited de Missa angulari, alleged (as he confesseth) by all the learned of our age against Luther: yet can not his impudency be covered: for that he quoteth himself an other book of Luther's, 
Gesner. fol. 503, s●ae biblioth.  entitled de Missa privata & unctione sacerdotum if it be not the very same, somewhat altered:) wherein (though translated by justus jonas, Martin Luther's own cook, 
Fontacus in Chron. anni. 1554.  and consequently sauced to his masters tooth:) yet might he see the principal points of this conference set down (at leastwise at one time,) where Luther's words are these Con●igi● me semel sub mediam noctem subitò expergesieri. Ibi Sathan m●cum coepit eiusmodi disputationem: Audi (inquit) Luthere 
* The devil knew Luther's humour of pride.  doctor perdocte &ce. It happened that once I awaked about midnight (saith Luther,) and then Satan began this disputation with me: hearken (sayeth he) right learned doctor Luther. And then the devil layeth down five long arguments against the mass, adding in the end: 
here is the protestants fashion of disputation se●t down by their master.  Age, prome, ubi scriptum est, ubi jussit aut praecepit hoc deus? Go to now, show me, where is the Mass written in scripture? where hath God commanded it? After this, Luther putteth his own answers to the devil, and the devils replies: to which in process, his being not able to answer, finally yielded, to banish the mass upon the devils appointment. And this was the honourable beginning of Luther's conversion, 
The beginning of protestancy from Satan  and of all protestancy, by the express words and confession of the first beginner himself.  
But here william Charke hath a shift for this fowl matter, saying, that this conference of Luther with the devil, was no other than such a temptation or conflict, as Christ and Saint Paul had with Satan: that is, it was no bodily conference, but a spiritual fight in mind, sayeth this minister. O fond and blasphemous evasion. Suppose it had been only a spiritual temptation in mind, such as the conflicts of Christ and S. Paul were: yet the comparison is impious: for nether Christ, nor S. Paul did ever yield to the persuasions of the devil, as Martin Luther did in banishing the mass. And this is the difference between evil and good men in this life: that both being assaulted with persuasions from the devil: the one yieldeth to them, 
Luther's conferens with the `devyll. was bodily.  and the other resistethe.  
secondly, it is evident, that this conference of Martin Luther was more than spiritual: as appeareth by the devils preface, wherein he calleth the friar, right learned doctor, according to the vein of pride wherewith he saw him puffed up, and thereby ready to receive his impressions. The same appeareth also, by the sound of Satan's voice described in the place alleged in the Censure: but especially, 
De missa pri●ata & unc. sacerd, ubi s●p●●.  for that in this place Luther confesseth some of his fellows to have been slain by this conference. For these are his words: Et ego plane persisasus sum Emserum, & Oecolampadium, & similes, ●iis actions horribilibus & quassationibus subitò extinctos esse. And I am plainly persuaded that Emserus and Oecolampadius, and the like, were killed suddenly with these terrible blows and shakings of the devil. Finally, 
See before in the Censure the place quoted.  the bushel of salt, which Luther confesseth himself to have eaten together with this devil, proveth that he had bodily conference with him: And that this Satan was become now very gentle and familiar to Luther, albeit he was churlish and killed other his companions.  
touching M. Luther's drunken death from his deceitful devil (as is conjectured) M. Charke thinketh it lack of discretion in me to publish the same from so insufficient witnesses, 
Of M. Luther's death.  as he calleth them: the conntrarie being written by men more indifferent, as he sayeth. And in the margin (in counterpoise of all my witnesses) he quotethe only john Sleidan, a lutheran, and the protestants historiographer. 
touching the credit of John S●eidan.  But what reason is there why one Sleydan should be preferred before so many learned men, and reverend bishops, that have avowed the matter, who lived in Luther's time, and many of them were Germans, and did know both his life and his death? especially, saying of all the historiographers, that ever took pen in hand, john Sleydan is the most infamous for lying, as may appear in particular by Fontanus and Pontanus, that have discovered the same: as also by Gaspar Genepaeus, who hath done the same most substantially, and of purpose. And more than all the rest, 
In epitome germanica, colon● An 1558. edit.  Bartholomeus latomus, a singular learned man, hath set forth a book of the Eleven thousand lies of john Sleidan: And Gropperus (one of the rarest men that ever our age had) commonly calleth john Sleidans' story das lugen buck: that is, the book of lies. The fame thereof coming at a time to the ears of Charles the Emperor, (which had best cause to know how matters passed, being chief agent therein him self,) caused diverse parts thereof to be red in his hearing, and in the presence of his captains: who hearing so infinite untruths reported, could not contain, but often would interrupt the reader, saying, there the knave lieth: And a little after again, 
jindan in Ruardo.  there the knave lieth. And so finally rejecting the book, he commanded one Gulielmus Mule●aeus a most eloquent man to refute the same. So that Sleidan alone is not sufficient to ouer-beare so many witnesses in this case, wherein he was most partial, that is, touching Luther: he being Luther'S scholar, and writing purposely both at his appointment, and in his commendation.  
But yet because you shall not want a sound testimony also in this matter: I will allege you JUSTUS Jonas, Luther's dear friend and cook, as partial towards him as Sleydan himself, but only that being at his death, and writing a book of the same, by the providence of God, he uttered this point among other. For thus Pontacus writeth. 
Pontacus Burdegal. in chron. anni 1544  Martinus Lutherus, quem tertium Eliam quidam ausi sunt vocare, cum bene potus & H●laris in lecto cubuisset, manè repertus est mortuus. justus jonas eius coquus, libro de eius vita & obitu, refert cum Paulo ante mortem. sibi & Caelio & aliis qui tunc aderant dixisse: Orate deum pro domino deo nostro & eius evangelio. That is: Martin Luther, whom some dare call the third Elias, going to bed well typpled, & merry, was found dead the next morning [being the first day of March, the year of our Lord 1544, 
Luther's death.  and the 63. year of his age] justus jonas his cook affirmeth in a book written of his life & death, that he said to him a little before his death, and to Celius and others that were present, do you pray to God, for our lord and God, and for his gospel. here now by justus jonas his report, Luther prayed for Christ at his death, which either you must a-scribe to drunkenness, or to s●me worse affection, he being in his perfect wits, as the author affirmeth. And this shallbe sufficient touching the death of doctor Martin Luther.  
And now we come to Luther's dissection with his own brood, as the Censure sayeth: that is, to his deadly war with his own followers, and to the discord between Lutherans & zwinglians, which our English protestāns do bear men in hand, to be all one in faith, and of one church: and M. Charke here in this place, (with the same forehead, as in other matters) affirmeth most confidently that they had always a singular care of unity in the gospel: And citeth for proof thereof) an act of concord agreed upon at Marpurge Anno 1529. But this is intolerable impudency. 
Brentius in appendice ex luthero.  For Brentius himself, (who was present at it) writeth that the zwinglians were there vanquished, & demanded with tears to be called brethren of the lutherans, only thereby to colour a concord. But yet Luther would not grant it. 
In admonitione ultima ad Iac●bū west fall.  The very same (touching Luther'S hardness) confesseth Calvin to westfalus, superintendant of hamborough, and Boquinus a Zwinglian, confesseth the same, as Brentius proveth in the place before alleged, by the testimony of lavatherus also a Zwinglian: so that I should marvel (M. Chark) that you were not ashamed to allege this act of concord of Marpurge: 
Ludovic lavat. in hist. de orig. controver Sacrament.  but that I consider, you must needs say somewhat. No (M. Charke) not only in this meeting of Marpurge, did your men disagree, and become more enemies than before: but also in all other conventicles after, even unto this day, have they dissented in opinions more & more: as is evident to them which do read the stories, and acts of their meetings set out in print. So that in very deed, this one mark of disagreement is sufficient to show what spirit they are of.  
After this synod of Marpurge they met together at Swabache, and after that again at Smalcald, the 12. of December, 
S●eid. lib. 7. lavat. in hi. controver sacram.  but without any effect of union or agreement, as both Sleidan and lavatherus do testify. After that, they had divers meetings, talks, conferences, disputations, synods, conventicles, at divers places and times, but always departed more enemies than before, 
jacob. vadian. lib. 3. Apho.  as you may see in particular set down by vadian in his aphorisms. After this, in the year 1557. upon the fowerth day of September there met at worms in Germany 12 Catholics, & 12. ministers, 
A notable story of the protestants agreement.  appointed by the former Council or dieta of Ratisbone, to treat of certain conditions to be observed on both parties, in practice of their religion. And when the first question was proposed, what articles of faith each part would have allowed by public authority: the Catholics agreed presently: marry the ministers fell out, and thereupon a day or two was allowed them to agree, but they grew further and further in dissension for sixteen days together, 
Amsford. in confess. purae doct. evang.  and the seventeenth day, they were further of than at the beginning. For than had seven of the twelve excommunicated the other five for heretics, and as utterly disagreeing from the Confession of Angusta. 
Nicol. Gallus inthesibus. Lavat. in hist. sacram: Surius in hist. A solemn conventicle.  Marry yet those seven could in no wise agree among themselves, what articles only were to be received, and what to be excluded, and so, that meeting was brocken of, without effect. This story do write both Amsfordius, and Gallus, Lutherans: & Lavatherus a Zwinglian. And Surius a Catholic.  
After this again in the year 1564. in the month of April, there was a solemn meeting or synod between the Lutherans and Caluinists, at Mulbrune in Germany. 
Acta collo quii Mulbrunensis tam a pala tinis quam wittenbergensibus edita.  And on the Lutherans part the duke of wittenberg was precedent for the temporalty, & Smidelyne prolocutor for the clergy. For the calvinists was precedent the County palatine of Rhine, & Boquinus was speaker. But after divers days spent in disputing, chafing, & chiding, they departed less agreed than before, one part calling the other sectaries, and heretics, as you may read in the acts of that meeting set forth in print, 
The loving and courteous spe●che of protestants amongst themselves.  aswell by the one party, as by the other, but each side notwithstanding reporting the thing for their own vantage, and blaming the other. And thus much for solemn meetings and public acts of concord, declaring the singular unity of protestants in the gospel.  
Now for the intercourse of loving letters and godly writings between lutherans and Caluinists, (which M. Charke nameth, but citeth none) for proof of their singular unity. It shall appear how true it is, by that which I will here allege out of their own writings one against an other. And first, I have alleged before the loving words of Luther towards Caluinists by the very testimony of the Tigurines themselves, 
See before pag. 17. & 19 Tract. 3. cont. Luth. suprem. confessionem. Luther. ep. ad Io. Hargravium. Luth. tom. 7. witten. fol. 380. 381. 382. Act. 28. cont. lovan. to. 2. wittenb. sol. 503.  whom he calleth, an execrable sect. replenished with the devil, insathanized, supersathanized, and persathanized And they call him again, an archeheretique, and a ●urious devil, which hath no communion with the saints of God. Luther again calleth Bucer, a blasphemous monster of the sacramentary spirit: and all sacramentaries miserable and blasphemous heretics: adding further: I do protest before God and the world, that I do not agree with them, nor ever will, while the world standeth, but will have my hands clear from the blood of those sheep, which these heretics do drive from Christ, deceive, and kill. And again in the same place, cursed be the charity and concord of sacramentaries, for ever and ever, to all eternities. Again, in an other place he pronounceth of them: H●ereticos serio censemus, we censure them in earnest for heretics. And after that, he pronounceth them as most certainly to be damned, how soever they believe some articles aright, and do pronounce them truly, with their lying and blasphemous mouth, as his words are. And finally, two years before his death, he denounced an open excommunication against them all, saying, 
Luth. in respon. ad maledic. scri. regis Angliae.  who soever will not believe the bread to be the true and natural body of our lord, let him abstain from me, both by letter, writing, and speech, neither let him expect any communion with me, for he shall but lose his labour. And this was the agreement of this holy and learned man Martin Luther (as M. Charke calleth him.) And this was his intercourse of loving and godly speech and writings towards the zwinglians: that is, towards M. Charke and his fellows in England.  

Of the agreement of Lutherans & zwinglians.  But now if a man would speak of the intercourse of loving letters between the Lutherans and Zuinglianes after Luther's death: it were infinite. But yet he that desireth to know somewhat thereof: let him read but Brentius against Bullinger: westfalus against Caluine: Calvin against Stankarus: Heshutius against Beza. Also the several books of Sneppius, Alberus, Timannus, Stolzius, Kemnitius, Marbachius, Vigandus against the zwinglians. And the vehement treatises of Ochinus, Alasco, Boquinus, Clebitius, Bullinger, and Peter Martyr against the Lutherans. 
This Brentius himself testifieth, in recog. proph. & apostol. doctrine. pa. 4. & 64. Calvin. count. jac. westfalum.  Bullinger calleth Brentius puffed spirit, slanderer, scurril, jester, Mome, impure, impudent and furious Eutychian, light and brainless sophist. Caluine writing to the ministers of germany, and hoping to gain them to his part against westfalus, called them, honourable brothers, & most faithful servants of Christ. But when he saw they took part against him: he calleth them, Knaves, Giants, Monsters, Beasts, Asses, devils. Heshutius writing against Caluine, calleth him cruel tyrant, crafty, perfidious, and contemptuous Epicure, reckless liar, wanton and impudent sycophant, one that handled the scriptures as other men do Ovid's metamorphosis. 
Heshu: in desen. count Caluinum. lib. de ●i. & mediate. Note this figure of speech.  The same heshutius called Beza, a Beast, a Cyclops, a Harlot set to sale: and generally all Caluinists, impudent knaves. Stankerus of a third sect, writeth thus: I do set more by one Peter Lombard, (which notwithstanding he contemneth) than by a hundred Luther's, two hundred Melanctons, three hundred bullinger's: four hundred Peter Martyrs, and five hundred calvin's: All which if they were pound together in a mortar, and afterwards priest never so hard, you could not wring out one ounce of true divinity from them all.  
It were infinite (as I said) to prosecute this matter of the protestants singular unity in the gospel: 
The praectise of protetestantes love and unity, one towards the other.  and of their loving and godly speeches one to an other. But the practice doth better declare it than words can. Look therefore into the states where they bear rule: and see how one doth embrace the other: or rather how one doth persecute the other. In Germany where one is superior, the other may not live ●ferior. Within these eight years all were Caluinists in the County Palantins Dominions, while he was so himself: and a Lutheran could not be suffered to live quietly there. As appeareth by the example of doctor Heshutius, a Lutheran, who after his disputation in the university of Hidelberge, was thrust out by head and shoulders, and the Catechisms of Luther & Brentius floung out of the Church, 
In hist. sacram.  as Lavatherus a Zwinglian doth report. But now this prince being come back to Lutherisme again: out are thrust the Caluinists, aswell there, as also in other places of Germany, where the Lutherans are governors. The younger princes of Saxony and Earls of Mansfeild (being Lutherans) made a public decree against all zwinglians, the year 1559, condemning them by the name of execrable heretics, as lavatherus also writeth. And it is well known that the duke of Saxony, that now is (named Augustus) about eight years gone did cut of the head of his chief counsellor called Cracovie, for that he was convicted secretly to favour the Caluinists, and to practise their bringing into Saxony. Also the banished Caluinists of france being retired to frankeforde in Germany (a free City, and of Lutheran religion) hoped to have licence to live, according to their conscience, in that place. But they could not, (with all the entreaty and friendship they might use) obtain the same: but were by bublike edict (bearing date the two & twentieth of April, in the year 1561) commanded to departed the City, or else to abstain wholly from all exercise of their religion, seeing it was heresy, and differing from the confession of Augusta. This whole story is set forth by one Franciscus Philippus, where you may read it at large.  
And to give you yet an example more near home, our English Merchant ventures had great traffik at Hamborough, & profited (no doubt) the city much, whereof Westfalus was superintendant. But yet by all the means and favour that ever they could procure, they could never obtain of the Lutherans, free exercise of calvin's religion in that city: No, nor so much as to keep a 
* The Secretary of the company was permitted to read certain private service for a time but no minister could be granted them, though the queen's letters of England were gotten in their behalf.  minister of their own sect at home in their house privately. And (that which is more) the prelate's of Saxony, did so much detest our men's religion, as when any English men were sick, they would not come at them, being requested: nor (being dead) would allow them any Christian burial, in their churches or church yards, but caused them to be 
* So were buried (among other) the foresaid Secretary of the company, & also the deputy, named Cloughe, which dyed● there: At what time the preachers of Hamborough inveighed most eagerly against all English men for their religion.  cast out in other places and hid under ground, without the presence of any one Lutheran, that would come at it. And finally our English men have lost their pryvileiges there, and have abandoned the city, and are changed now to Emden. This is evident and true: and all Merchants in England (of that company) can tell thereof. And therefore what soever M. Charke writeth of their singular unity in the gospel: the reader may see how he is to be credited.  
Touching the life of Caluine (whom M. Charke calleth a holy Saint, and advanceth with a long, large, and copious commendation) he sayeth, 
Of the life of john Caluine.  it was the lords good will, that the translation of his life should fall into my Lord of London's hands, and so be supressed. But (M. Charke) it may come yet in time: not as a libel (as you term it) but as a true testimony from him which knew the man, and lived with him, both in Geneva, Berna, and Lausanna thirty years gone and more, whose name is M. Jerome hermes Bolseke, doctor of physic: which science he practised in calvin's time, 
The writer of Caluins' life.  at Geneva and other places there about, and of late years in lions, four and twenty miles of Geneva, where he yet liveth in great credit of wisdom, learning, and honesty, and is most ready to justify any thing that he hath written to the world. 
This book is entitled A Story of the Life Manners, Doctrine, and Death of. Io. Calvin.  His book of calvin's life was written in the year of our Lord 1577, and dedicated to Monsieur of Epinac, archbishop and Earl of lions: And in the beginning he hath this protestation. I am here for love of the truth to refute Theodore Beza his false and shameful lies in the praise of Caluine, his Master, protesting before God and all the holy court of heaven, before all the would, and the holy ghost itself: that neither anger, nor envy, nor evil will, hath made me speak, or write any one thing against the truth and my conscience.  
First therefore this reverend man showeth how john Caluine was borne at Noviodunum, 
john Caluins' birth.  or Noion in Picardy, the year of our Lord 1509. In his youth he was an execrable blasphemer of God: and coming at length by shifts to be a priest, and to have the cure of a certain chapel in Noyon, he was taken and convicted of the horrible sin of Sodomy: and was in great danger to have been burnt a live for the same, 
Calvin burnt with a hoot lily for Sodomy.  but that the Byshope of Noyon, taking compassion of the man, procured the punishment to be moderated: and so in stead of death, he was burnt with a hoot Iron in the showlder, which iron had in it the print of a lily, which is the mark of the crown of france. Whereupon for very 
* M. whitaker thinketh it no shame but rather glory: for thus he answereth it. If Caluine were branded S. Paul also was branded, comparing Caluins brands for Sodomy w●th S. Paul's brands for Christ. pag. 62. against M. Campian.  shame, (having sold away his benefice) he departed from Noyon into Germany and Italy, changing his name from Cawin to Calvin, as Luther did from Luder to Luther. Thus much the whole city of Noyon, did testify unto M. Bertilier, Secretary of the Council of Geneva, under the hand of a public and sworn Notary. And the testimony is yet extant to be seen, as the author sayeth, who hath read it, with many others.  
After he had wandered a while in Italy, being assisted with some alms of the duchess of ferrara, he returned back to Basil, Strausburge, and Lausanna, and began to play the minister and preacher: And from thence, he came to Geneva: and there joining with two most seditious ministers, named 
* Caluins' first assistants in Geneva.  FAREL & CAURALD, began by a thousand devices, to work great tumults, and innovations in the city. And albeit, not only the magistrates of Geneva, but also the Lords of Berna (who have some superiority over Geneva) were greatly against him at the beginning, (though zwinglians themselves) yet Calvin ceased not to use such excitation of the people against them, as they were fain to banish him out of their terretorie: And so they did and pronunced the same sentence of banishment, both in their prive coouncell of two hundred, & also in their general council: and caused it to be registered in their records called the Rogue, with the true causes of the same, the year of our Lord a thousand, five hundred thertie seven, the two and twentieth of April, being Easter monday. 
Calvin banished from Geneva.  Of which sentence Calvin understanding, by friends of his, where he lay secret in the town, changed his apparel and fled pryvilye the same day from Geneva to Strawsburge. And this is extant under the public records of the city (as I have said) though Beza hath not been a shamed to publish the contrary.  
But in process of time, by infinite practyzes that the used, and by the earnest suit of some noble men, both duchy and frenshe, whom he had made Caluinists: he was recalled to Geneva again. And then, layeing a surer plot than before, (by bringing in many strangers into Geneva,) he made his party so strong, as he became as absolute lord of the town, while he lived, cutting of all his enemies by devices & sleights: 
Caluins' behaviour towards● his adversaries.  as Castellio, Caroly, Bernardin Ochin, and Peter Morand, Ministers, whom he caused to be banished: as also diverse of the nobility: and among them, Perrinus, chief governor of the city with Petrus Wandalus, the Balthasars', and others, whom he made to fly for safeguard of their lives: for that he (by forged letters & infinite other inventions) had brought them in suspicion of betrayeing the city, first to the king of france, then to the duke of Alvay, governor of Milan. But the noble men going to Berna cleared themselves before the Council there: 
Caluins' brood have not forgotten this trick.  and by good hap got the Italian, which, suborned by Calvin, had accused them of treason in Geneva, affirming that he was sent as a spy from the Duke of Alvay, to view the city, & to treat with those noble men, for the taking thereof: and having affirmed thus much, he was sent away privily into Italy again, disguised in apparel, and his reward paid him in his purse. Whereof these noble men having intelligence by their secret friends of Geneva, caused the way to be laid for him, and (by gods providence ●ooke him at Vienna in Dolphin, and caused him to be brought back to Berna: where he plainly & truly confessed all the matter to be forged, and by whom he was induced, and by what reward, to do it. Whereupon the Lords of Berna gave forth a public testimony, (under their common notaries hand) of the whole matter, and of the innocency of these men. But yet calvin's faction of strangers was so strong in Geneva, as they could never be restored during his life.  

Caluins' cruelty in revenge.  diverse such examples are showed of the tyranny and cruelty of john Calvin, against those that any way offended him. As against Montouset a Lutheran, (Almoner to the Queen of Navarra,) calvin's chief benefactrix,) whom he made to fly Geneva, for speaking a word or two against his partial distribution of the Queen's alms, 
This joh. Calvin himself confesseth in his letters to vire●us. An. 1546, the Ideses of February. The death of servetus and cause thereof.  sent in great quantity to the poor protestāns of that City, & for the most part, embezzled and devoured by Caluine himself, as this man avowched. Also against one Peter Ameau, whom he made to walk throroughe the city naked in his shirt, with a torch in his hand, and to ask him openly forgiveness, for that he had spoken at a supper certain words in his dishonour, saying, that he did not see why Calvin should be so much esteemed in Geneva, as he was, and preferred before all other that ever wrote. Also against servetus, otherwise called Michael villanovanus, doctor of physic in Vienna of dolphinie, an heretic, but yet envious of Caluins' glory: whereupon he wrote from vienna to Geneva, thirty epistles directed to Calvin, together with a little book in written hand, the year of our Lord 1546: wherein he had gathered together certain faults escaped Calvin in his institutions. Which thing Calvin took so grievously, as presently he began to purpose his death, (as himself openeth in a secret 
* This letter was written the 12. of february 1546, and was found in the study of viretus by the magistrates of lausanna, after he was runneaway from thence, as after shallbe mentioned.  letter to his dear freude Petrus viretus, minister of Lausanna) And thereupon began to accuse him of heresy: but yet dissembling his intention, alured him to come to Geneva, as he there confesseth. But servetus not trusting his words, kept himself thence, until the year of our Lord, 1553: at what time, meaning to go into Italy, he thought to pass secretly throrough Geneva, & to stay there but one night, which was Saturday. But yet being weary, and knowing the laws of Geneva to be, that no passengers may be molested for three days, resolved to stay there Sunday. Whereof Calvin by chance having secret intelligence, presently sent his man Nicholas to arrest him: & the next day, he sent his brother Anthony Cawin to enter an action of death against him: 
Heretics do hold one doctrine no longer than it serveth their turns.  which action john Calvin followed both by himself and by his friends so vehemently, as within few days after, he caused servetus to be burnt alive in the marquet place, with a soft fire for his greater torment. Whereat many protestants were offended and grievously skandallized: for that Calvin had set forth a book a little before, to prove that no heretic ought to be put to death for his religion.  
Now for other behaviour of Calvin, 
Caluins' ambition and vain glory.  as for his intolerable ambition and pride, there are many examples given: as that, to make himself famous he devised diverse letters, and other works in praise of himself, and published them under the name of one Galasius & others: and sending them to PETRUS VIRETUS minister of Lausanna to be spread abroad by him: he being well acquainted with Caluins' style, espied the devise, and was greatly offended therewith, and wrote to Calvin, that he would discredit himself by such doings. But Calvin answered, that it was expedient it should be so done, forth credit of their cause: and that he meant to write shortly as much in the commendation of VIRETUS himself, and FARELUS also, Wherewith VIRETUS was pacified. These letters with one and forty more were found in the study of viretus (after his running away from Lausanna) and showed to the Lords of Berna: who could never abide Calvin after ward, for this manifest declaration of his vainglory and pride. The same Calvin, after he had broken down the images, & razed the pictures of Christ and all Saints in Geneva: he caused his own picture to be drawn, and set up in diverse places of the city: and used also to give little pictures and images of himself to gentlewomen, and gentlemen to carry about their necks. And when one told him, that some thought much of this: 
A holy answer,  he answered: he that can not abide it, let him burst for envy.  


Chap. 13.  
Caluins raising of a dead man.   another example of his intolerable pride & vainglory is this that followeth. One called Brulle of the town of Ostune, being made a protestant, came with his wife to dwell at Geneva, and for that he was but poor, he procured many letters in his commendation to Calvin, for his relief of the common purse, which he obtained. And being thereby, made a fast friend unto him, and very familiar: Calvin on a time brack with him and his wife, in a matter of great secrecy, which might turn the gospel to great credit, and themselves to great gain, if they would do it faithfully. And this was, that the husband should feign himself sick, & so to die, and that he would seem (by the word of the Lord) to raise him again. Which they were content to do And so all circumstances being agreed upon, and the day appointed for his death, yea and the very hour: john Calvin that day invited of purpose, many gentlemen to dinner, & after dinner walked out with them, and kept himself always near the door of that feigned sick man, 
Intolerable hypocrisy.  for whom he had caused much prayer to be made in the city. At last when the hour was come, the good wife came out cryeing, that her husband was dead. Whereupon Calvin requested the gentlemen to go in and see him. And there, he falling down on his knees, as rapt with zeal, began to pray vehemently, and to trouble himself in spirit, after the imitation of Christ, 
joh. 11. & 13.  desiring the rest to pray with him, which they did. And then Calvin breaking out in great fervour, desired the Lord for more manifestation of his gospel, to restore that man to life again, & therewith in great vehemency took the man by the hand, and willed him again, & again, in the Lord's behalf to rise. But he moved not, whereat the good wife marveling, removed quickly the cloth from his face, and found him both dead and cold: at which sight she being grievously astonished, cried out, that her husband was murdered, and falling into a rage, ran upon Calvin, exclaiming that he was a deceiver, & so opened the whole matter to the standers by: who remained much amazed to hear her tell such particulars, as she did, but yet for not discrediting the cause, they rebuked her: but she continued cryeinge out still. Calvin said, she was mad, or else the devil was entered upon her, and so left both her and the house. But yet soon after, he caused her to be banished the city, and to stop her tongue the sooner, she was married to a minister, named Cowldrye, about Ostune. But yet all that sufficed not to stay her speech, but that ever more she continued in the same tale.  
The like event almost had he in conjuring an evil spirit out of the body of a certain gardener, 
Caluins casting out of devils, vide in vita Bezae. pag. 12.  belonging to a citizen of Geneva, called Domen Faure, in whose house, the said Gardener being grievously possessed (as I have said:) Monsieur Calvin would needs go to the house after his accustomed proud fashion, accompanied with many gentlemen and others, and would presume, as the preacher and servant of the lord, 
FERD. STA PHILUS' counsellor to the Emperor, being a young man, and a protestant also, was with Luther in the vestry of aparishe church in wittenberg, when he took upon him to conjure the devil out of a maid sent thither from Misnia. But this devil so dressed Luther, as seeking to run out again at the door, he could not, for that the devil had so fastened yt both within and without, as Luther was fain to stay there in great torment, and in danger of a homely chance, while tools were in fetching to break down the door. Staph. apol● 2.  to cast out the said devil: But god refusing to give testimony to fashoode, suffered the devil to bear the man possessed, with great violence upon Calvin, and to beat him with his fist, to scratch him with his nails, to bite him with his teeth, and to torment him in most terrible manner. Nor all the people present were Able to resist him: and in the end Calvin hardly, and with much a do escaped a way with his life, all beaten, scratched, and most pityfullie handled, he being, besides the hurt, almost out of his wits with fear. This was done in the presence of many people, whereof diverse are yet a live, and do testify the same, that Monsieur Calvin would never after go again to cast out devils.  

Caluins' lasciviousness. Ex cap. 14.  Touching the lascivious dealing of this prophet, there be many examples put down in the book, giving open signs of his lose behaviour, and importing great suspicion of fowl dishonesty, both with man and woman kind, though he had always a wench of his own. His diet was very dainty, both for rare meats, choice wines, variety of dishes, and furniture of service. 
Monsieur calvin's day means.  And when he would show so much favour to any man, as to go forth and dine or sup with him a broad, always a silver pot of his own wine must be carried with him, for his own mouth. He had also a baker that made bread of purpose for him only, of fine flower wet in rose water, & mingled with sugar, Cynomome, and Aniseseeds, beside a singular kind of Biskette made for himself alone. And this was so known ower all Geneva, that, all excellent bread was commonly compared to the bread of Monsieur Calvin. Whereof the Lords of Berna having good information, 
The Author was then ph●sitian at Berna.  were greatly scandalised and offended, thinking that never any of the old prophets took such care of their bodies as this new prophet did. By which means he came to be so wanton with woman kind, as many scandalous things fell out, 
Ex ca 15.  which I pass over, referring my reader to the foresaid book itself. As the gentlewoman of Mongis which stealing from her husband at lausanna, went & made residence at Geneva with Monsieur Calvin, whether her husband durst not follow her. Also the young strange gentlewoman that took a house nigh Geneva, where Calvin used to lie when her husband was from home, and the servant found his place in his mistress bed, and the like: Yet one prank I can not let pass, touching a very noble man called james Bourgongne Lord of fallaise, 
A notable prank of Monsieur Caluine.  who for religion came & lay at Geneva, with his lady, a goodly gentlewoman whose name was jolland of Bredrode. This man being very sickly in Geneva, and much in the physicians hands, would have Monsieur Calvin come and visit him often, which he willingly did, but more for the wives sake than for the man's, as appeared after: for besides many significations of his good will towards her: in the end he opened himself fully unto her, telling her in great secrecy, that this man was but a burden unto her now, and could do her no more service, being rather as a dead man than alive. Wherefore (sayeth he) if you will follow my counsel, let him go (lady jolland,) and he being dead, we two, we two, will marry together. Which the lady took in great disdain, and for avoiding of further inconvenience persuaded her husband to forsake Geneva presently, and to go to Lausanna: where they being arrived, she opened the whole cause and matter unto him, & to many other her friends besides. And the Author sayeth, that he heard all this from the mouth of the same lady herself, in the presence of her said husband, and of many other honourable personages then present.  
I leave infinite matters of other quality, as of his singular cozenage, especially towards the Queen of Navarre, by divers feigned and contrary letters, and the like: which the reader may see at large in the book. 
Caluins' sickness and death.  But yet at last after all this joylitie and shysting for the time, death came on him in the end, & paid him home for all. Beza confesseth (sayeth our Author) that he was greatly tormented before his death with all these diseases together: the phthisic, the cholik, the Astma, the stone, the gout, the hemoroids, and the megrim in his head. But he leaveth out that which was the principal: & that is, the horrible disease of life and worms, which did eat his whole body over: 
An●iochus, and Herod, and divers other enemies of god died this death.  & the most loathsome ulcer in his fundament and privy members, which did stynck so outrageously, as no man might abide to be near him. And this they do testify which were about him even unto the last breath in his body. And they add (sayeth our author) and do confirm it by diverse witnesses, that he died swearing, and cursing, and naming the devils, through desperation of his extreme paynes● and most pityfully bewailing the time that ●uer he had studied or written book. And all this hath this author published with much more touching the life and death of john Calvin.  

s●●ha life of Theodore Beza.  The same author hath set forth this present year, 1582. an other history of the life and manners of Theodore Beza, successor of Calvin in his chair of Geneva: and hath dedicated the same book to the honourable Magistrates, counsellors, and other governors of the said city, of Geneva, for that they can best tell whether most of the reports be true or no: or at leastwise, may learn the same, as most of all it behoveth them. And he sayeth, that he hath done it in the time of Beza yet living, to the end he may refute it, if any thing be said amiss. 
Jerome her mes Bolsec. in his book of the life and manners of Theodore Beza.  First therefore, to let pass other infinite things: he showeth how Beza was borne at vezels in france, whose father was lyevetenant for the king in that city, and when he came to die, seeing the most wicked disposition of his son, gave to him his curse, and under the hand of a public notary, and in presence of many witnesses, did disinherit him, and disclaim him for his son. Yet had he brought him up in study of learning, both at Paris and Orleans, & had procured him to be made prior of Longiumey. But he saw that he turned all to wickedness, without hope of amendment. 
He began as his master Caluine did.  And albeit he abounded in all kind of vice: Yet the excess of carnal sins did pass all other in him, wherewith he did not only offend God himself, but infected also all other whose company he used. This appeareth (beside other testimonies) by an infamous epigram read in comparison of the two sins, of adultery and Sodomy, and between a boy which he abused, and a man's wife of Paris that he kept in dishonesty: the boy he calleth AUDEBERTUS, & the harlot CANDIDA, 
Beza his dishonest Epigram.  though her true name were Claudia. The Epigram beginneth thus: Abest Candida, Beza quid moraris? Audebertus abest, quid hic moraris? And then he goeth on, examining which sin he may love best, & in the end preferreth the horrible sin of Sodomy with his boy, before the pleasure of his harlot Candida. And he did not only make these filthy verses, but also did put them in print, the year 1548 under his own name, and Robert Stephanus of Paris did print them.  
Whereat the Council of Paris was so much offended, that an arrest was granted forth to apprehend Beza. 
The manner of Beza his vocation to the gospel.  Which he understanding of, first of all, sold his Priory for ready money in hand: and then presently (before the matter was known,) did let out the same to other farmers for five years, taking also money before hand. When he had done this: he stole away, and came secretly from vezels to Paris, & there agreed with Candida (which was a tailors wife, dwelling in Calendar street) & she stealing what she could from her husband ran with him to Geneva: where they were received by Calvin, and much made of, and Beza soon after placed by him, as chief minister and public reader of divinity in Lausanna.  
When this was known, the parties to whom Beza had sold and leased his priory, fell together by the ears, who should have it, and much money was spent about the suit, in the court of Paris. The poor Tailor, who had lost his wife, (and some goods besides) could not tell which way to look, nor where to complain. Afterward, in the year 1561, when the king of France had granted a free disputation to the protestants at Poysie, 
The conference at Poysie.  and safe conduct to all them that would come, (whereat Beza was also as one,) both the foresaid Tailor & the buyars of his benefice, came thither to meet with their Merchant: But by reason of the kings safe conduct, the poor Tailor (having no friends) was prohibited to ps●cute the matter against Beza, so that he was fain to let go his wife: & Beza keepeth her for his wife at this day. But the farmers making more friends, than the tailor could, got a hundred crowns delivered them, by the hands of one MATHEW LAUNOY a minister, & one of their chiefest disputers at that time, but sense returned to the Catholic faith, hath opened their dealings, in many books.  
Monsieur Beza being now in credit in Geneva, and reader of divinity in Lausanna, followed his old manners still, in seeking new and fresh baits, notwithstanding the presence of Candida: for having begotten his servant with child, 
A notable devise and present shift of Beza.  (which was young and fair, called Claudia,) & fearing lest the matter should come to the magistrates ●ares, feigned both himself and the maid to be sick of the plague, whereby none should dare to come unto them, and so obtained, of PETRUS VIRE●VS minister also of lausanna, that they might both be placed in two chambers of his in an utter garden, which was granted. And then he caused a poor young man that was a barboure to come unto him, and persuaded him to take a gross quantity of blood from Claudia the maid, and moreover to give her a strong purgation, which he did: and thereupon she was soon after delivered of her child dead, which they buried in that garden, as the same barber afterward confessed, 
Beza killeth his own child and together hazardethe the life of his harlot. O impious abusing the majesty of God.  and the author heard it from his own mouth. But in this mean space, whilst those, things were in doing, Beza (to cover matters, and to deceive the people the more,) made certain spiritual songs of the great pains, which he suffered by vehemency of the plague, and sent them to be printed at Geneva, where as in deed he was not sick at all.  
After this trouble of Child birth was past, Beza with his master Calvin, as long as he lived, and after his death, he alone, employed himself to all kind of wickedness, not only at home, but also abroad. And first the conspiracy, for taking the young king of France at Amboise was contrived from Geneva, and one Villemongis a noble man (fled from digieon in France a little before, for counterfeiting the kings broad seal) was sent from Geneva, as chief in this matter. And after that, infinite treasons appeared from Geneva: as for the taking of Lions, Orleans, Poitiers, and other Cities: 
The Duke of Gu●se murdered by Beza his appointment.  which all, or the most part, came from Beza his head, as diverse parties executed have confessed. Also soon after, he devised the death of the noble Duke of Guise, and committed the execution thereof to one Pultrot, who did it in deed, at the only motion and persuasion of Beza, as he openly protested at his death. And at the very same time, to stir men up the more to sedition, he put forth diverse most poisoned books, entitled by diverse names as for example, one called the french furies: 
Seditious books set forth by Beza.  an other, The truth. An other: The Watch: An other, the uvaking bell. All which tend directly to move troubles, seditions, wars, rebellions, murders, and the like. Also, the life of S. Katherine of Florence, which in show, is only an infamous Libel against the Queen's mother of france, but in deed is a defacing, and most opprobrious infaming of the king, and all the nobility, that are not Caluinists.  
And as this man was busy a broad, so was he not Idle at home, in establyshing his own dominion, in Geneva. For which respect, he caused Merlin, the chiefest learned minister of that city, and in deed far better learned than himself, 
Beza his tyranny. in Geneva.  namely in the tongues, to be deposed from his ministery, & to void the city. The like he did by an other called Gaigneur, and for the same purpose, he caused the Lord of Pacye (though a protestant) to lose his head, without all cause, following herein his Master Calvin, who had a facility in cutting of all them which any way resisted him. For this end also he joined gladly with all strangers, that fled to that city, for the same or like causes as he had done himself: that is, for horrible wickedness. For that he was sure, that such men durst never go home again, and therefore must needs be fast friends unto him: that is, as he calleth them Zealous followers of the gospel. So the forenamed Villemongis flyeing to Geneva for having counterfeited the kings seal (as I have said) became most Zealous upon the sudden: 
The furniture of Geneva for the gospel.  So one Nicholas hanuoyre, merchant in Anwerp, running away with three thousand pounds of other men's goods, fled to Geneva, and was received ioyfuly, and assoiled from restitution, and his daughter married to Anthony Cawin, john calvin's brother. So the Lady of Clells in Dolphinie running away in her husband's absence, with one county julio of Atien, an Italian, who had been nought with her before: she came to Geneva bringing with her as much goods of her husbands as she could get, and although her husband, the Lord of Clells, pursued her and claimed justice at Geneva, both against her, and the adulterer: yet could he get none, but only the consistory of ministers, upon deliberation determined that he might mary again, when he could get an other wife, for that he was never like to have this, being now more fit for County julio than for him.  
The like happened in one Contour, a notable adulterer, who took away the wife of one Pise, a Citizen of Mascon, and brought her to Geneva, and nether the Citizen nor any friends that ever he could make, could get any justice or restitution of that wife: but that under pretence of zeal to the gospel, both were maintained in Geneva, against all reason, conscience, & honesty, she having left many children with her former husband, desolate by her departure. And all this is done by the counsel, doctrine, and authority of Monsieur Beza now in Geneva: who having entered there with his master Calvin for refuge of their filth, (as hath been declared) have reform the City to their own humours, & have made yt a receptacle for all desperate and monstrous malefactors in the world.  

A brief consideration upon the former lives.  And thus (M. Charke) upon occasion given by yourself, you have heard somewhat of the first beginner's or restorers of your gospel, whom you call holy men and saints of God. And surely they ought to have been so. For we never read since God had first a church, that he made reformation in the same, (such as you pretend,) but by rare & singular virtuous men. But now if these your late reformers, whom you must needs affirm to have been endued with the holi● ghost, above other men, were but meanly or commonly honest, and that in external behaviour at least: we could be content to let it pass. But if (as it is evident) they were so lewd, and notoriousely evil, as they may contend even with the very worst, and out cast of the world: then is it hard for any sensible man to believe, that they were endued with the holy Ghost above other, and that God would choose them so singularly, to control and refourme the whole church beside. And to make a brief recapitulation of this matter: Six men only have been the beginner's, 
Six men the reformers of all our English religion.  increasers, and perfecters of all the reformation which now you have in England. The first of all, was Luther: whose vocation life and doctrine hath in part been touched before: and he confesseth expressly himself, 
Lib. de mis. priva. & unct sacer. Artic. 28. cont. Lo●a. To 2. wit. fol. 503.  without gloze, that the first motion thereof came from the devil himself in proper person. Luther had three first and principal scholars: that is, Corolostadius, Oecolampadius, and Zuinglius, which first began the religion of Sacramentaries, and are accursed by Luther: as damnable heretics for the same.  
The first of these three being archdeacon of wittenberg was thought so evil a man by Luther himself, 
COROLOSTADIUS.  as was unworthy to live amongst Christians, and so by his procurement, he was banished out of all the dominions of the Duke of Saxony, 
An. 1525.  and so ended his life miserably in labouring the ground, 
OECOLAMPADIUS.  as your own historiographer Sleidan writeth lib. 5. The second was so lewd a man, as by Luther's affirmation he was slain by the devil himself. 
An. 1531, October. 12  Lib. de missa privata & unct sacer. or as (some other think) killed himself with his own hands: 
VLRICUS ZVINGLIUS. in li. subsi. de euchar.  Lindan. dial. 3. dubit. The third having received the proofs of his new doctrine of the sacrament, from a spirit in the night (as himself writeth, & confesseth that he knew not weather he were black or white) lived in such sort as he was detested by Luther, and finally stirring up the Zuisars, his country men to war, one against the other, (that is, the Tugurines against the five pages) was slain him self in the field, 
An. 1531. Octob. 9  and after his body burned: against whom Luther made many invectives after his death. Sleidan li. 8. Surius in histor.  
The fifth reformer was john Calvin, 
CALVIN.  whereof came the Caluinists: who, how good a man he was, the story before of his life declareth. 
calvinists differ from zwinglians in religion.  And that he differeth from Zuinglius in religion, (which M. Fulke in all his writings most impudently denieth) may appear by the 15. articles of heresy which Andreas Zebedeus, preacher of Nion, and johannes Angelus preacher of Burtin, both zwinglians, did take upon them to prove against Calvin before the Magistrates of Berna (Calvin himself being present) upon pain of burning, if they proved them not. Whereupon proceeded the decree of those Magistrates the year 1555, and third of April, that none of their dominions should go to c●municate with Calvin at Geneva. Pontas●in Anno, 1555. The last of your reformers which hath brought your doctrine to perfection, that is, to puritanism, is Beza, 
BEZA.  of whose singular virtues you (M. Charke) above others have greatly to rejoice, for that you show yourself in your reply a most zealous Puritan.  
But now after all these matters discussed, M. Charke, to discredit all that hitherto had been said, bringeth in a false report of Lyndan (as he sayeth) touching the fowl death of Martin Bucer, 
Touching the death of Bucer.  in Cambrige. And for proof hereof, he allegeth a sentence of M. Car (than a protestant) in his epistle to M. Cheek (a protestant also) containing some commendation of the death of M Bucer. But I ask you (M. Charke,) why do you accustom to belie men so? have you no conscience in so doings? For shame report as you find, and no otherwise. Lyndan avoucheth it not as you say: But only he reporteth as he had heard: for his words are these: 
Lindan. de fug. ido. cap. 11.  M●rcatores quidam Coloniae, non ignobiles, narrant: certain worshipful merchants of Colen do report. you see he avoucheth it not: why showld you him bely so falsely as you do? I have noted now this in you divers times: I hope it will do you good against you writ again: And this of the report. But for the matter, it is of small importance, how soever it be. For as Lyndans authority were little available against you, if he had affirmed it, as he doth not: so M. Cars authority writing at such a time, and upon such occasion, and for such an end, and to such a man as he did: 
Pontacus Burdegalensis in chron anni 1551.  is not of great weight with me, for the denial. Let the matter be as it will, it little importeth us. Yet one historiographer of our time doth write, that some of Bucers own disciples have reported, that he died a jew denyeing Christ to be the Messiah.  
What soever his death was, Martin Luther writeth that he was a very untrue and wicked man: 

Luther. ep. ad Io. Har. typ. arg.  
This is testified of bucer by lavatherus a Zwinglian in hist. sacr.  
And by functius, a sectary, in chron. also by the acts themselves of that Synod set forth in print.   yea, (more than that) that he was a very Monster. And for his constancy in doctrine, you have little cause to brag so of him. For first, of a Dominican friar he became a Lutheran. After that, he bacame a Zwinglian, as appeareth ep. ad Norimb. ep. ad Essingenses: And thirdly, in the Synod Holden at Luther's house in wittenberg the year 1536, he came back again to be a Lutheran, recantinge openly both the article of baptism of infants to be unnecessary: (as he had written before upon the third chapter of S. Mathewes gospel) and also the article of the supper, as he testifieth of himself, upon the sixth of john: and 26. of Matthew, Where he asketh pardon also of God and of the Church, for that he deceived so many with the heresy of Zuinglius, as he calleth it: and yet notwithstanding, a little before in his epistle to them of Norimberge, he affirmeth the doctrine of Zuinglius to be most divine, and delivered immediately by Christ from heaven: 
Bucers' inconstancy.  and Luther's doctrine to be new, and repugnant to the scriptures. Also in his epistle ad Essingenses he calleth the Lutherans, fanatical and furious teachers. But did this third or fowerth recantation hold, think you? no surely. For coming into England, he bacame a Zwinglian again, (as you will not deny) and in that opinion died, as you say: but I think he might die a jew well enough, as pontacus writeth, for any reason I see to the contrary. For he, which had so many times changed his faith, seemeth to have had no religion at all (by likelihood) in his heart, and therefore might easily both doubt and waver, not only in points of the Catholic, Lutheran, and zwinglian religion, but also of the Messiah and Christ himself: as diverse write, that some of his scholars have reported. Wherefore, though I passed over this man as scarce worthy mentioning: yet have you gained little by bringing him in, as far as I can see: And therefore let us now return to the Censure again.    

Of the Jesuits doctrine.  

THE CENSURE.  
fourthly, you will needs bring the jesuits in discredit by certain blasphemous doctrines, which you say they hold, in a book written by common consent, called Censura Coloniensis: out of which you have, for example sake, put down thirtiene blashemies, in their own very words (as you say) noting the leaf, and adding the clean contrary doctrine out of the word of God. 
Bad dealing of william Charlke.  And that men should know that you deal plainly, and bring their very words, and no syllable of your own, you have put their sayeings down, in a different Roman letter. But (M. Chark) in brotherly charity, let me reaso the ma●ter a little with you. Are you not ashamed of this falsehood? did you not think that this your book might be examined by some man or other? in deed you have all the prints to yourselves, and your searchers are so watchful, as nothing can pass their hands, to the discovering of your doings, & therefore you may bo●h say and print what you will. And our ears may well burn on this side the sea, & our heart's rue, at the shameless untruths which we hear & see uttered there among you daily: But we can not remedy it, & this that I write now, I make account, it may aswell perish, as divers things of greater importance have done heretofore. But surely me thinketh a wise man, that had care of his soul, might see the light at a little hole, & descry the conclusion by a few premises. If you in so short a pamphlet utter so many, so manifest, so inexcusable untruths, as I will now show, which notwithstanding you might reasonably doubt lest perhaps they might be disclosed: what will you, and your fellows dare avouch in your sermons, speeches, and discourses, which you are sure shall never come to examination? But now l●tt us consider these wicked blasphemies of the jesuits: with whom if you have dealt truly and honestly, then let all be believed which you speak daily of us. If you have done otherwise: then the same malice which drove you to abuse yourself towards them, may also justly be suspected in the rest of your doings, and sayeings towards us.   

THE DEFENCE.  
Sir william, in this place as a bird taken by the leg for lying, & a feather or two pulled of his pride, by exaggeration of the ●ame, beateth himself greatly to get out, and thrusteth his head in every hole to be gone. And first he sayeth, I have reported most intolerable slanders of Martin Luther upon the credit of three or four witnesses: And why then might not he report these things of the jesuits, upon the credit of one Gotuisus? But the differences of these matters shall appear after: And how I have justified both myself and my Authors in my reports about Luther, the reader hath now seen. If M. Charke can discharge himself so, he shall pass blameless. secondly he sayeth. I have made four lies without shame in one sentence. 
Most ridiculous a●cusations.  For (sayeth, he) we have not all the prints to ourselves, as may appear by this your book imprinted. Our searchers are not so watchful as nothing can pass: for this your book hath passed. We can not say or print what we will: for it must be with examination and privilege. You are not beyond sea, as you would have us believe: for it is now known this book was written in England. These are four manifest lies, this is the judgement of God against you. Do not you take pity of this poor minister, that stowpeth to so miserable helps for his relief?  
But this door not serving his turn to get ou●, he runneth to an other. You charge the magistrates & learned bishops (sayeth he) as if they were careless, what doctrine is delivered unto the people. Yea marry, this is to the matter, for if you can make the state to answer for your doings, you may lie by authority, & no man with safety shall dare to control you● I have seen a gentleman named M. Pasye, who had a custom, that when he went after his Lord, and had played some prank with his companions, in such sort as he feared a blow coming towards him again: he would step before his master and say: beware Sir, there is one that will strike you. 
The dealing of our adversaries in drawing all matters against the state.  Even so deal you ministers in your generation, with us that are of the Catholic part. When you have excited us, by demands, offers, challenges, & provocations: when you have stirred us with lies, slanders, reproaches, and other injuries: if you see any little rebuff draweinge towards you again: you step with facility behind the cloth of estate, putting her Majesty, her Magistrates, and the whole realm between you and us, saying, that we offer at them, and not at you: we impugn them, & not you: whereas in deed, in many things, there is nether word, nor thought that toucheth them: And in the matter of religion itself, wherein they are amiss, we seek to do them good, by discryeing of your falsehood. But yet you, as not able to defend any one thing yourselves, draw them always as principal to every matter, though never so far of from their affairs. Shall I give an example besides yourself (for you do it almost in every leaf?) M. Owlet complaynethe of these our wicked and lose times: 
In the preface to the reasons of refusal.  which is common (as you know) to all that live in them. Doctor Fulke to scrape a little favour from the court, and to make the other odious: crieth out against him, 
In his answer to Howle● fol. 3.  for that he had not consideration of her majesties singular virtues, and others of high estate under her. Was there ever parasite that flattered so palpably? when men accuse the times, must they except princes, by name, or else be accounted traitors? what Apostle, what ancient father did ever so? but we pardon your necessity: extreme poverty driveth you to these shifts: which I thought good once to note to the reader, that I may not trouble myself with them in every place where they are used.  
The third hole where at this afflicted bird seeketh to wring out, is by layeing all his lies upon one Go●visus, from whom (as he sayeth) he took these reports against the jesuits: 
touching Gotvisus.  adding notwithstanding for preventing of after claps, that he promised not to mingle no syllables of his own: nor to deliver the scripture, in precise words as it lieth, but rather as he sayeth, in full weight of true sense and matter. And thereupon he maketh a solemn protestation of his true dealing. But I will show and prove, (notwithstanding this hypocrisy,) that, admitting this liberty which M. Charke requireth, of chopping and changing in his reports: yet, that he is a false man, and maliciously meant to deceive in the same: And if I prove not this, let me be taken for false myself. And I do most willingly stand to my offer made before, which M. Charke taketh hold of, that if these reports, as they are here laid down, and denied by us, can be verified, either in words or true sense against the jesuits: let all be believed which they speak daily against us.  
And that you may take some foresight of M. Charks untrue meaning even now at the beginning: his falsehood appeareth first in that, 
divers ways whereby M Charkes falsehood appeareth.  he citing his reports out of an other man, against the jesuits, without seeing their book, (as he sayeth,) did not in all the whole discourse so much as once name, or quote his author Gotvisus, either in text or Margin: the cause whereof shall appear after. And albeit he now sayeth, that Gotvisus was quoted in most of his books: yet I dare scarce believe him, for that I could never yet happen upon any that had him quoted: And if some had it, why not all? secondly, 
Li. deprecipuis capitibus theologiae Iesu●tarum: In orthodoxis explicationibus.  he had seen the most of these reports set down by kennitius against the jesuits, (from whom it seemeth that Gotuisus borrowed them) and refuted by Payvas a learned Portugal, and convinced of so manifest forgery & falsehood, as kemnitius to my knowledge durst never to defend them again, nor any other for him. How then could M. Charke without shameless false meaning, lay down the very same reports again without naming his author, or seeing the book whence they were cited, especially having (besides many other) Canisius a jesuit before his eyes in England: 
In opere catechistic●. Dona●us Gotuisus de fide I sum & Iesu●arum.  which teacheth the very contrary, as after shall be showed? thirdly, his author Gotuisus in the most of these reports citeth not only the Censure of Colen, but also the large Catechism of Canisius for his proof, which was common in England to be seen, and whereby M. Charke must needs know that Gotuisus slandered the jesuits most impudently. For covering whereof M. Chark not only suppressed the quotation of Canisius, and cited only the Censure of Colen (which he knew was not to be had in England) but also supressed his chief Author Gotuisus himself (which no writer useth in such matters of importance) to the end the reader might not by him learn out the quotations of Canisius, and thereby discover the falsehood. And this was the true cause of the omission of Gotuisus his name. And is not this most wilful treachery? lastly, M. Charke, as not contented with this, doth help out often times the reports of Gotuisus (being but short and brief sentences) with new falsifications, of his own, or with fraudulent recital, when they seem not of themselves to sound absurdly enough against the jesuits. And can this be excused from malicious and false meaning? Now then let us see whether these things be so in deed or no.    

Of the nature and definition of sin. 
The first Article.   

THE CENSURE.  
First therefore, you report the jesuits to say: It is not sin what soever is against the woord● of God. Censura Colon. leaf 44. (1.) These voordes are guylefullie reported, peeced and culled out for your purpose of a large discourse, and yet most true in their sense. The occasion whereof was this. One Monhemius a Lutheran, against whose Catechism this Censure of Colen was made, would needs prove Concupiscence, remaining after baptism, to be a mortal sin, albeit no consent of heart were given unto the same: & for proof thereof, he brought in this definition of sin: 
A faulty definition. of sin.  Sin is what soever repugneth to the law of God, The which definition, the Censure of Colen affirmeth not to be in all respects perfect, but that diverse words should be added to the same: as for example, in stead of that he sayeth (Sin is what soever etc.) (2.) He should have said, Sin is an action: for that there be diverse things which repugn against the la of God, as evil men, evil laws, the devils, and the like, which not withstanding are not properly sins: for that they are not actions. (3.) secondly he s●ould have said, not only, (Sin is an action) but (Sin is an human or reasonable action.) For if a mad man, a fool, or a beast, should commit an act prohibited by god's law (as for example kill a man:) it were properly no sin (4.) thirdly he should have added (voluntary:) for if a man should do a naughty act against his will, as the virgins which were ravished by violence in the primative Church did, it were not sin. lastly, he s●ould have added (5.) (done wittingly.) For although jacob lay with Lya, 
Gene. 29.  which was not his wife, yet because he knew it not, but thought her to be Rachel his wife, he sinned not. So that, the perfect definition of sin, is not that which Monhemius did put down, and the protestants follow: but rather that which the jesuits, together with S. Augustin, and other learned fathers have set down: 

Aug. li. 3. de lib. arb. cap. 19  
The true definition of sin.   to wit, Sin is a human act, voluntarily and wittingly committed against the law of God. And this to be understood of actual sin properly.   

THE DEFENCE.  

False dealings so●wed by an example.  That these words are guilefullie reported out of the jesuits doctrine, may appear by this example. A learned counsellor having discoursed upon the laws of our land, and showed that albeit, all breach of public laws doth tend against the Prince and common wealth (as in deed it doth:) Yet every such transgression is not treason, but some felony, some trespass, some no offence at all, being done without malice, will, or knowledge: would you not think him a malicious wrangler, that should come and frame this odious proposition upon the others large discourse, it is not treason, what so ever is against the Prince and common wealth? For, albeit these words may be verified in a good sense (as the Censure sayeth of M. Charkes report) yet, being laid down barely without showing the occasion and discourse, they sound odiously, as though what soever were done against the Prince and common wealth were no treason. In like sort deal these heretics with the jesuits, who do show, that albeit every sin doth repugn the law of God: yet every thing that so repugneth is not equally sin, but some venial, some mortal sin, and some no sin at all, if it be without will or consent: as the first motions of concupiscende are. Whereupon our adversaries come and frame this odious proposition, before set down: to wit, it is not sin what soever is against the word of God: without expounding how and in what sense it was spoken.  
And to let you see M. Charks nipping and shuffling in this one little line to make it sound more odious, 
Kem. pa. 16 Go●uis. pa. 245.  than either kemnitius or Gotvisus (from whom he took it,) do deliver the same: The Jesuits words are reported by them thus: the jesuits (say they) in their definition of sin, do say, Peccatum est, non quicquid legi dei repugnat, Sed etc. Sin is, not what soever repugneth the law of God, but etc. And then followeth the rest of the jesuits definition, touched in the Censure. And thus is it reported by M. Charks Masters. But he, to make it seem more absurd in ignorant men's ears, layeth it down absolutely thus: it is not sin what soever is against the word of God. As though the sentence ended there. Also as though it were no part of a definition. Again, he changeth the place of the negation, which in framing of propositions altereth often the sense. 
Arist. lib. peri herminias.  So: for peccatum est, non quicquid etc. he sayeth non est peccatum quiquid etc. And lastly, for repugneth the law of God: he putteth, It is against the word of God. And all this to help out a little suspicion of absurd doctrine in the jesuits: which argueth in him a dishonest intention: though for the doctrine itself in the jesuits meaning, I think the Censure hath sufficiently defended it: and what soever M. Charke hath thereto replied, shall now be examined: noting by the way, that M. Charkes common, and only refuge of credit, to say, we must either absolutely grant, or absolutely deny all these propositions (fathered on the Jesuits) is ridiculous and most vain. For we admit so much of them, as either in word or sense the jesuits ever uttered: and the rest either coined, falsified, wrested, or otherwise abused by you, we turn home again with shame upon yourselves.  
But now to the defence of the jesuits definition of sin, against which M. Charke hath divers impertinent objections, which serve to spend time, but yet they must be answered (
2 Whether sin be an act or no. ) First than, to prove that sin is no act, he objecteth, that injustice is a sin, and yet no act To which I answer, that injustice may betaken for an act, and so properly a sin, as if a man would say it was great injustice to put to death so innocent and learned men, as M. Campian was, & those that died with him: here injustice signifieth an injust act. But if you take injustice for an habit only: that is, only for a proclivity, or facilicie to an injust act: 
The difference of vitium and peccatum in divinity Lib. cont. jul. pelag. cap. 18.  than you must learn, that aswell this, as all other evil habits are called by divines vitia, non peccata, vices and not sins. For that an evil habit may be in a man without sin, except by consent to it he bring forth an evil act: as S Augustin proveth in the habit or proclivity to drunkenness, contracted before a man's conue●sition, and remaining after the same, it is no sin except it bring forth some act of drunkenness, ethe● in consent or operation. And the like is to be said of all other evil habits or inclinations, which may remain in the mind, without any act: and consequ●●lie without sin, 
Cap. 14. the trin. cap. 7.  as experience teacheth: and as S. Austen also proveth in an other place. For in a good man after his conversion, there may remain evil habits, called vitia, as proclivity to lie, to steal, to carnal sin, or the like: and yet are they no sins, except they bring forth some act, either of consent in heart, or of operation in work. So that you see, how injustice (as it is an habit, that is, only an inclination or proclivity to do unjustly) may be in a man without sin. For that it is no sin of itself, without an act, as hath been showed. And this point perhaps you learned not before.  

The sin of omission. Ezech. 33. 1. Re. 2. D. Tho. 22 q. 79.  secondly, you object against this first member, that the sin of omission is a sin: as where Hely was punished for not chastising his children, and the watchmen condemned for omitting to sound the trumpet, which notwithstanding was no action, say you. This is a common objection, borrowed of our own schoolmen, and answered by the same. Every omission that is a sin (M. Charke) implieth some action, that is cause, either directly or indirectly of that omission, 

Chriso. ho. 16. inep. ad ●ph. & ho. 36. de unc. & vitiis.  
Ambros. ser. 18.  
Basil. come. in illud Lu. 12. destruam horrea.  
Every omission includethe an act.   and so is principal part of the sin: as S. Chrisostome, Ambrose, and Basil do prove. I say directly or indirectly: and I will give examples of both. First then I say, that I being bound (for example sake) to go to church at a certain hour, I may make a resolution with myself, that I will not go: and then this act of resolution in my mind, called no litio, is the direct cause of this omission, and the ground of the sin. And this was the sin of Hely, and of the watchmen before mentioned: whereof: the one determined not to punish his children, and the other not to sound the trumpet, though they saw the enemy coming, as the text showeth. secondly, I may omit this going to the church at the hour appointed, not upon any resolution made to the contrary: but for that I do set myself to do some other action at that time, (as to write, or the like) whereby I do occupy up the time wherein I should go to church, and so do commit that omission without any particular resolution, that I will not go: and in this case the action of writing, committed in the time when I should have gone to church, is the indirect cause of this omission, and the ground of the same, being done wittingly at such time as it should not. And so we see that every omission includeth an act, either directly or indirectly, going before, and causing the said omission. As also appeareth plainly by the 
* Peccatum est factum dictum vel concupitum contra aeter nam dei legem●  definition of sin so often repeated out of. S. Austen l. 22. contra Faustum cap: 27. and out of S. Ambrose li. de Paradiso capi. 8.  
And that which M. Charke addeth for over throw of my instances, saying: that not devils, but the evil in devils not evil men but the evil in men doth repugn against the law of god, is too too childish and absurd to come from him that profess the Learning For I am sure there is no young scholar, which hath studied Logik in Cambrige, but knoweth that, actio tribuitur toti concreto, & non ac●identi inhaerenti: that action is attributed to the whole concrete, and not to the accident inherent. Although the accident inherent be ratio formalis of the action. As for example: the physician is said to cure his patiented, and not the Physic in the physician, though he do it by his physic. The unjust judge sinneth in giving wrong sentence, and not the injustice in the judge, & for proof whereof, the judge shallbe damned, and suffer torments for it, and not the quality of injustice in him. The like is in devils, and in all evil men, who do properly repugn against gods laws, and do sin properly, and not the evil within them. And the contrary thereof is old heresy, as may appear by S. Augustin writing against some that said, 
Aug. ●om. 8. fo. 665. Genes. 1.  not we, but the darkness within us, have offended. Nether is it contrary to this (as M. Charke imagineth) that all things were created good by God. For God created not lucifer a devil, but a good Angel: nether Herod an evil man, but a good. their own lewdness made them evil. Therefore, albeit wicked men and devils be evil, and do repugn the law of God: yet the creatures of God are not evil, at leastwise as they are creatures of God: for that, God (as I have said) created them not evil.  

3 
Whether sin be a reasonable action.  
Li. 3. aeth. c. 3. li. 3. de anima. text. 46. & 54. Tom. 6. de fide cont. Manach. c. 9 & 10. li. 1. de servant do. in monte,   secondly you reprehend, that I call sin an human or reasonable action: and you would rather call it (as you say) an unreasonable action, which argueth in you some lack of reason. For what? doth not all election both good and bad proceed of reason? doth it not proceed ab intellectu practico, which is the seat of discourse and reason, as the philosopher proveth? is M. Charke so unlearned in all foundation of philosophy? Doth not S. Augustin prove of purpose, that peccatum fit ab anima rationali, that sin proceedeth from the mind endued with reason? again, that consentio ad peccatum fit in ratione? that consent to sin is made in reason? what say you by the good moral works of the gentiles, as their justice, their temperance, and the like, which you (though falsely) do judge to be sins, for that they proceeded not of faith? were they all unreasonable actions? But you object against this out of S. Paul what so ever is not of faith is sin: therefore, (say you) whether it be reasonable or unreasonable it is sin. 
Rom. 14.  jump: by this a horse might be a sinner, for that his actions proceed not of faith. But I answer to S. Paul, with S. Ambrose. 
Amb. in. ca 14. ad Ro.  that he meaneth, who soever doth a thing against that which faith prescribeth, that is, against a man's own conscience and judgement, he sinneth. But yet, that all moral good works of infideles (as justice, liberality, & the like) were not sins, S. Augustin proveth at large against M. Charke lib. de spir. & lit. ca 26.27. and 28. And S. jerom. in cap. 29. Ezechielis. Finally, to return and conclude our purpose, S. Aug. proveth against the Manaches, 
Cont. secund. Manach. c. 15. & 16.  that, peccatum est defectus voluntarius animae rationalis. Sin is a voluntary defect of a reasonable mind, and therefore is it a reasonable action.  
But what do I talk of voluntary? 
Whether sin be voluntary.  M. Charke denieth sin to be voluntary. What shall I say? It were infinite to stand and prove every principle of divinity against so perverse and obstinate a man. And then proverb is common: a long eared creature may deny more in an hour, than the best learned in the world can prove in a year. But he that will see long and large proofs of this, with infinite scriptures and reasons for the same: let him read but S. Augustin in any 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. confess. c. 3. and in diverse other places, where he repeateth often these words: 
Li. de vera reli. ca 14. & li. 1. retrac. c. 13.  Sin is an evil so voluntary, as it can be by no means sin, except it be voluntary. And Christ himself proveth the matter evidently, when he sayeth: that those things which do defile a man do come from the heart. Matth. 15. v. 18. But yet here M. Charke hath two objections. First, original sin is not voluntary, (saith he) ergo all sin is not voluntary. This albeit (it be not to the purpose: the Censure talking only of actual sin, as it professeth:) yet is it most false, and never divine said so before William Charke, but only the pelagians, who thereby would have taken away original sin from infants (as having no will) as S. Augustin testifieth: 
Li. 3. cont. julian. c. 5.  which (as well in that place, as in the first book of his retractations. c. 13.) he proveth most leardnedlie, that original sin is voluntary in us, by the first voluntary act of our first father, 
How original sin is voluntary  in which act we all did sin voluntarily, (that being an universal act of all mankind contained in Adam) as also the Apostle confirmeth, saying of Adam, In quo omnes peccaverunt: 
Rom. 5.  In whom all have sinned.  

Numb. 35.  His second objection is of the city of refuge, appointed by God among the Israelites, for them that had killed a man unwillingly, whereof he would infer, that unwilling manslaughter is a sin. But I am ashamed of M. Charke, that professing skill in scriptures, doth so ignorantly allege them, against their plain meaning, and against himself. For that chapter showeth at large, how these cities of refuge were appointed among the Levites, 
The causes of the cities of refuge.  for indifferent trial of manslaughter, least the next of kin to him which was slain, (called there the revenger of blood) should revenge the act upon the killer, before the matter were tried. But when the thing was now examined in the city of refuge, by sufficient witnesses, as the scripture appointeth: then if it were found that the slaughter was committed willingly, and of hatred: then the murderer was delivered into the hands of the revenger of blood, to be slain for the same. 
Slaughter done with out consent of will is innocenty.  But of unwillingly and without malice: liberabitur innocens de ultoris manu sayeth the text: the innocent shallbe delivered from the hand of the revenger. But yet he shall not depart from that city until the death of the high pryest. For that, 
In Isaaco colligato. Rab. Moys. in Morech. Nevo çh. li. 3. ca 40. Rab. Levi. in ca 20. Nu.  (as Rabbi Isaac Arameus writeth) the high priest (whose cities these of refuge among the levites were) had interest and dominion upon this man, by the law of levites, during his life, for the benefit which he had received by the place of refuge. To which also Rabbi Moses, and Rabbi Levi jerson do add an other reason: for that if he should have returned presently among the kindred of the man killed: his very sight might have stirred them up to revengement upon him again after the trial passed. But in the death of the high priest, the public sorrow was so great, as all men forgot their private injuries. and did use commonly to forgive one an other all offences, say these learned jews. And now I ask again, why M. Charke brought in this example? Doth not this make clear against him, proving that manslaughter unwillingly done is no sin: but innocency? if not manslaugter: how much less other smaller actions are clear from sin, when no consent of will is yielded?  
Against the clause of the definition, which sayeth, that sin must wittingly be committed, he objecteth, that M. Owlet in his reasons of refusal doth acknowledge a sin of ignorance: 
Two kinds of ignorance.  which I grant, but he speaketh of culpable ignorance, whereof a man himself is the cause: as his example of persecuting Saul doth show, whose ignorance (although it were not so wilful as of many persecuting protestants at this day, who of purpose refuse to know the truth) yet, 

Ep. 77. ad hugo. de S. vict.  
1. Cor. 15.   as S. Bernard well noteth, it could not be but culpable in him: as also himself doth confess. For that he being learned: in the old testament, if he would have conferred patiently with the Apostles, he might have seen that they taught nothing but correspondent to the ancient scriptures of God. But we speak here of inculpable ignorance, called invincible, by the term of schoolmen: for that it was not in the doers power to avoid it, nor he fell into it by his own default. As if an English man, being in India in service of the Prince, 

An example of invincible ignorance.  
Au. li. 3. de lib. arb: ca 22. Chriso. ho. 26. in ep ad Rom.   should be commanded by proclamation made in westminster hall to appear there at a certain day, and he (as not hearing of the same) should not appear this man is excused by invincible ignorance. And so in all other cases. S. Augustin and Chrisostome prove of purpose, & most learnedly, that this kind of ignorance (which in deed is only proper and true ignorance) doth excuse from sin. Yea God himself proveth it by the example of Abimelech king of Gerare, whom he excuseth from sin, 
Gen. 20.  for that he had taken away Sara abraham's wife, upon ignorance, & in simplicity of heart, thinking her to be Abraham's sister, as the text sayeth. The like simplicity of heart and inculpable ignorance, was in jacob, lying with Lia, in stead of Rachel, as the Censure showeth. 
Gen. 29. jacob sinned not in lying with Lia.  And albeit M. Charke most impiously joining herein with Faustus the Manachie, dareth condemn the holy patriarch in a double sin, as Faustus did: yet S. Austen defendeth notably this holy man's innocency, both against that and this heretic, in his two and twentieth book against Faustus, 
Ca 47.49. 50.51.52. Lib. 16. de civi. c. 38.  through many chapters together: as also in his book of the City of God. And with S. Augustin do take part S. justin the martyr l. de verit. Christi religionis: and Theodoret q. 84. in generat. and lyranus upon the very same place of genesis. 
In cap. 29. Gen  And what one word can M. Charke now peep against all this?  
To conclude therefore, though M. Charke hath picked out certain objections of our own books, made and answered by ourselves against the learned definition of the jesuits, (as in deed they have no other arguments, but such as we lend them ourselves): yet hath he (as you see) not infringed, but established that definition thereby, and hath bewrayed in himself great wants, in holding, 
M. Charks positions about sin.  that sin is no act: that no evil men do sin, but the evil in men: that sin is not voluntary: that it is no human or reasonable action: that it requireth nether will nor knowledge in the doer: that fools & mad men may as properly commit sin, as others, (for all these are his positions) by which he may as well defend, that beasts and unreasonable creatures may commit sin, and be sinners: 
Au. tom. ● 5. fo. 137. aedit. paris.  which S. Augustine thinketh to be so absurd as no man of common sense will affirm the same. But what do I allege S. Augustin, whom M. Charke rejecteth here by name about the definition of sin? Let us return therefore to the Censure. And see what is further brought about this matter.   

THE CENSURE.  
But now how doth M. Charke overthrow this doctrine? forsooth thus. Contrary to this (sayeth he) is the words of God. 1. joh. 3. the transgression of the law is sin. You seem to have made a vow (M. Charke) not to deal plainly in any one thing. Can you not allege one little sentence without falsifyeing? The words of S. john are these. Every one that sinneth committeth iniquity, and sin is iniquity. Or (as you will perhaps seem to enforce it out of the greek word ANOMIA) Sin is transgression of the law. But why have you fraudulently turned it backward? you knew well the force of transposition out of Sophistry, 
Transposition in alleging of scripture.  that it changeth all the meaning of the sentence. For if I say, Every man is a living creature, it is true: but if I turn it backward and say: Every living creature is a man, it is false. So these words, as S. john uttereth them, are most true: Every sin is iniquity, or transgression of the law: but as you utter them, they are false: to wit, that every iniquity or transgression of the law, be it never so little, or done without either consent or knowledge, or by a mad man, or brute beast, should be properly a mortal sin. So that this first blashemie of the jesuits cometh not to be so heinous, as you would make it: but rather to confound your ignorance, which understand not so clear doctrine, but hudle up matters as M. Campian telleth you: also to note your untruth in misreporting their words, and the scriptures against them. And of this first depend the other two that follow.   

THE DEFENCE.  
For covering of falsehood in this place M. Charke is constrained to use a falsehood or two more, according to the saying: that one lie is not maintained, but by an other: things aequivalent (sayeth he,) as for example, the definition and the thing defined) may be converted, & one mutually may be affirmed of the other: as the gospel is the power of God to salvation: 
Ro. 1. v. 16  And the power of God to salvation is the gospel: And therefore these two words also, si●ne & transgression of the law. But I deny this consequence: for transgression of the law is not the definition of sin, as hath been proved, nor is it equal in signification with the same, but reacheth further than sin, as the former discourse showeth: And therefore it is but absurdly brought in again here, as a thing granted, seeing thereof is all the contention. secondly, let M. Charke look, lest he be deceived, when he sayeth the power of God to salvation is the proper definition of the gospel: seeing, Christ himself (which notwistandinge is not the gospel, but author of the gospel) is called by the same words in an other place DUNAMIS THEOV: that is The power of god, 
1. Cor. 1. v. 24.  and no doubt but to salvation, as M. Charke will not deny. Wherefore, though it import not our matter at all, yet I think M. Charke was somewhat grossly overseen in choice of this example.  
After this, for some countenance of his fraudulent transposition, he sayeth: 
Io. 4. v. 24  as for the transposition, let the Apostles words be marked, saying, (God is a spirit:) Yet the words lie thus in the greek text, (a spirit is God.) Wherefore let not transposition seem strange to you. No more it doth (M. Charke) in common speech, and in a tongue that will bear it, as the latin and greek doth. But when we measure the weight of words or propositions, and that in our English tongue (as in our matter it falleth out) 
In Latin we say Princeps est Pompeius. which we can not interpret in English, word for word, a PRINCE IS POMPEY: But Pompey is a prince. For that our tongue admi●●eth not the praedication before the copula properly, as other tongues do. 1. Io. 5. v. 7.  transpositions are fraudulent, as in the very example which you allege, a spirit is God: if you would infer thereof, ergo every spirit is God, as you infer that every transgression of the law is sin: you should easily see your own falsehood. For Angels also are spirits (as the scripture sayeth), and yet not Gods. And here for my learning I would 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? surely (M. Chark) you are over bold in your avouchements of the scripture. For not only the greek, but also the latin and Syriac hath Spiritus est deus: and therefore, both fondly and falsely do you attribute it, as peculiar only to the greek.  
But M. Charke reserveth a sure card for the end, therewith to dash all that hath been said before, and that is the sentence of S. john afterward, omnis iniquitas est peccatum, all iniquity, (or 
* He fraudulently translateth transgression in this place, the greekwoorde being changed. 1. Io. 3. v. 4.  transgression (sayeth he) is sin. Which seemeth so plain against me, as he greatly insulteth and triumpheth, affirming that the victory by this one sentence is gotten: but believe him not (good reader) for he thinketh not so in his own conscience, but well knoweth that this sentence maketh greatly against him, though he would deceive thee, with the bare sound and equivocation of words. For in the former sentence, where is said, sin is iniquity, S. john useth for the word iniquity, ANOMIA, in greek, which signifieth any transgression or variance from the law●, be it great or little, as hath been proved, and as the nature of the greek word importeth, in which sense it is most true, that every iniquity is not sin, as I have showed, & as S. Augustin proveth, of very purpose. l. 2. cont. jul. pela. c. 5. And allegeth also S. Ambrose in the same opinion: 
Aug. li. 5. cont. jul. c. 3. & li. 6. c. 8.12. & 13.  as also Methodius apud Epiphanium her: 64. quae est Origenis. And S. Augustin proveth it in many other places besides: showing in our very case, how concupiscence is iniquity, in the regenerate, but yet no sin. And this for the first place. Now in the second place, where the same Apostle sayeth every iniquity is sin: he useth not the same general word ANOMIA. 
ANOMIA.  Which he used before, but ADICIA, 

ADITIA.  
Arist. in praedicam. qualittias.   which is a more special word, and signifieth an injustice or injury: as the philosopher showeth, assigning it as the contrary to justice: and therefore no marvel though this kind of iniquity be sin as S. john saith, yea great sin also, for of such only S. john talketh in that place, 
1. Io. 5.  saying, there is a sin to death, I do not say that any man should ask for that all iniquity is sin etc. whereby is evident, that the Apostle taketh not iniquity in this place (expressed by the word ADICIA) in the same sense, wherein he took it before, using the word ANOMIA. Which M. Charke well knowing, showeth himself a wilful deceiver, in that he would delude his reader, with the equivocation of the latin translation, which at other times he rejecteth without cause or reason.  

Small game.  lastly, he chargeth me with alteration of the text of scripture, for translating omnis qui facit peccatum every one that sinneth, where I should have translated (saith he) every one that doth sin. This is a charge worthy of M. Charke, that will play small game rather than sytt out. I pray you sir, what difference is there in the two phrases, your wife spinneth, and your wife doth spin? But you confess in deed there is little hold in this, and therefore friendly you do pardon me, for it, and do conclude, saying: you think perhaps to serve the Lord in your opinion, and I know I serve the Lord. You are happy that have so certain knowledge of your good estate M. Charke, 
M. Charks knowledge of his serving the lord.  though to utter it in this place I do not see what occasion you had. But I pray you let me learn how you came to this knowledge: Not by Aristotle's demonstrations (I am sure) which yet are the only means of certain science properly. How then? by faith? but you know, that faith can assure nothing, which is not revealed by the word of God. What part of god's word then, teacheth us that william Charke in particular serveth the Lord aright? but you will say perhaps. Your spirit within you telleth you so. And my spirit (M. Charke) telleth me the contrary. One of them must needs be a lying spirit: and why not yours as well as mine? These are fancies (gentle sir william) proper to heretical brains, to assure themselves such knowledge above other men. Luther said many years after he was a protestant. ego credo fortiter, imo ausim dicere, scio purgatorium esse: 

In disput. lips. cum Eckio quae adhuc extat.  
Buc●r. ep. ad Norim. & epist. ad Essingenses & come. in 3. & 26. Math. & joh. 6.   I believe stowtelie, yea I dare avow that I know there is a purgatory. Yet he denied it after. Martin Bucer when he was a Zwinglian knew (as he said) that doctrine to be delivered from heaven: but yet afterward coming back to be a Lutheran he protested openly that he knew it was most false. And again returning to be a Zwinglian: he knew it was true again, and the other false: and yet all this while certain knowledge can not be false. If a man should ask all the sectaries now living, they would say the same that you do of their certain knowledge. Wherefore me think you might have spared these words of your certain knowledge, which nether help your cause, nor hurt ours, any further than the credit reacheth of your own bare word, & that also in your own commendation.    

Of concupiscence. Art. 2.  

THE CENSURE.  
2. secondly you report the jesuits to say: 
The second article.  Concupiscence remaining in the regenerate, although it be against the law of God, yet is it not sin properly in itself, or of his own nature. Cens. fo. 38. (1) 
1  you will needs help the jesuits out with that which maketh for your purpose. Where find you in them, the words (Although it be against the law of God?) They say, that albeit this concupiscence do stir or move a man sometimes to do things which are repugnant to the law of God: yet if no consent of heart be yielded unto it: it reacheth not to the nature of a mortal sin worthy of eternal damnation. (2.) 
2.  And albeit S. Paul do sometimes call it sin: 
Rom. 7.  yet meaneth he not properly but by a figure, whereby the name of the cause is oftentimes attributed to the effect: (3.) 
3.  as the latin speech is called the latin tongue, because speech is the effect of the tongue. So concupiscence being the effect of original sin, is called sometimes sin, but not properly, but only figuratively, 
Rom. 8.  as also S. Paul calleth (4.) 
4.  Christ himself, Sin, because he was the sacrifice for sin. And all this is S. Austin's note, whose plain words in the same place are: Concupiscence is not sin, in the regenerate, if consent be not yielded unto her for the accomplishing of unlawful works. 
Li. 1. de nu. & concup. c. 23. & 25. & li. 1. con●. ep. 2. pelag. c. 13. & li. 1 Retr. c. 15.  The same teacheth not only S. Augustine in diverse other places, but also all other fathers of the primative church, as Nazianzenus orat: de S. Lavacro. Pacianus orat. de bap. Clemens Alexandrinus li. 1. pedag. c. 6 Cyprian ser. de lot: pedum. & li. 2. ep. 2. & Ambr. li. 1. de vocat gentium cap. 5. So that all these good fathers are partakers with the jesuits of this blasphemy, which you ensorce upon them. But how do you prove it to be blasphemi●● Marie because Christ sayeth: 
Math. 5.  who soever shall see a woman to lust after her, he hath already committed adultery with her in his heart But are you so ignorant M. Charke? Do you not see that Christ by adding the words (in his heart) meaneth only of him which giveth consent of heart to his lust and concupiscence, and would put it in execution if he had time, and place, and ability? but this is your common alleging of Scripture.   

THE DEFENCE.  
The charge of helping out the jesuits doctrine with these words although it be against the law of God, he layeth upon Gotuisus. 
1 Gotuisus pag. 264.  But I accept not this excuse. For he might have seen in Canisius pag 184. & 73●. which Gotuisus citeth also for the same, as well as the Ce●sure of Cole● (and which M. Charke confesseth to have read) that Gotuisus belied the jesuits in his report for that there is no such thing in the places alleged of Canisius, as by reading any man may see. Which declareth evidently, that you have no plain meaning, but a secret intention to deceive. As also when you assure your reader, that I denyeing concupiscence to be a mortal sin (according to the question between Monhemius and the jesuits) do thereby grant underhand that it is some kind of sin. Which was no more meant by me, than you (denyeing before Martin Luther's marriage to be sacrilege) did mean thereby to grant underhand that it was adultery, fornication, or any other lesser sin of the flesh.  
The exposition of S. Paul's words calling concupiscence improperly sin, 
2 Li. 6. c. 11. cont. julian.  quia peccato facta est, because it was wrought in us by original sin: as S. Augustin sayeth: M. Charke rejecteth, calling it a wrangling exposition, though it be the exposition of the primative church, and so recorded by S. Augustin in many places of his works: as lib. 1. de nuptio & concup. ca 23. li. 1. contr. 2. ep. pelag c. 13 lib. 1. retract. c. 15. li. 2. cont. jul. c. 13. and li. 6. c. 11. All which M. Charke (as better learned in S. Paul than Austen & all the fathers of that time contemneth as easily as if it were the exposition of some unlearned boy, 
Charkes malepertenes with S. Austen.  and beginneth himself like a doctor to discourse anew, upon S. Paul's meaning: marry (as it commonly falleth out to such malapert merchants) he is no sooner in, but he is over the ears in absurdities. For his discourse is this.  
S. Paul proveth, (sayeth he) that though the law stirreth us to sin, yet is it no sin. 
Rom. 7. Ver. 12.14  Well: this maketh for us. For so we may reason: that though concupiscence do stir us to sin; yet is it no sin. But what inferreth he? 
Weak reasoning.  therefore (sayeth he) if the law which is holy, do come in question notwithstanding of sin, for that it provoketh our corrupt nature to sin: how much more concupiscence: which is unclean in itself? This proveth nothing M. Charke but from the place, a disparatis, where commonly children and distracted men take their arguments. For how holdeth this: if the law, for stirring to sin: be called in question of sin, and be no sin: then concupiscence for stirring to sin, must be called in question of sin, and be sin in deed? but he will say (perhaps,) the force of the argument standeth in the words holy, & unclean, in this order: if the law, being holy, be called in question of sin: what shall we say of concupiscence, which is unclean? and what more can you say (M. Charke) than to call it in question of sin, & that somewhat more than the law is called in question, which is both pure and holy, and no ways either unclean or evil, or the effect of sin, as we grant concupiscence is? and yet for all this not properly sin, without consent of heart, as S. Augustin in the places alleged proveth.  
And this now of consequent, supposing the Antecedent were true, as it is most false. For who will grant those absurd impious propositions: The law stirreth us to sin: the law provoketh our corrupt nature to sin? 
Rom. 7.  S. Paul sayeth, I had not known sin but by the law: but he never sayeth, that the law stirred him up to sin: but only, that it discovereth sin unto him, even as the looking glass discovereth the spot in a-mans' face, and maketh us to see it, which we did not before, but yet procureth not that spot. And S. Paul giveth an example, saying, 
Exo. 20.  I had not known concupiscence, if the law had not said, thou shalt not covet. In which words, that he meaneth of voluntary concupiscence, that is, whereto either consent or delectation is yielded: S. Augustin besides the places alleged testifieth. li. 1. de nup. & concup. c. 29. li. de spiritu & litera cap. vlt. li. 19 con: Faustum c. 7. & count 2. ep. petil. li. 3. c. 7. And it is most worthy of laughter, which M. Charke, for filling up a page discourseth of S. Paul's estate: saying. Paul compareth his sta●e before his knowledge of the tenth commandment, with his state afterwards. He knew other sins before, by the light of nature: but he knew not concupiscence, till he knew the tenth commandment. I pray you Sir, what was S. Paul's state before his knowledge of the tenth commandment? was not S. Paul borne a jew? 
2. Cor. 11. Phil. 3. Act. 22.  brought up from his youth in the law, at the feet of Gamaliel? how then could he be ignorant in ●he tenth commandment, and yet be able to discern other sins by the light of natural reason? do you think upon your words before you send them to the print?  
S. Augustins example of the latin tongue M. Chark rejecteth, 
3 Au. li 1. de nup. & con cup. c. 23.  for that the tongue is not such a cause of the speech, as original sin is of concupiscence. But what a reason is this to reprove so learned a man as S. Augustin was? for who knoweth not, (as I have showed before) that comparisons or similitudes are not of necessity, to hold in every point, but in that only wherein they are compared. Though then the tongue be only the instrumental cause of speech: & original sin, the formal cause of concupiscence: yet is it sufficient to show that effects may take upon them oftentimes the name of their causes: and consequently, aswell concupiscence the name of sin, as the tongue the name of speech. 
A●b. ser. 27. Au. li. 2. de pecca. merit. c. 27. & 28.  Nether is it necessary (as M. Chark reasoneth) that every effect of original sin should be sin in the regenerate: For that all our penalties (as hunger, thirst, sickness & the like) are effects of original sin in us, but yet not sins in themselves: as nether concupiscence in the baptised, whose guilt is utterly taken away by baptism, as S. Ambrose and S. Augustin do prove.  
To like effect is alleged by the Censure the example of Christ called sin in the scripture: not for that, Christ and concupiscence are like effects of sin (as M. Charke quareleth:) but to show that a thing may be called sin by the scripture figuratively, and yet be no sin properly albeit, if we consider Christ, as he was hostia pro peccato, a sacrifice for our sin: (in which sense only, S. Paul calleth him sin:) No man can deny, but Christ so considered, was a certain effect of our sins also: that is, Christ crucified, or the crucifieinge of Christ was a certain effect of our sins: for that our sin was the cause of that death and sacrifice. And where you control my quotation of the ●. to the Romans, as though there were no such thing in that place: do you read but the third verse, and confess your oversight. 
Orig. in hunc locum.  And if you will not believe the text: read Origen, and S. Augustin: 
Augu li. 3. count 2. ●p. pe●ag. c. 6.  and they will tell you the cause why he is called sin by S. Paul in that place.  
But now for the ancient fathers alleged in the Censure, as partakers of the jesuits blasphemy: I maruaille M. Charke vouchsafeth to examine them, s●ing in other places he contemneth utterly their authorities, calling them my bread zowle of fathers. Marry here belike he hath gotten some sleight to shift them of, or at leastwise, some part of them. For as for S. Cyprian and Pacian, he passeth over without saying any word unto them. 
Ambr. li. 1 de voc. gent ca 5. Clem. A●e. li. pedag. c. 6.  To S. Ambrose and Clemens Alexandrinus, he answereth, that they have no such things in the places alleged: which is somewhat worse than passing over: for it is a flat untruth: seeing in those places (as the reader may see by conference) they prove all sin to be taken away in the regenerate by baptism, and the soul left pure & clean, as the light itself: which can not stand, if concupiscence remaining be a fowl sin, as M. Charke affirmeth: but he addeth, that Clemens in an other place hath some what against us: 
Clemens Ale. exho. ad gentes pag. 38.  to wit, that by con●npiscence only a man committeth adultery: which is true, if a man give consent thereunto, as appeareth by Christ, Math. 5. But the first motions only, without any consent or delectation in them, I marvel M. Charke is not ashamed to call adultery: seeing Clemens in the same place exhorteth the gentiles to resist these motions of concupiscence, and not to yield unto them, and so to avoid adultery: which he would not have done, if these very first motions themselves (which are inavoydable) were adultery without yielding any consent unto them.  
To Gregory Nazianzen alleged in orat. de S. javacro, he answereth, that Nazianzen never written any such oration as I dream of. But if he dreamt not, yet I think at least he was half a sleep, when he wrote this: & either understood not the books name, being written somewhat short (which were too bad in so great ● divine:) or else never saw Nazianzens works (which were worse:) or else not able to answer the place, would shift it of with such a sleight, which were worst of all. That which he hath for shifting of S. Austen, I understand not: his words are these: let the reader skanne them: you were deceived (sayeth he) in citing Augustin twice, as having written but one book de nuptiis & concupiscentia. here, if he mean that S. Austen hath written but one book the nupt. & concup: and that I was deceived in citing him twice, as having written two books: then is S. Austen himself against him: who sayeth in his second book of Retractations, 
Cap. 53.  that he had written two books de nuptiis & concupiscentia. But if M. Chark mean that I think S. Austen to have written but one book the nupt. & concup. and so do err in citing him: he is deceived. For I cite him thus in the Censure: li. 1. de nupt. & concup: which signifieth the first book: and no man citeth a first book, which thinketh not that there is a second. Vherfore this fond charge either tasteth of ignorance, or of great desire to quarrel. Will you stand to it that S. Augustin hath written but one book of this matter? I would give a good thing, that I were by you while you read this, to see whether you can blush or no. But yet I call back my wish again. For I think you would make me more a feared, than I you a shamed: for that your pursuivants are stronger than our arguments.  
And this is but concerning the quotation of S. Augustin: for about the text itself M. Charks behaviour is a great deal worse: and such in very deed, as if a man had care of his own soul, he would never trust such a fellow more, that against all honesty, truth, shame, and respect, both of conscience & ●redit, falsifieth so learned a father's writings against his plain and evident words and meaning. For whereas S. Augustin alleged by the Censure, & in many places else of his works sayeth, 
Aug. li. 1. de nup. & c●cu. c. 23.  avoucheth, confirmeth, and proveth, that Concupiscentia iam non est peccatum quando ●lli ad illicita opera non consentitur: concupiscens now in the regenerate is not sin when consent of mind is not yielded to unlawful works. M. Chark answereth: S. Augustins place is expounded by himself afterward, saying Concupiscence is not so for given in baptism, that it is not sin, but that it is not imputed as sin: 
Li. 1. de nu. & co●cup. c. 23. & 25.  this seemeth plain, and Augustin appeareth contrary to himself. But what is the principal word in this sentence, that maketh most for M. Charke? The word, Sin, you will say: for that being taken away in the former clause, the sentence maketh quite against him. Well then, that word hath he added of himself, and yet hath corrupted the whole sentence besides. For S. Augustine's words are these: 
Cap. 25.  quaeritur etc. si in parent baptizato potest esse (concupiscentia) & peccatum non esse: cur eadem ipsae in prole peccatum sit? The question is (saith S. Augustin why this concupiscence is sin in the child (before it be baptised:) if it be no sin in the parent now baptised? here you see by the way, that it is holden as a matter out of doubt, that concupiscence is no sin in the parent which is baptised: and the reason S. Augustin yeedelth immediately in the answer: saying, Ad haec respondetur dimitti concupiscentiam carnis in baptismo, non ut non si●, sed ut in peccatum non impute●ur, quamuis reatu suo iam soluto, manet tamen etc. To this is answered that the concupiscence of the flesh is forgiven in baptism, not that it is not, (or remaineth not,) but that it is not imputed into sin. It remaineth still, though the guilt be taken away.  
here now we see that S. Augustin affirmeth only that concupiscence is not quite taken away by baptism, but yet the guilt thereof, is so that it is no more imputed into the nature of a sin. The cause why it is left he uttereth in divers places, as when he sayeth: 
Li. 11. de peccat. meri●. & remiss. ca 4.  ad agonem manet, non sibi ad illicita consentientibus nihil omnino nocitura. Concupiscence remaineth to fight withal, but yet in such sort, as it can hurt us nothing at all, if we consent not to her unlawful suggestions. secondly we see that S. Augustin in this very place proveth directly our very position, that concupiscence in the baptised is not sin: also that it hath no guilt: and that it doth hurt nothing without consent: whereby M. Charkes lack of judgement and shame may be noted in bringing this place of all others against us, & adding, that how soever the jesuits distinguish, yet these sins (the first motions of concupiscence) which by the jesuits doctrine are so called figuratively (except we find mercy) will find no figurative condemnation.  
thirdly we may behold and lament the pitiful desperate resolution of our adversaries, who seeing and knowing their own weakness, 
Great impudency.  yet to cover their misery dare abuse, forge, and falsify plain authorities, as in this place this shameless creature hath done in so many points For first, where as S. Augustin sayeth Concupiscence is forgiven in baptism: he translateth, concupiscence is not so forgiven in baptism. secondly where as S. Augustine saith: it is forgiven, not that it be not, or remain not: he translateth: not that it is not sin. thirdly for imputed into sin: he translateth imputed as sin. Fowerthlie he cutteth of the words immediately going before, where S. Augustin sayeth concupiscence in the parent baptised is no sin, as also the voordes immediately following, and affirming, that concupiscence remaineth, but without guilt, and consequently can not be sin. Hath this man any conscience, any truth? any good meaning? any spark of grace? seeketh he to instruct or to deceive? to prove and defend, or to cover & dissemble? Is this he which protested such sincerity in his dealing, as before God and Angels? is this the credit of a puritan protestant? O how miserable are those people which hang their souls upon the trust of such dissembling and deceiving men?  
And this for the first place cited by M. Charke, for his sentence of S. Augustin, for he citeth two chapters in one book: the first thereof hath as you have seen: the other hath no one word tending that way, but clean to the contrary. For S. Augustin layeth down & proveth our position of purpose, in much more ample and vehement manner than I can against M Charke, and showeth it also by examples, how the Apostle called concupiscence sin improperly: 
Rom. 7. ca 23. li. 1. de nup. & concup.  vocatur peccatum quia peccato facta est, cum iam in regeneratis non sit ipsa peccatum: Si autem vocatur lingua locutio, quam facit lingua, & manus vocatur scriptura quam facit manus. Concupiscence is called sin: because it is made in us by (original) sin, whereas itself is not sin now in the regenerate: 
How S. Paul called concupiscence sin improperly.  even as the speech which the tongue maketh is called the tongue, and the writing which the hand maketh is called the hand. The very same hath S. Augustin against julian the pelagian touching S. Paul's calling of concupiscence sin, 
Li. 6. c. 11.  which in deed properly is no sin, except consent be yielded thereunto, as there S. Augustin proveth by the words of Paul himself. Wherefore M. Charke doth fraudulently allege his words against the same julian, to prove that all concupiscence is sin. For S. Augustin sayeth only of concupiscence in general, 
Li. 5. c. 3.  that it is sin, and the punishment of sin, and the cause of sin, which is true of concupiscence in general, as it comprehendeth all her branches, and all estates of men: for concupiscence is the punishment of sin in all men: In them that give consent it is the cause of sin: in them that are not baptised it is sin itself, whether they give consent or no. But yet is it not needful that all these points should be verified in every particular branch of concupiscence: 
An example.  as for example: Manslaughter in general comprehendeth murder, chance medley, execution by justice, and the like: and in respect of these branches a man may say truly, manslaughter is wicked and prohibited by god● law. And again, manslaughter is good and commended by god's law, for both these are verified in some of her branches. So in respect of diverse branches of concupiscence S. Augustin might say concupiscence is sin, the punishment of sin, and the cause of sin. But yet this is not true in every particular branch of concupifcence, and namely of that branch we now dispute of: that is, of concupiscence in the regenerate without consent: as a man can not say, that every manslaughter is good, nor that every manslaughter is evil.  
And the cause why S. Augustin used this sentence against julian was, for that julian did praise concupiscence, as a thing commendable, for that it was a punishment of God for sin: But S Augustin refuteth that, showing, that concupiscence in general, is not only a punishment for sin, but sometimes also, and in some ●ē it is sin itself, & the cause of sin: 
Lib. 2. cont. julian circa finem.  & thersore an evil thing, though no sin, without consent. For so he sayeth against the same julian. Quantum ad nos attinet. sine peccato sen per essemus, donec sanaretur hoc malum, si ei n●nquam consentiremus ad malum: sed in quibus ab illo rebellame, e●si non lethaliter, sed venialiter, tamen vincimur, in hiis contrahimus unde quotidie dicamus. 
Math. 6.  dimit nobis debita nostra ● As for us (that are baptised) we might be always without sin until that day when this evil concupiscence shall be healed, (that is in heaven) if we would not consent unto it, 

Venial & mortal sin.  
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 civi. c. 25 In expos. prop. ex ep. ad Rom. prop●sitione 17. 45. 47. come. ad Gal. c. 5. de pecca. orig. c. 39 con. 3. in psal. 118 & alibi.   to evil. But in these things wherein we are overcome by this rebellious concupiscence veniallie at least, though not mortally: by these (I say) we gather matter daily to say, forgive us our trespasses.  
here Lo S. Augustin proveth concupiscence to be evil, against the pelagian: & yet not to be sin without consent, against the protestant. thirdly, that according to the measure or degree of consent yielded, it may be either venial or mortal sin against, M. Charke, a little before obstinately denyeinge this distinction of sins. And finally, S Augustin doth not only prove this our position purposely in almost infinite other places of his works, but also in his second book against julian doth confirm it, by the uniform consent of other fathers of the Church, as of S. Ambrose, Nazianzen and others. What then shall we say but only pity william Charke, which findeth Augustin the doctor as hard against him in all points, as Augustin the monk.  
The words of Christ alleged by you to overthrow our position: to wit, 
Math. 5.  every one that shall see a woman, to lust after her, hath now committed adultery with her in his heart: are truly said of the Censure, to be alleged by you, both ignorantly, & against yourself. first, for that the word heart there expressed, importeth a consent, without which nothing defileth a man, as may be gathered by Christ his own words, 
Math. 15. Marck. 7.  in an other place, saying, that the things which defile a man do proceed from the heart. secondly, for that, the words import a voluntary looking upon women, 
PROS TO EPIDUMESAI AUTEN.  to that end to be inflamed with lust, as both the latin, & much more the greek and Syriake texts insinuate: and S. Chrisostom interpreteth hom. 8. de poenitentia, as S. Augustin also expoundeth them, saying, 
Au. li. 1. de serm. domi. in monte ca 23.  qui viderit mulierem ad concupiscendam eam: id est, hoc fine & hoc animo attenderit, ut eam concupiscat, quod est plene consentire libidini. He that shall see a woman to lust after her: that is, shall look upon her to this end, and with this mind to lust after her, which is in deed fully to consent unto the lust. Now what replieth Sir william to all this? surely nothing, but maketh along idle speak of praedicatum & subiectum, as pertinent to the matter, as charing cross to byllingsgate. And in the end to quite the Lord (as he saith) most carefully from sin, he allegeth S. james, saying, 
jacob. 1. v. 14. & 15.  that God tempteth no man, but every man is tempted, drawn, and alured by his own concupiscence: and then concupiscence when it hath conceived, bringeth forth sin. But what is this against us? Do we charge God with this sin of concupiscence, when we deny it to be sin at all, except only when a man consenteth to it? or rather do you charge God with it, when you affirm it to be sin, as it is of nature, without consent? are we or you they, that make God author of sin? is not Calvin condemned of our church for this impretie? 
● Li. 1. just. 8.17. 18. Li. 2. inst. ap. 4. In come. li. reg. ca 2.  (a) doth he not hold, that God is author of sin, in divers places of his works? (b) Doth he not condemn S. Augustin by name, for holding the contrary? (c) Doth not Peter Martyr his scholar hold the same? How then talk you of quitting carefully the Lord from sin, as though he were charged or accused thereof by us? what hypocrisy, what dissimulation, what falsehood is this in you?  
Now the place of S. james (as commonly all other things that you allege) maketh singularly against yourself. Hear S. Augustins exposition & argument, which proveth our position out of the same words. 
Aug. li. 6. cont. jul. cap. 5.  Cum dicit apostolus jacobus, unusquisque tentatur a concupiscentia sua abstractus & illectus: deinde, concupiscentia cum cònceperit parit peccatum: profecto in hiis verbis partus a pariente discernitur. Pariens enim est concupiscentia, partus peccatum. Sed concupiscentia non parit nisi conceperit: non concipit nisi illexerit, hoc est ad malum perpetrandum obtinuerit volentis assensum. When the apostle james sayeth: every one is tempted, drawn away, and Enticed by his own concupiscence: afterward concupiscence, when it hath conceived, bringeth forth sin: surely in these words the child is distinguished from the mother: the mother that beareth is concupiscence: the child borne is sin. But concupiscence beareth not except she conceive: and she conceiveth not except she obtain the consent of him which is willing to do evil. Now go (M. Charke) and acquit yourself of gross folly and ignorance, whereof you are convicted, which would so carefully quit the Lord of that, wherewith we never meant to charge him.    

Of the first motions of concupiscence.  

THE CENSURE.  
thirdly, you report the jesuits to say, 
The third Article.  That the first motions of lust are without hurt of sin Cens. 54. 89. It is most true and plain, as they deliver it, but you, by clipping their words, make every thing to seem a paradox. They say, the first motions of lust, if they come of natural instinct only, without any cause given by us, are no sins, so long as we give no consent of heart unto them. And the reason is because it lieth not in us, (they being natural) to prohibit them to come, no more than it doth, to prohibit our pulse from beating. And therefore seeing no sin can be committed, without our will & consent of har●: (as I have showed before:) the first motions can be no more sins in us, than they are in beasts, for the like reason. Nether is the tenth commandment, (alleged by you for the contrary doctrine, to wit, 
Exo. 20.  thou shalt not covet) any way repugnant to this. For this commandment forbiddeth consent to these motions, & not the very motions, which are not in our power, as the Scripture itself signifieth, when it sayeth. 
Deut. 30. Li. 1. de nu. & concup. ca 23. Ecc. 18.  This commandment which I do give thee this day, is not above thee. And as S. Austen learnedly proveth out of an other place of scripture, where this commandment is expounded, to wit. Go not after thy concupiscence: That is, consent not unto them, or follow them not.   

THE DEFENCE.  
The understanding of this article dependeth wholly of that which goeth before. For if no sin be committed, where no consent of will is, as hath been proved abundantly in the two former articles: then can not the first motions of lust or concupiscence, that come by natural instinct only, without any cause given by us, be sin: if we yield no consent of heart to the same. And this is so evident, both in reason, common sense, philosophy, divinity, and authority of ancient fathers: as no man would have the face to stand against it, but a man enforced thereunto, as M. Charke is● S. Austen doth prove the matter purposely in divers places, who was not behind M. Charke in judgement. You remember how many places I have alleged of his before: as that among the rest: 
Li. 2. cont. jul. circa finem. Li. 2. de gra. & pec. orig. c. 40.  We might be always without sin if we never did yield consent to our concupiscence to sin. And in an other place, talking purposely of these first motions, he sayeth: Quibus si non consentitur, nullius peccati reatus comrahitur: unto which motions, if we give no consent of heart: no guilt of sin is contracted by them. What can be said more effectually? Again he sayeth in an other place, that these first motions of lust are so far of from being sins, 
Ep. 200. ad Asell.  of their own nature, as Christians use not to ask God forgiveness for them, except they be either negligent in repellinge them, or do yield some consent unto them. The very same he hath in divers other places: as concione 3. in psa. 118 And Lib● de perfect. justitiae. cap. vlt. and yet more largely Li. 1. cont. duas ep. Pelag: cap. 13. and in divers other places: affirming that we need not say for thes first motions, dimit nobis debita nostra: forgive us our trespasses. So that you see with what wit, or reason, this doctrine is called blasphemous in the Jesuits, by W. Charke.  
But yet, though this matter be most evident in itself: Let us examine what cavils he seeketh to frame some show or semblance of a reply. He reprehendeth first, as superfluous, my addition of words, used for explication sake, when I said, that the first motions were no sin without consent: If they come of natural instinct only, without any cause given by us. This explication (I say) he greatly reprehendeth: saying, 
* This kind of speech is called implicatio in adiecto.  I pray you, are not all the first motions of lust merely natural, and evermore of some cause given by us & c? In which fond interrogation, first he includeth two contraries. For if they be merely natural: then are they not of any cause given by us. And if they be of causes given by us: then are they not merely natural. For that, natura & voluntas are distinct agents: as he ought to have learned in philosophy. secondly, it is false, that all first motions of lust are merely natural. For in lewd men they are often voluntary: 
first motions voluntary sometimes.  as when a man apply his imagination purposely to think of dishonest things, and so stirreth the motions of concupiscence: also when a man voluntarily doth behold lascivious sights, or readeth wanton books, or the like. In all which cases, though the motions of lust that rise, be natural in the root, as divines term it: yet is their nearest and immediate cause voluntary: 
An evident example.  and therefore are they not merely natural. A plain example hereof may be this: that, if a furious dog should lie a sleep, & one should awake him purposely, knowing the danger, and so should be bitten of him: this hurt might be said to proceed from the dogs nature, as from the root or first cause: But the immediate cause thereof was the man's voluntary awaking of him, and not the dogs nature. So in the first motions of lust, though all be natural in the root, or first cause of concupiscence, and many times they do rise of themselves in the most godly that are, without any cause given by them (& therefore sayeth M. Charke most falsely, that all come of causes given by us:) yet sometimes they are a-wakened and stirred up in us by those means, which I have named. And then are they both voluntary and sinful, and not otherwise. And for this distinction did I make that addition of waste words, as M. Charke calleth it: but you have seen with what cause or wisdom.  
After this, he reprehendeth my comparison of first motions to the pulse, 
deceitful avoiding of similitudes.  as a comparison without judgement ● And his chiefest reason is, for that they are not like to the pulse in all things: & this is his ordinaire answering of all comparisons alleged in the Censure. Which is as substantial a way of answering, as if a man should say, a cow and her cal●e are not like in heir, for that they are not like in horns. What Grammarian almost knoweth not, that similitudes are not of necessity to hold in all points, but only in that, wherein the comparison is made? I compared therefore the first motions of lust unto the pulse, in one only point: (as appeareth in the Censure) And that is, that they both, as well the one as the other, are often times mere natural: and the lust many times no more voluntary than the pulse: And is not this true? or doth M. Charke say one word against this? no surely: but goeth and proveth at large, that in other things they are not like: which I never denied.  
His second reason against my example of the pulse standeth thus in his book: 
Great● surdities.  You can not conclude from that part of our natural soul, whereby we have life and sens● only, to the part wherein our reason & affections are placed, because the former is not in the same sort corrupted as the second. Nether doth sin so work in natural life and sense, as it doth in the heart by the corruptions and guyltines of the soul. The necessary actions of life, (as eating, drinking, sleep, breath) also the necessary actions of sense, (as smelling, seeing, hearing, feeling, & the rest,) they are of themselves all free from sin, remaining as they were in man before his fall. By this long discourse he would prove that the pulse; and the first motions of concupiscence are not like in all points. Which I grant without proof. But yet in this one reason he uttereth three fowl absurdities, and most gross errors.  
The first is that he placeth concupiscence of the flesh (whereof we talk) in the reasonable part of the mind, 
Concupiscence in what place it is.  and not in the sensitive part: which is as much, as if a man should appoint seeing to be in the nose, & smelling to be in the eyes. For the motions of concupiscence are nothing else but the rebellions of our sensitive parts, against the part wherein reason is: and how then are not they in the part sensitive? are they not called the concupiscence of the flesh? Doth not S. Paul say the flesh coveteth (or hath concupiscence) against the spirit? Doth not he say plainly: 
Gal. 5. Rom. 7,  I feel an other law in my members repugning to the law of my mind? Is not here concupiscence placed in the members; and reason in the mind? what intolerable ignorance is this in a preacher, yea in a conqueror of learned M. Campian, even unto Tyburn?  
But his second absurdity is yet greater than this; in affirming that the sensual part of man is not so much corrupted by original sin, 
The sensative parte● of man more corrupted than the reasonable.  as is the reasonable part: which is clean false and the contradictory thereof is true. For albeit all parts be corrupted: yet the s●●sible part more, by reason of the rebellion of the sensitive part against the reasonable: which I have named before, and every man by experience doth find more temptation in his sensitive parts: to wit, in his senses, imagination, and other like parts, and members of his body: than he doth in his reasonable parts, to wit, in his judgement, and will: especially good men, who find great rebellion often times in their sensual parts, though their judgement be right, and their will most holy and firm. S. Paul felt this, when he said, 
Rom. 7.  O unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? And again: I myself do serve the law of God in my mind, but in my flesh I serve the lav●e of sin: signifying thereby the violent rebellion of the flesh. In which sense also it is said by the wise man: 
Sap. 9 Rom. 7.  the body that is corrupted aggrieveth the mind. And S. Paul sayeth, I do not that which I would, but that which I hate. By all which is showed that the inferior part of man (called the sensatyve part) is more corrupted, by the fall of Adam, than the reasonable: 
Vide Au. in psa. 145 & li. 14. the civit. c. 19  for that by the force of concupiscence placed principally in it, it maketh war, and offerreth violence to the other. So that herein also M. Charke was foully overseen.  

Necessary actions of life and sense corrupted by original sin.  His third absurdity is joined with flat pelagianism, where he sayeth, that the necessary actions of life and sense remain now in man, as they were before his fall. Hereof S. Austen shallbe witness, whose words are these: If any man shall affirm that by the offence of prevarication in Adam, the whole man, that is, man both in body and soul is not changed into worse etc.: he is deceived with the error of pelagians, and is contrary to the scriptures. 
De eccles. dogm. c. 38.  The like teacheth Prosper. lib. 1. de vocat. gent. ca 7. Into these errors and heresies falleth M. Charke, whiles leaving the sure doctrine of the Catholic Church, he deviseth out new ways, (after the fashion of all heretics) whereby to excuse natural actions from sin. We excuse them from sin, and do say the cause to be, for that they are not voluntary: which is one principal point required, aswell in sin as in virtue, as hath been showed. M. Charke deviseth, he can not tell what himself, in this point: but only that he would not say willingly as we do, though he have nothing to say besides.  
But yet against this point of voluntary he objecteth (once more,) original sin: which (as he sayeth) is not voluntary. But it hath been answered before; & showed, how it is voluntary, not only in men of discretion, but also in infants. secondly, he allegeth out of Genesis; 
Goe 6. & 8.  that the cogitation of man's heart is evil ever more. To which I answer, that it inclineth to evil by reason of concupiscence left in us: but yet is not that inclination sin, without consent: as hath been proved before. thirdly, he objecteth the commandment; 
Deut. 6. Matth. 22.  thou shalt love thy God, with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy strength. By which commandment, he imagineth the first motions of concupiscence to be also forbidden, 
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.  and consequently to be sins: which is false. For (as S. Austen well writeth in divers places) though we be stirred by this commandment to all perfection that we can in this life: yet no more is enjoined us thereby under pain of sin and damnation, but only that we do not yield consent to sin; as hath been showed before, in the Censure, and is now presently to be examined more at large, in explication of the tenth commandment: which containeth the very same meaning that this commandment doth.  
Upon all this that goeth before, 
Catholics do repress lusts, an● not the protestants.  W. Chark maketh this conclusion against us. Therefore to say we must not; or can not pull in the reins of our first lusts etc., is in deed to teach a beastly liberty, and to lay open the way to all uncleanness, without controllement. here now is showed the ordinary practice of all lying heretics, and specially of protestants: whose fashion is to charge the Catholic Church with odious conclusions, deduced of false principles devised by themselves. For, which part doth enlarge or pull in the reins of our lusts? the protestant, or the Catholic doctrine? surely, if to pull in or enlarge the reins of our lusts, be to give them scope, or to repress the motions, as all men (I think) will confess: then consider, I pray you, who● do this, either W. Chark and his fellows, or we. 
Protestant's doctrine.  They teach that these first motions of lust are natural, and do present themselves unto us without our will: and when they do so come, we can not let their effect, but that they work sin in us, whether we consent, or not consent. So that by this doctrine, protestants do not only let out the reins, but do qwyte take away both reins, and bridle out of our hands. For if lusts come without our will, and work sin in us without our consent: what rains are there left in our hands to pull in? If they be sin in me whether I consent, or not consent: shall I strive against a thing that is impossible? who will not rather execute his lusts with pleasure, than resist them with pain, if whether he consent, or not, they are sin? So that (in deed) this is that libertine doctrine of protestants, which looseth the reins, and layeth open the way to all uncleanness: 
Catholic doctrine of lusts.  as both by experience now appeareth in the world, and by reason is evident. And our contrary doctrine is that, which pulleth in the reins of lust, and layeth the foundation of all virtue among Christians, if it be executed accordingly. To wit, the doctrine whereby we teach, that albeit these first motions be natural, and do present themselves unto us many times, without all fault of ours: yet always (by the help of god's grace that never wanteth) it standeth in us to admit, or reject them: to give consent or to resist to their motions. And if we consent, they are sins: but if we consent not, but vanquish them: they are cause of merit and reward in heaven: though the motions themselves, be infirmities and spots left in us by original sin. And this maketh men to strive and resist them, and to keep their minds clear from consent, and finally to stand strongly in the spiritual battle between the flesh tempting, and the spirit resisting: wherein the protestant fighteth not at all, for that he hath no hope of victories And yet (gentle reader) consider their impudency in charging us with that beastly liberty which they teach only themselves.  
There followeth now the tenth commandment: 
Exo. 20.  thou shalt not covet: alleged by M. Charke, for condemning of the first motions of lust. Which commandment the Censure expoundeth out of S. Austen, 

Li. de nup. & concup. cap. 23.  
Eccle. 18.   and by an other place of scripture, (which is the best manner of exposition that may be) that it is meant only of consent: to wit, that we must not give consent to our lusts of concupiscence, nor follow them. So that this tenth commandment, (by S. Austin's exposition) maketh nothing against the first motions, which are without consent, but only against the lusts whereto we yield assent. To this Sir William replieth nothing, but only sayeth Austin's opinion appeareth by the places alleged before. Which is true: for it appeareth that S. Austen is most evident and flat against M. Charke, and more earnest, than I can be: And that M. Chark hath no show out of him for one syllable on his side, but only a place forged by himself, as hath been declared.  
Next to this it pleaseth M. Charke to put down four manifest lies for helping himself out with some show of matter: 
about the number and order of the commandments.  saying, As the papists make of the tenth commandment two commandments: so this fellow maketh of two several breaches of two divers commandments, but one sin. Both these (I say) are slanders. For first, the Catholics make but one commandment of the tenth commandment. But the question is, which is properly and distinctly the tenth commandment. For the protestants (for maintaining of a cavil against the Catholics) will have these two branches, thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife. And: 
Deut. 5.  thou shalt not covet thy neighbours house, field, etc. to be but one only commandment: that is, the tenth. And consequently, they will have these two other branches: thou shalt not have strange gods before me, And: thou shalt not make unto thy sel●e any graven Idol etc. to be two distinct commandments. But S. Austen contendeth in divers places, 
Quaest. 71. in exod. & concione. 1. in psa. 32.  that these latter two branches make but one only commandment: that is, the first commandment: and that the second clause thereof, prohibiting the making of Idols, is but an explication of the first clause, that prohibiteth false gods. And therefore, that these other two branches, of coveting our neighbours wife, And: of coveting his goods: do make two distinct commandments: to wit, the nyenthe and tenth: the nyenth prohibiting all internal consent of heart to carnal sin: the external complishement and work whereof is prohibited by the sixth commandment (after this account:) which is, thou shalt not commit adultery. And the tenth, prohibiting all internal consent of heart unto covetousness: the external accomplisment whereof is prohibited by the seventh commandment: which is, thou shalt not steal. So that by this account of S. Austen, and other learned men following his opinion, these two branches, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, and thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house or field etc. do make two distinct commandments, answering to the sixth and seventh, as hath been said.  

The reasons why concupiscence of the flesh, and concupiscence of temporal goods make two commandments.  And the reason of this opinion is, first, for that those two branches: thou shalt not have strange gods before me: and thou shalt not make unto thee any graven thing, or likeness to adore it etc., contain in deed but one thing, and therefore can not make two distinct commandments, as the protestants teach, but one only commandment. And consequently, these latter two must needs make two sundry commandments: or else there could not be ten. secondly, for that the septuagint or 70. interpreters, do recite them distinctly as two commandments, in their greek translation, repeating the verb twice, as I before have alleged them. thirdly, because it was most convenient that the two general internal consents unto the two lusts of carnality, 
1. john. 2.  and Covetousness called by S. john and distinguished by the names of Concupiscence of the flesh: and concupiscence of the eyes: should be expressly & particularly forbidden by two distinct commandments. For that in these two fountains of poison, do lie the greatest and most dangerous baits of sin in this life. If you ask why the works forbidden in the other commandments, 
A doubt resolved.  had not (for like reason also) their internal concupiscences of lusts forbidden by distinct and several commandments? it is answered, that the internal temptations against the other commandments, are nether so frequent, nor so dangerous, as these are: and consequently they are sufficiently prohibited, by the words set down in these commandments themselves that prohibet the works: partly also their prohibition may be understood by the prohibition of these two internal concupiscences or lusts: 
1. joh. 2.  for which causes is problable that S. john made mention of these two concupiscences only, and not of any other, as in his sentence be●ore alleged apearethe.  
And now albeit these reasons and the like did move S. Austen in his time, and many learned men sense, to divide the ten commandments in this order: yet is not the matter, a matter of faith, nor so defined by the church, as a man may not follow an other opinion, if it seem more reasonable unto him. For the ancient fathers had always divers opinions about the division of the decalogue, or ten commandments, without any difference of belief. For the Hebrews (as 
a Li. 3. ant. ca 6. & 8.  josephus, and 
B Li. de decalog.  Philo with whom also agreeth 
c Li. 2. cont. haereses. ca 42.  Irenaeus) do appoint out five commandments to the first table, concerning the honour of God: & five to the second table, concerning the love of our neighbour. But the Greeks, (as 
a Ho. 8. in Exod.  Origen, 
B in ca 20. Exod.  Procopius, 
c Li. 6. Stron.  Clemens Alexandrinus, 
d in ca 26. Levit.  Hesychius, with whom agree also S. 
e in cap. 6. eph.  Ambrose, & S. 
f in ca 10. Ose.  Jerome,) do assign four to the first table, and six to the second table. But S. Austen, and the most part of the latins following him, do appoint only three precepts to the first table, and seven to the second. And yet all do agree upon ten commandments. By all which may be seen the shameless dealing of M. Chark here, 
An. qu●st. 71. in exo. & alibi su. citat.  in charging Catholics to make two commandments of the tenth commandment: and much more the malicious calumniation, both of him, and all his fellows, in affirming every where in all their books and sermons to the people, that Catholics leave out the second commandment, 
Whether Catholics leave out the second commandment against Idols.  against graven Idols: where as they leave it not out, but do include it in the first commandment, and that for the same reasons which moved S. Austen to do the same, as hath been said. These earnest, odious, & slanderous accusations, which our adversaries in their own consciences do know to be mere false, do argue nothing for them, but only great malice in their hearts, singular lack of modesty, and great shame in their behaviour, and extreme poverty, and necessity in their cause.  

How one general sin may belong to two commandments: that is, the consent of heart to one, & the external work to an other.  M. Charkes second charge, that I make the several breaches of two divers commandments but one sin, is also false. For I make them two distinct sins, though they have one general name given them by Christ: that is, I make the breach of the ninth commandment (after our account,) which is, thou shalt not cover thy neighbours wife, to be mental adultery, if it go no further, but only to consent of mind. And the breach of the sixth commandment, thou shalt not commit adultery, I make to be the sin of actual adultery, when it breaketh out to the work itself: which two sins, though they agree in the name of aldulterie: yet are they distinct sins often times, and one separated from the other, and consequentely may be prohibited by distinst commaundementes● And so in like wise I make actual theft to belong to the seventh commandment, and mental theft unto the tenth. This is my meaning (M. Charke): which you might have understood if you would, and consequently have forborn so malicious falsehood in misreporting the same.  
There remaineth only to be examined about this article, the reason touched by the Censure, and founded on the scripture, for the confirmation of S. Austin's Catholic exposition of the commandment, 
Exod. 20.  thou shalt not covet. Which law (sayeth the Censure, forbiddeth only consent of heart to the motions of lust, and not the very first motions themselves, which are not in our power: & consequently, not comprehended under that prohibition of the law: as the scripture signifieth, when it sayeth, 
Deut. 30.  this commandment which I give thee this day is not above thee. To this M. Charke answereth, first, that our first motions are not altogether out of our power. For that the guyft of continency doth more and more subdue them. 
Whether all motions of lust may be extinguished by mortification:  Which is true, if we understand of yielding consent unto them. But if we understand of utter suppressing and extinguishing of all first motions of lust and concupiscence: (as M. Charke must needs mean, our question being only thereof) then must we know, that, albeit good men do cut of by mortification, infinite occasions and causes of motions and temptations, which wicked men have: yet can they never (during this life) so subdue all motions themselves of their concupiscence, but that they will rise often against their wills: as S. Paul complaineth of him self in many places, and all other Saints after him have experienced in their flesh: who notwithstanding, had the gift & diligence of mortifieing their flesh, asmuch (I ween) as our ministers of England have, who talk of continency & mortification (each one having his yoke mate ready for his turn) as those good fellows do of fasting, which sit at a full table, according to the proverb.  
To the place of Moses, 
Whether the commandments, of God be impossible or no.  he hath no other shift but to say: that the translation is false and corrupt, for that Moses meant only, the law is not hidden from us, and not, that it is not above our power, as it is evidently declared (saith he) by the plain text, & by explication thereof in the Epistle to the Romans. This sayeth M. Charke: marry he proveth it nether by the words of the text, nor by S. Paul's application. But if I be not deceived, S. Jerome (whose translation this is esteemed to be, or else before him● & corrected by him) knew as well what the Hebrew words of Moses imported in the text, & also how S. Paul applied them, as willian Chark doth. S. Paul's application of that part of this sentence which he toucheth, maketh wholly for us as after shallbe showed. 
The law and commandments are not above us.  The Hebrew word of the text is NIPHLET coming of the verb PHALA: which, as I deny not, but it signifieth to be hidden: so signifieth it also, to be marvelous: to be hard & difficult: As appeareth psa. 139. & 2. Sam. 1. where the same word is used. The same signifieth the Chaldie word M●PHARESA coming of the verb PHARAS, that besides the significations signifieth also to separate. The greek word HYPERONGOS signifieth (as all men know) exceeding, immeasurable great: passing all mean: etc. How then do not these three words used in the three ancient tongues, having a negation put before them (as they have in the text) express so much as S. jerom hath expressed, by saying, the law is not above thee? Do not all these words put together import, that the law is not more hard, or difficult than thy ability may reach to perform? or that, it is not separated from our power? that it is not exceeding our strength? would any horse but bayard, have been so bold with S. jeron, and with all the primative church, which used this our common latin translation, to deface them all (I say) upon so light occasion? Would any impudency have durst it, besides the pride of an heretic? If S. jerom will not satisfy you: 
Aug. li. de nat. & gra. cap. 69.  take S. Austen: who handleth both the words alleged of Moses, and also the application used by S. Paul of part of the sentence: and proveth out of both, the very same conclusion that we do: to wit, that the law is not above our ability to keep it: and for confirmation thereof, he addeth many other texts of scripture, 
Math. 11. 1. joh. 5. Li. de nat. & gr. c. 69  as, my yoke is sweet and my burden is light: also, his commandments are not heavy, and the like: concluding in these words, we must believe most firmly, that God being just and good, could not command impossible things unto man. And in an other place: 
Ser. 191. de tempore.  We do detest the blasphemy of those men, which affirm God to have commanded any impossible thing unto man. The very same words of detestation useth S. Jerome in the explication of the creed, unto Damasus bishop of Rome. And the same proveth S. Chrisostome at large in his first book of impunction of the heart: and S. Basil his brief rules the 176. interrogation.    

Of defacing of scripture. Artic. 4.  

THE CENSURE.  
You report the Jesuits to say: 
All things not expressed in scriptures.  The holy scripture is a doctrine unperfect, maimed, lame, not containing all things necessary to saith and salvation: Cen. fol. 220. you are too shameless (M. Charke) in setting forth these, for the Jesuits words. Let any man read the place, and he shall find no such thing, but rather in contrary manner the holy scripture with reverent words, most highly commended. Notwithstanding, they reprehend in that place Monhemius, for saying that nothing is to be received or believed, but that which is expressly found in the Scripture. 
Things believed which are not in scripture.  For reproof of which heresy, they give examples of many things, which both we, and our adversaries also do believe, which nevertheless are not set down expressly in the Scriptures, although perhaps deduced thereof. As the perpetual virginity of our lady after her childebyrth: Two natures and two wills in Christ: The proceeding of the holy Ghost equally from the father, and the Son, without generation: The union of the word unto the nature of man, and not unto the person: That God the father begat his Son, only by understanding himself: That infants without reason should be baptised: That the common Creed was made by the Apostles: The celebration of the Sondaye, in stead of the Satterdaye: The celebration of Easter only upon a sunday. The four Gospels which we use, to betrue Gospels, & not feigned or corrupted: That our epistle to the Romans was written by S. Paul: And the other (which is to be seen) to the Laodicenses, is feigned and not uritten by him, seeing notwithstanding S. Paul never mentioneth any epistle written by himself to the Romans, but yet sayeth, that he written one to the Laodicenses. 
Colos. 4.  All these things (I say) and many more, are believed by us generally, and yet none of them expressly to be found in scripture.   

THE DEFENCE.  
To the charge of shameless belyeing the Jesuits, M. Chark answereth nothing but thus: 
A simple evasion.  how soever Go●uisus reporte●h or misreporteth the Jesuits, if I report him faithfully, it is no s●ame to me. But it is shame to your cause, (good Sir) which can not be maintained but with lying on all hands. And yet must not this shame light only on Gotuisus, as you would have it: (though you never named him in your other books) but upon yourself principally. First, for that you had read this infamous lie refuted to kemnitius (of whom Gotuisus, word, for word hath borrowed it) by payvas Andradius, 

Payu. in orthodox explicat.  
In opere ca tech. Canisii, fol. 126. 160.161. 162.   and proved to be (as it is) a most shameless slander of his own, and no one word of the Jesuits. secondly, you must needs have seen (as no doubt but you had) that Gotuisus reported an open untruth, by the four other places of Canisius, which he allegeth for the same, as well as the Censure of Colen: All which four places any man that will read, (for the book is commonly to be sold in England) shall see that Gotuisus is a shameless fellow, and you a plain deceiver, in that you cited only the Censure of Colen, (which you knew was not to be had,) & suppressed Canisius, which is extant to confound your untruth. These tricks may admonish men that are not utterly wilful, how you are to be trusted in other matters of greater importance, wherein your falsehood can not be so easily convicted to the sight of all men, as in this, it is. Seek all the books that ever the Jesuits wrote (which are many) and if you find in any one of them, any one of these three odious words, wherewith you charge them: that is, imperfect, maimed, or lame, attributed to the scriptures: I will yield in all the rest that you affirm of them.  
But you have a shift to cover your dealing herein: and that is, that seeing we hold, that all things necessary to salvation are not written in the scripture: Therefore, we hold in effect (say you, though not in words) that the scripture is imperfect, maimed, & lame. Which reason if it were true: yet were your dishonesty great in setting forth so odious words of your own feigning, for the words of the Jesuits. But mark how void of reason this argument of yours is. 
An evident example.  If a merchant departing into an other country, should leave his commandments with his servants, partly in writing, partly by word of mouth: might the servants say, that he had left them a broken commandment written? but if he should yet add further unto them: that if they doubted of any thing, they should repair to his wife, and she should fully resolve them therein: might not he justly account himself injuried by them, if they notwithstanding should accuse him for leaving them an imperfect, maimed, and lame commandment? No more is it any defect to scripture, or gods commandment, (as S. Austen proveth at large li. 1. contra Cresc. c. 32.) that God hath left certain things unwritten: for that we may receive the same by tradition in the church, as that doctor proveth: 
Luc. 10. joh. 14. Math. 18. 1. Tim. 3.  which Church Christ hath commended unto us, as his espouse in earth, to be heard and obeyed by us in all doubts. The very same doctrine teacheth the said father li. de fide, & oper. ca 9 and also ep. 66. ad Don.  
To the twelve particular points set down by the Censure, as not contained expressly in scripture, and yet to be believed: M. Charke answereth, that seven of them are in scripture, & the other five, for that they are not in scripture, 
The true state of the question.  they are not of necessity to be believed. But here is first to be noted, that the question between us, and the protestants is of express scripture only and not of any far fett place, 
Of things not expressed in scripture.  which by interpretation may be applied to a controversy. For this contention began between us upon this occasion: that when we alleged diverse weighty places and reasons out of scripture for proof of invocation of Saints, prayer for the dead, purgatory, and from other controversies: our adversaries rejected them, for that they did not playnelie and expressly decide the matter. Whereupon came this question, whether all matters of belief are plainly and expressly in scripture, or no? which they affirm, and we deny. And for proof of our part, we allege all these twelve particulars, and many more, which are points necessarily to be believed, and yet not expressly in scripture. For answer whereof you shall see how this man is distressed.  
First he sayeth that seven of them are contained in scripture: Marry he flieth from the question of expre●se scripture, and allegeth places a far of, whereof the question is not. For the Censure granteth that many of them might be deduced from scripture, but not so expressly, as they are to be believed. 
Two natures & two wills in Christ. Rom 1. 34 Math. 26.  But let us run over these seven points, contained (as he sayeth) manifestly in scripture. The first is of two ●●tures and two wills in Christ: for which he citeth these words: Of his son which was made unto him of the seed of David according to the flesh. Also: not as I will, but as thou wilt. But how do these words prove evidently the matter in question? That deductions hereof may be made from scripture (admitting the interpretation of the Church upon the places alleged) I grant: but that interpretation of the church being set aside, & the bare text only admitted: these places can not convict an heretic, that would deny, either the distinct natures, or distinct wills in Christ: as appeareth by the council of Constantinople: where, after long striving in vain with the Monothelit●s about this matter out of scripture, 
Syn. 6. Act. 4.  in the end they concluded in these words, we believe this, for that, Apostolical and evangelical tradition, & the doctrine of fathers have taught it.  
The second point is the proceeding of the holy ghost from the father & the son equally. 
Proceeding of the holy ghost. joh. 15.26.  For this, M. Charke quoteth, when the holy ghost shall come which I will send you from my father, the spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the father. But this proveth not expressly that the holy ghost proceedeth equally from the father and the son together: but rather seemeth to incline to the heresy of the Greeks, that it proceedeth only from the father: And therefore the heretics which denied this equally builded their heresy especially upon this place, as S. cyril noteth. 
Ciril. in ca 15. joh. Athan. in symb.  Again, this place telleth not whether it proceedeth by generation, or without generation from the father, and yet we must believe it to be without generation.  
The third point is, 
The union of the word. joh. 1. v. 14  the union of the word unto the nature of man, & not unto the person. For which M. Chark citeth: And the word was made flesh. But what is this to the point? this proveth, that the word took our flesh, but whether he took the nature of man only, or the person only, or both together, it expresseth not. And here is to be noted by the way M. Charks lack of judgement, not only in the matter, but even in the very terms of divinity. For he reprehending my words as unsound, in that he understood them not, he changeth them thus. That the word did take the nature of man to be one person, and not the person. Which are both fond and erroneous. For the word took not the nature of man to be one person, seeing the word was one person before he took that nature of man unto itself. Nether could the nature of man be that one person, as M. Charke seemeth to ween: for so should nature & person be confounded in Christ. But I think M. Chark never studied yet these matters: and therefore he might have been less malapert in reprehending, if he would.  
The fowerth doctrine is of baptizing of infants. 
baptizing of infants Goe 17. 12.  For which, M Charke quoteth these words of Genesis: The infant of eight years' old shallbe circumcised in mankind. This hath nothing expressly (as you see) for baptism. And if we had nothing but this law, for our warrant in baptizing of infants: how chanceth it, that we baptise infants, before or after the eight day? also why baptise we infants of woman kind also, which were not circumcised in the law? Beza was stricken quite dumb in the disputation of poysie in france with this demand, 
C●aud. de Saints in Apol. adverse. Beza.  as the byshope Claudius de saints reporteth: who was present. Wherefore I had rather follow S. Austen, who contendeth, and proveth that baptizing of infants is only a tradition of the Apostles, and not left us by any written scripture. li. 10. c. 23. super Gen. ad lit. And the same teacheth Origen. ho. 8. in levit.  

Change of the Sabbothe day.  The five doctrine which M. Charke avoweth to be in scripture is the change of the Sabbath day into sunday. For which he citeth these words out of the revelations. 
Apo. 1. 10.  I was in spirit in our lords day. But here is no mention of sunday or saturday; & much less of celebration of either of them, & least of all, of the change of the Sabbothe (appointed by God) into any other day. Is not this change then of the Sabbath day appointed by the law, substantially proved from this place of scripture trow you?  

Of the knoweinge of scripture.  The sixth point is about the four Gospels and epistle to the Romans: which he sayeth to be proved scripture, out of scriptute. But yet he quoteth no place of scripture, where they are proved to be scripture: but only sayeth, they are proved out of the vuoords, by the inscription, there expressing the names of the writers thereof. But what a mockery is this? is the bare names of the Apostles, sufficient to prove that they were written in deed by the Apostles? who can prove out of scripture that these names were not counterfeited? The feigned epistle to the Laodicenses, hath it not the name of S. Paul, in it? and beginneth it not with the very same style as his other epistles do? and yet is it rejected as counterfeit, and that only by tradition. The feigned gospel of S. Bartholomew, had it not his name in it? and yet was it not rejected? 
Ho. in Luc.  The feigned Gospel of S. Thomas, had it not his name? 
Orig. ho. 1. in Luc.  and yet Origen sayeth, he rejected it only, for that the tradition of the church received it not. 
Epiph. li. 1. count heres. hebion. & li. 1. hae. 46. Au. li. 28. cont. faust. cap. 2.  The three counterfeit Gospels among the hebrews, had they not as holy titles as the rest? and yet they were rejected by tradition of the church as Epiphanius showeth. When Faustus the Manachie denied the Gospel of S. Matthew, sayeth not S. Austen: Mathaei evangelium prolatum adversus faustum Manachaeum per traditionem? The Gospel of Matthew was alleged against Faustus the Manachie by tradition. What can be more evident than all this to prove our opinion of the necessity of tradition, and to confound the fond madness of this poor minister, that will have the bare titles of books sufficient to prove their authority, and so certainly, as the true scripture itself (once known) is to be believed?  
The seventh doctrine which he holdeth to be expressly in scripture is, that God the father begatt his son only by understanding himself. 
The manner how God the father begat his son.  Marry he citeth no place for't it: but reprehending the darkness of the words, (which notwithstanding are most plain, and usual to those which have studied any thing i● divinity:) he flieth to an other matter: saying, 
joh. 1. 1. Rom. 9 5.  we believe by testimony of the word, that jesus Christ is the only begotten son of the father: And for this he quoteth a place or two of scripture: which needed not For we hold this to be expressly in scripture, more than in forty places, 
That Chr●st is the son of God.  But the question is of the manner how this generation may be: which though it appertain not to the simple to trouble themselves with all: yet the Church must defend it against adversaries, who will object (as often they have done) how can God (being a spirit) beget a son, and yet the son not to be after his father in time, or nature, but equal with him in them both? what mean you (say they) to hold that the holy ghost proceedeth from the father, & that the son proceedeth not, but is begotten? why is it heresy to say, that the son proceedet● from the father, or that the holy ghost is begotten? what difference is there between these speeches? how doth the father beget? and the like. All these are points of divinity, & to be discussed. And though M. Charke seemeth ignorant in them all, & not to understand so much as the very terms themselves, most plainly set down: yet Catholic divines kuowe what the Church hath determined herein, against heretics and infideles. And albeit these things be not expressly set down in scripture: yet are they no less to be believed than the other mysteries of the Trlnitie: Whereof I reckoned some small part only in the Censure. Which notwithstanding I would not have troubled M. Charke withal: if I had supposed him so gross therein as by examination I find him. A lack poor sir william.  
And by this you see how substantially he hath proved all these seven points to be expressly in scripture. 
Protestant's lords of scriptures to make them say what they list.  If we should believe no more in all these mysteries, than is expressed in scripture: our faith would be very obscure and confuse herein. B●t these men are wonderful lords of scripture. They can exclude what they will, and draw in what they please. When we are to prove a matter to be founded on scripture: no testimonies will serve, except they be so plain and evident, as by no ways they may be avoided. But when they will have a thing in scripture: every little guess at their pleasure is sufficient to prove it. Hear● D. Fulks words to M. Bristoe, 
Against the motives pa. 98.  about certain like matters. For the division of parishes, excommunication, suspension, public solennizing of Marriage, with the laws thereof, and punishing of heretics by death, they are all manifestly proved out of the scripture. This he sayeth; alleging no one place of scripture to prove it. 
Lege Lutherum contra Latomum de Incendiariis:  And for the first four, I think the puritanes will hardly grant them to be manifestly in scripture. And the last was for a long time denied by themselves, to be either in scripture, or allowable by scripture, until now they have burned some for religion themselves in England. But their former books are extant to the contrary: and all their companions yet in other countries (where they reign not as our protestants do now in England) are still of opinion, that no heretic ought to be put to death for religion.  
And thus he avoideth seven of the points objected, affirming them to be evidently in scripture. For the rest (sayeth he) of these twelve points, as they are not evidently contained in the word: so a christian is not absolutely bound to believe them. 
Heretical audacity.  Behold the last refuge of a proud heretical spirit, in breaking where he can not otherwise get out. Dare you (M. Charke) to set men at liberty, to believe or not to believe, that the common creed was made by the Apostles: which, 
a In pr●em lib. de prin. , Origen, 
b ad praxeam. , Tertullian, 
c ep. 61. ad pan. , jerom, 
d in exp. simb. , Ruffinus, 
e ep. 81. ad Syr. , Ambrose, 
f ser. 181. de tem. , Austen, and all the primative Church do so constantly affirm to be their doeinge? Dare you to set at liberty the observation of Easter day: which 
g Li. 5. hist. cap. 22. Sozom. li. 7 jerom. count Heluid. Amb. ep. 81. & 79. Aug. in Enchir. cap. 34.  Eusebius calleth Apostolicam traditionem: A tradition of the Apostles: and about which was so great stir in the primative church, and so many decrees made in counsels against heretics? But above all other, dare you put at liberty the belief of our blessed ladies perpetual virginity? Remember you not that helvidius was condemned of heresy, for denieing the same, in the primative Church? Remember you not the solemn curse for this matter, of so many holy bishops recorded and confirmed by S. Ambrose of Milan? I will conclude and stop your mouth (if I can) with these words of S. Austen: Integra fide credendum est etc. we must believe with a sound faith, blessed Marie the mother of Christ to have conceived in virginity: to have brought forth her son in virginity, and to have remained a virgin after her childbirth, nether must we yield to the blasphemy of helvidius. Lo (M. Charke) S. Austen maketh it both a matter of faith, & the doubting thereof to be blasphemy: how will you avoid this?  
For the mention which S. Paul is thought to make to the Colossians of an epistle written by him to the Laodicenses, 
Col. 4.16.  M. Charke denieth it, and condemneth both me and S. jeroms translation of ignorance: for reporting the same for that (as he sayeth) the greek text hath only of an epistle written by S. Paul from Laodicea, and not to Laodicea. But me thinketh M. Charke should not object ignorance so peremptorily to others, except he were sure of his own opinion. If I had had no other warrantise for my allegation, but only the old latin translation, being of such antiquity as it is, and the matter of no importance to our purpose: yet ought I not so rigourouslie to have been reprehended for the same. But besides this, I have two editions in greek: the one of learned Paguine in folio, the other of Plantyne in octavo: both which make plainly for me. Then have I the judgement of S. 
a in c. 4. ad coll. , Ambrose, and o● 
b in catalogue. scrip. in ver. Paulus.  S. Jerome: which knew the true greek editions. Also the consent of 
c li. 5. contra Martion  Tertullian, 
d in Catal. haer. c. 89.  Philastrius, and 
e li. 1. count haer.  Epiphanius a greek writer: which may be sufficient to wipe away M. Charkes bitter reproach against me in this matter.    

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

THE CENSURE.  
But how do you now overthrow this doctrine, and prove it blasphemy, M. Charke? By a place of S. Paul: 
Objection. 2. Tim. 3.  All (the) scripture (is) given, by inspiration of God, (and) is profitable, to teach, to confute, to correct, and to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, (and thoroughly) instructed to every good work. Whereof you infer, that the Scripture is sufficient to perfection, but how wrongefullye, it shall now appear. And first I let pass your ordinary misusinge of scripture, by adding five words of your own, in this little sentence, to wit, (the, is, and, and, through●lie) which audacity, if it were in translating of Aesop's fables, it were tolerable: but in the holy Scriptures, where every word must be taken as from the holy Ghost, it is impious. secondly, this place maketh nothing for your purpose: which I prove by two reasons. The first is, because. S. Paul saith not here, that the Scripture is sufficient to perfection, but only, that it is profitable. 
Profitable  Now you know, that a thing may be very profitable, yea necessary to an effect, 
Necessary.  and yet not sufficient to do the same without all help: As meat is profitable and necessary to maintain life, and yet not sufficient, without natural heat, clothes, and the like. The second reason is, for that S. Paul signifieth in this place, that every part, or canonical book of Scripture, is profitable to make a man perfect: but yet we can not say, that every part or book is sufficient: for then, all other books of scripture besides that, were superfluous. And that S. Paul meaneth in this place, every several canonical book or part of Scripture, by the words (Omnis scriptura:) it is evident by that he useth the word, Omnis, and not Tota, which two words how much they differ both in Greek and Latin, all Logisioners know. For omins homo signifieth, every man. And M. Charke himself, in this very same sentence, hath translated, Omne o●us bonum, Every good work: And yet deceatefullye, hath he translated Omnis scriptura, All the scripture. As though S. Paul had meant only, that all the Scripture put together is sufficient to perfection: which sense can not stand. First, for that all the Scripture, at such time as. S. Paul written this, wanted divers important parts, as the gospel of S. john, the apocalypse, and some other, which were written after, & consequently should have been superfluous, if the other before had been ●ufficient.. Secondly, 
Part of scripture lost.  because we lack at this day many parts of scripture, which of likelihood were in S. Paul's time. As the book of Nathan the Prophet● with the volume of the Prophet Gad. 1. Paralip. vlt. The book of Ahias salonites, and the vision of Addo the Prophet 2. Paral 9 Many of the Parables and verses of Solomon, for he written three thousand of the one, and five thousand of the other, 3. Reg. 4. Also the epistle of S. Paul to the Laodicenses Colos. 4. whereof it followeth in M. Charkes own, sense, that if all the scripture put together, is only sufficient to perfection: then our scripture, now lacking divers parts of the same, is not sufficient. And so me thinketh, M. Charke wrestethe this place against himself.   

THE DEFENCE.  
After a long apology in defence of lose translating of scripture, (wherein M. Charke will perforce retain opinion of honest dealing) he cometh to refute the first reason, about profitable and sufficient, & sayeth that sometimes profitable may stand for sufficient. 
1. Tim. 4.  As where the Apostle sayeth to Timothy: Exercise thyself to godliness. For bodily exercise is profitable but to a little: but godliness is profitable ●o all things: having promiss both of this life, & of the lif● to come. Here (sayeth M. Chark) it can not be denied but by profitable is mente sufficient. Which suppose were true: yet were it but a slender argument, of one particular to infer an other. But (in mine opinion) M. Charke is utterly deceived in this matter. For as S. 
a Com. in hunc locum.  Ambrose, S. 
b ibidem.  Jerome, & S. 
c 
de morib. Eccles. li. 1. cap. 33.  
Piety. meriteth in all actions.   Austen do expound this place: S. Paul's meaning is to put an antithesis or difference between corporal exercise & piety: saying, that the one is but little profitable, but the other (that is godliness) hath her promise of reward in all actions, taken either for this life, or for the life to come: Out of all (I say) she reapeth commodity, and is profitable. For in all actions, which are taken in hand for charity and love of God (which is true piety:) therein is merit and reward, whether the actions be about matters of this life, or of the life to come. And who would say here that profitable signifieth sufficient?  
His second reason he frameth in these words, upon the place of S. Paul before alleged: that which is profitable to all the parts that may be required to perfection, can not be but sufficient for the perfection of the whole: but that the scripture is profitable in such manner, the Apostle doth fully declare, in rehearsing all the particular parts which are necessary: as to confute, to correct, and instruct in justice: ergo the scripture is sufficient. God help you (M. Charke:) I assure you: you are a simple one to take controversies in hand. What boy in Cambrige would ever have reasoned thus? If you had said, that which is sufficient to all the parts in particular, is sufficient to the whole: you had said somewhat. But how followeth it, that what soever is profitable to all particular parts, should be sufficient to all? have you not Learned that there is causa sine qua non, which is not one he profitable, but also necessary to all parts, whereof it is such a cause: and yet is not sufficient alone, either to the parts or to the whole? As (for example,) the head is profitable, yea necessary to all the actions of this life, as to sing, weep, dispute, and the like: for without a head none can be done: and yet is not the head sufficient alone to perform these actions: as we see by experience. For that every one which hath a head is not able to do these things.  
His third reason and argument is taken from the words of S. Paul immediately going before in the place now alleged to Timothy: which are these, 
2. Tim. 3.  for that thou hast learned the holy scriptures from thy infancy, which can instruct thee to salvation, through the faith which is in jesus Christ. Lo (sayeth M. Charke) here the scriptures are said to be sufficient to salvation. But I deny this. For the Apostle sayeth they can instruct Timothy, and show him the way to salvation, and can bring him also to it, if he will follow them. But doth it follow hereby that they are sufficient for the whole church? and in such sort as all doctrine by tradition is superfluous? Every epistle of S. Paul instructeth a man to salvation, & would also bring any man to heaven, that should follow the same exactly. But is therefore every epistle of S. Paul sufficient for the whole Church? (whereof only our question is) and are all other superfluous? Again, it is to be noted, that S. Paul speaketh here principally of the old testament. For he speaketh of the scriptures which Timothy (being now a byshope) had learned from his infancy: which was before the new testament was written. And will M. Charke say, that the old testament is sufficient to Christian men (such as Timothy now was) for their salvation, without any other write? You see this man like the hare in the net: the more he struggleth, the more he encumbereth and entangleth himself.  
To my two reasons in the Censure, to prove that S. Paul in the place alleged spoke not only of all the whole scripture together, but also of every particular book thereof, (which notwitstandinge can not be said to be sufficient of itself without other) he answereth in effect nothing: but for excuse of his fraudulent translating Omnis scriptura: all scripture: where as he translated omne opus bonum, every good work, even in the same sentence: he allegeth a place or two out of the scripture, where this word omnis signifieth all, aswell as every one. 
Lu●. 21.  Which I deny not, but some times it may be: (especially in greek) but yet that there is ordinarily a difference between these two propositions omnis homo●est corpus: and totus homo est corpus: I ●row your logicians of Cambrige (whereof you talk,) will affirm with me. And if there be ordinarily such a difference, and yourself observing the same in the former part of the same sentence: why you showld alter your translation in the second part thereof, I can not imagine, except you mente fraud.  
But now to my two reasons. In the first, I say that S. Paul could not mean to Timothy of all the scriptures together which we now use. For that, all was not then written: as the Gospel of S. john, and some other parts. To this he answereth, that there was enough written then, for the sufficient salvation of men of that time, and that the other parts added afterward were not superfluous. But this is from the purpose. For I grant, that in all times when there was least written word, yet was there sufficient for the people's salvation of that tyme. For God supplied it otherwise: that is, by word of mouth unwritten. And this maketh for us: for in such times the written word was not sufficient without all other helps as you affirm it is: as (for example) when only S. Mathewes Gospel was written, and nothing else of the new testament: yet grant I, that this scripture was sufficient for that tyme. For that, God supplied it otherwise, by the words and speeches of his apostles. So before Moses wrote the law, the patriarchs had sufficient for their salvation: though they had either nothing, or very little written word. And yet you can not say, that the written word of that time was sufficient of itself, without all tradition by mouth. wherefore this answer is against yourself, as also that is, which you frame to the second reason: affirming that albeit divers parts of scripture be wanting now, which was in S. Paul's time: yet still it is sufficient which I deny not, being joined to the other supplies that God useth. For God supplieth by tradition and word of mouth. 
The true state of the controversy about the sufficiency of scripture. Epiph in haer. 61.  But whether in all times the only written word, that is extant, be sufficient of itself to the whole Church, without all other helps delivered by tradition: that is our question. And of times past, when the law was not written, no man without impudency can affirm, that the written word was then sufficient. And of our time, that is, after the writing of the new testament, Epiphanius sayeth: Non omnia a divina scriptura accipt possunt, quapropter aliqua in scriptures, aliqua in traditione sancti. Apostoli tradiderunt. All things necessary, can not be had from the scripture: And therefore the holy Apostles left unto us some things written and some things by tradition. Which signisieth sufficiently what judgement the primative Church had of this matter: as more at large shallbe showed in the article following: which is also of this same argument.    

Of teaching traditions besides the scripture. Art. 5.  

THE CENSURE.  
5. You report the Jesuits to say: That the want of holy Scriptures must be supplied, by peeci●ge it out by traditions. Cens, fol. 220. 
adding to scripture Deut. ●. Non addetis ad verbum etc.  This is coin of the former forge, all false, and no one such word to be found in all their book. But yet as though they had said so, you fight manfully against this your own sentence, saying in manner following: Contrary to this is the law in Moses. Thou shalt not add to the words which I speak to thee, neither shalt thou take from them. But why do you break the la M. Charke in reporting the la? you have here added the singular number in the Verb, and the plural in the Noun, and have taken away the numbers which the la giver used, & changed the same at your own pleasure, and that for a purpose which I could guess at. But let all things be lawful unto you: what maketh this la for your purpose? By your meaning the Apostles and evangelists did offend, in adding any thing besides the law of Moses, which is absourd. Nether did Moses in this place (forbidding to add or take away) speak of his written law (for he had not yet written it) but of those things which he delivered them by word of mouth at that time, the which he willed them to keep and observe wholly and perfectly, without changing it by addition, or diminution, or by their own corrupt gloss, as naughty men are wont to do: And this is the true meaning of that place, and not as you would have it, that nothing should be believed besides that which Moses set down: for a little after Moses himself commandeth the l●wes to hear the Prophet which God should raise af●er him, as himself, 
Deut. 8.  meaning thereby Christ.   

THE DEFENCE.  
here again M. Charke disburdeneth himself upon Gotuisus: saying, If the Censure of Colen hath no such words: Gotuisus failed in writing their book. 
Gotuis. ca 1. antith. 2.  But gentle sir wiliam: this matter is not so shifted of. You knew that Gotuisus: took these words from kemnitius, against whom they were proved false by Payvas, before you wrote your book, as the most of his other reports were. How chanceth it then you would utter them again without seeing the original, whether they were true or no? Beside this, Gotuisus citeth Canisius for the same words, 
Canis. in opere Cate. fol. 162.  where no one such word is to be found: why looked you not in Canisius to see it? or why had you not cited Canisius in your Margin, as well as the Censure of Colen, which you well knew was not to be had? why did you conceal Canisius, I say? can you be excused from wilful dishonest dealing in this matter? No, no, your desperate resolution is totoo evident.  
But (say you) we hold the doctrine, though the Jesuits have not the words. What doctrine M. Chark? that the want of holy scripture must be peeced out by traditions? It is false. We speak not so unreverentlie of the scripture, as shall better appear by the article foloweing. We do not teach that the scriptures are wanting, or need to be peeced. It is your heretical malice which deviseth these words. Though both parts of gods word, that is, both written & unwritten, be necessary unto god's Church: yet both of them do stand in their full perfection assigned them by God: nether is the one a maim, or impeachement to the other: no more than is S. Luke's Gospel to that of S. Matthew: or S. Paul's epistles to any of them both. For as you may not say that S. Mathewes cospel is maimed, for that S. Luke's is also admitted: or that S. Paul's epistles are a piecing up of the former Gospels: no more can we say that god's word left us by mouth in tradition is a ●ayme, or detraction to that, which he hath left us in writing: or that in writing to be a disannulling of that which we had by tradition: for that, both are parts of gods word, & of equal authority: as shallbe showed more largely in the twelfth article, together with certain means how to know and discern the same. Wherefore these odious speeches against the dignity of holy scripture do proceed only from the malice of you our adversaries, and of no cause or matter ministered by us.  
After certain trifling speech to little purpose M. Charke concludeth peremptorily this article in these words. To conclude, it is a great iniquity to add traditions, or your unwritten 
* Great iniquity to add one verity to an other, or to believe two verities together.  verities to the written word of God, whereunto no man may add: because nothing is wanting: and to him that addeth shall the curses written in the book be added for ever, citing in the Margin, the place of the apocalypse, which sayeth, that who soever addeth or taketh away from that book of prophecy, shall incur the plagues written in that book. 
Apoc. 22.  But good Lord: when will these men leave to abuse the scriptures, & learn to speak to the purpose? if we believe all that is written in that book of revelations, and other things besides revealed unto us else where by God: do we incur this curse of S. john thereby? S. john sayeth nothing may be added or taken away from the perfection of that most excellent & mystical book of revelations: but did he mean hereby that nothing should be credited besides that which is there written? S. john himself written diverse things which are not in the apocalypse: 
●n exami. council. tried. ●ag. ●01.  yea by the judgement of kemnitius (a protestant) he wroote his whole Gospel after the apocalypse. And yet (I think) by this addition of his Gospel, he did not run into the curses of that book. How then is this place alleged against us for believing those things which our ancestors have delivered unto us, as received from the mouth of Christ and his Apostles? how holdeth this argument, no man may add to the book of apocalypse: ergo, no man may believe a tradition of Christ, or his Apostles? May not a man aswell infer, ergo we may not believe the acts of the Apostles? But this is their common alleging of Scriptures.  
It is Lamentable to see the sleight dealings of these men in matters of such importance. It is a great iniquity (sayeth Charke) to add traditions, or your unwritten verities to the written word of God. What mean you (Sir) by adding? who doth add? or in what sense? If God left any doctrine by tradition unto the Church, and our ancestors have delivered the same unto us, especially those of the primative Church: what shall we do in this case? shall we refuse it? It seemeth dangerous: and I see no reason. For the same men that delivered unto us the scriptures, and said, this is gods written word, and said of other forged scriptures, this is not gods written word: the same delivered unto us these doctrines, saying, this is God's word unwritten. As for example, 
a Li. 10. de gen. ad lit. cap. 23.  S. Austen, and 
b in c. 6. ep. ad Rom.  Origen do teach us that baptizing of infants is to be practised in the Church, only by tradition of the Apostles. S. 
c Ep. 54. ad marcellam.  jerom, and 
d Her. 75.  Epiphanius tell us that the fast of the lent, and other the like is a tradition of the Apostles. 
e de Eccles. hier. cap. 7.  Dionysius, and 
f de coronae milit.  Tertullian say, that prayers and oblation for the dead are traditions of the Apostles. 
g Li. de spi. S. cap. 27.  S. Basil teacheth, that the consecration of the font before baptism, the exorcism upon those that are to be baptised, their anointing with holy Chrism, and divers like things are delivered unto us by prescript of Christ and his Apostles. Thus testify these men, and no man in the Church controlled their testimony at that time: whereby it is evident that all that Church believed it. Now, what shall we do, when these and many other like things are delivered us by our forefathers, the doctors, and chief pillars of Christ his Church? shall we reject, and discredit them? wherefore? or upon what ground! these men were nearer to the Apostles times than we are by many hundred years: and therefore could better tell than we can, what the Apostles left by tradition, or left not. Again, they were no dishonest men, and consequently would not write a lie or deceive us wittingly. And if they would: yet other men would have controlled them. why then should it be such iniquity in us to receive and believe the traditions which they deliver us, as M. Chark sayeth it is? If they come from the mouth of Christ & his Apostles, as thes fathers do affirm: then are they part of God's word also, as well as the other which are written.  
But you will say (I know) they come not from Christ and his Apostles. And how (I pray you) can you prove that to me? why should I believe you rather than these holy fathers, which lived so long ago? I do not see (for example sake) why I should believe a CHARKE, or a Fulke coming but yesterday from the Grammar School, before a Cyprian, a Tertulian, a Basil, a Jerome, a Chrysostom, an Ambrose, or an Austen, especially in a matter of fact (as our case is:) seeing they lived more than twelve or thirteen hundred years nearer to the deed doing, than these ministers do: and yet to this extremity am I driven. For hearken a little how D. Fulck handleth these men about traditions. S. Cyprian is alleged against him, saying, that the myngling of wine and water in the Chalice is the tradition of Christ himself Fulke: 
Against martial pag. 170.  but if Cyprian had been well urged, he would have better considered of the matter. Tertulian is alleged, saying, that the blessing with the sign of the cross is a tradition of the Apostles: Fulke: 
Ibidem. pa. 178.  Tertulians' judgement of tradition without scripture in that place is corrupt. S. Basil is alleged for the same matter, affirming the custom of blessing with the sign of the cross to be an Apostolical tradition: Fulke: 
Ibidem. pa. 178.  Basil is an insufficient warrant for so worthy a matter. S. Jerome is alleged, saying, that Lent fast is the tradition of the Apostles: Fulke: 
Against Bristoes' motives. pa. 35  Jerome untruely ascribeth that tradition to the Apostles. S. Chrisostom is alleged, saying, ●hat the Apostles decreed that in the sacrifice of the Altar, there should be made prayer for the departed: Fulke: where he sayeth, it was decreed by the Apostles etc., he must pardon us for crediting him, because he can not show it out of the Acts and writings of the Apostles. 
Against D. Allen For prayer 303.  But divers fathers are alleged together beside Chrisostome for the same matter: Fulke: 

Ibidem pa. 362. & 363.  
A proud question.   who is witness that this is the tradition of the Apostles? you will say, Tertulian, Cyprian, Austen, Jerome, and a great many more. But I would learn why the Lord would not have this setforth by Matthew. Mark, Luke, or Paul? why they were not chosen scribes hereof, rather than Tertulian, Cyprian, Jerome, Austen, and other such as you name? But this is a counterfeit institution, & feigned tradition. And in other place being urged by the like, he discrediteth all antiquity: saying, 
Against Br. motives pag. 36.  It is a common thing with the Ancient writers to defend every ceremony which was used in their time, by tradition of the Apostles.  
here now are set before me a pair of balances, with fulke and Charke in one end: and Cyprian, Origen, Tertulian, Basil, Jerome, Chrisostome, Epiphanius, and Austen, in the other end: for all these fathers (as you see) affirm constanlie traditions of Christ and his Apostle, besides the written word: Fulke and Charke deny the same. They allege particular examples: Fulk opposeth himself to them all. But which in reason should I rather believe? You shall hear some of them speak. S. Basil the great was a man (I trow) to be matched in credit with Charke the minister. His words are these: 

Li. de spi. S. cap. 27.  
Traditions of equal force with the written word.   Dogmata quae in ecclesia praedicantur quaedam habemus e doctrina scripto tradita, quaedam rursus ex apostolorum traditione in mysterio, id est, in occulto tradita accepimus, quorum utraque parem vim habent ad pietatem, nec hiis quisquam contradicit, quisquis sane vel tenuiter expertus est, quae sint iura ecclesiastica: Among the doctrines which are preached in the church, some we have opened to us by writing, and some again we have received, delivered us by tradition of the Apostles in secret: both which doctrines are of equal force to piety: nether doth any man gainsay this, which hath any little knowleige in the laws of t●● Church.  
here now are S. Basil and W. Charke at an open combat about traditions, The one sayeth, it is iniquity to admit them: The other sayeth, it is ignorance to reject them. The one sayeth, they are of no authority or credit at all: The other sayeth, they are of equal force and authority with the written word of Christ and his Apostles. Whom will you rather believe in this case?  

Li. 1. daemon. evang. c. 8.  With S. Basil taketh part Eusebius, saying, Christi discipuli ad magistri sui nutum, illius praecepta partim literis, partim sine literis quasi iure quodam non scripto, servanda commendarunt. The disciples of Christ at their masters beck, did commend his precepts to posterity, partly in writing; partly without writing, as it were by a certain unwritten law. Mark here, that tradition is called an unwriten law: & the things delivered thereby are the precepts of Christ: and that they were left unwritten by the beck or appointment of Christ himself.  

Heresi. 61.  Epiphanius is yet more earnest than Eusebius. For writing against certain heretics named Apostolici, which denied traditions, as our protestants do: he proveth it thus: 
1. Cor. 11. 14.15.  Oportet autem & traditione uti: Non enim omnia a divina scriptura accipi possunt. Quapropter aliqua in scriptures, aliqua in traditione sancti Apostoli tradiderunt, quemadmodum dicit Sanctus Paulus: Sicut tradidi ●obis: & alibi, sic doceo, & sic tradidi in ecclesiis: we must use tradition also. For that, all things can not be had out of Scripture. For which cause, the holy Apostles have delivered some things to us in scriptures, and some things by traditions, according as S. Paul sayeth: even as I have left unto you by tradition: And in an other place: This do I teach, & this have I left by tradition in Churches. here you see Epiphanius doth not only affirm so much as we hold, but also proveth it out of Scripture.  


Hom. 4. in ca 2. ep. ad Thess.  
2. Thess. 2.   With Epiphanius joineth fully and earnestly S. Chrisostome, writing upon these words of S. Paul to the purpose: State & tenete traditiones: Stand fast, and hold traditions. Out of which clear words S. Chrisostome 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. Itaque traditionem quoque ecclesiae fide dignam putamus. Traditio est: nihil quaeras amplius. By these words of S. Paul it is evident, that the Apostles delivered not all by epistle (or writing) unto us: but many things also which are not written: And yet those are as worthy faith as the other. For which cause, we esteem the tradition of the Church worthy of faith. It is a tradition: seek no more about it. What can be spoken more effectually against W. Charke than this? Is it now great iniquity to receive traditions, or no? how will he avoid this uniform consent of antiquity against his fond malepeartnes, condemning all traditions for iniquity? here you see are the very words avowed (as also in S. Basil alleged before) which these new masters do so odiously exaggerate to the people daily, that we match traditions with the written word of God. These words (I say) are here maintained both in Chrisostome and Basil, affirming the unwritten traditions of Christ and his Apostles to be of equal force, and authority with the written word of the same: And yet I trow, were they not blasphemous for saying so, as these young gentlemen are accustomed to call us.  
And this now in general, that traditions are: that is, that divers things belonging to faith are left us unwritten, by Christ and his Apostles: Also, that this sort of traditions are of equal authority with the written word: because they are the unwritten or delivered word. But now if any man would ask me, 
divers apostolical traditions in particular.  what, or which are these Apostolical traditions in particular: I could allege him testimonies out of the ancient fathers, for a great number: whereof some examples have been given in the former article. But let any man read S. Cyprian, Serm: de ablut: pedum: Tertullian de coron: miiltis: and S. jerom. Dialog. count luciferianos: and he shall find store. And albeit, some thing hath been said of S. Austen before: yet will I add these few examples out of him, for ending of this article. He proveth the baptism of infants by tradition of the Church: 
S. Austin's testimony for divers particular traditions.  lib. 10● de gen. cap. 23. He proveth by the same tradition, that we must not rebaptize those which are baptised of heretics: li. 2. de bapt. c. 7. & lib. 1. cap. 23. & li. 4. cap. 6. He proveth by tradition, the celebration of the pentecost commonly called whitsondaye: epist. 118. c. 1. He proveth by tradition, that the Apostles were baptised. ep. 108. He proveth by tradition the ceremonies of baptism as delivered by the Apostles, Li. de fide & oper. cap. 9 He proveth by tradition of Christ & his Apostles, that we should receive the blessed sacrament fasting. ep. 1●8. cap. 6. He proveth by like tradition the exorcism of such as should be baptised li. 1. de nupt. & concup. cap. 20. & li. 6. contra julian. ca 2. He proveth by the same tradition, that we must offer up the sacrifice of the mass for the dead li. de cura pro mort. agenda. ca 1. & 4. Serm. 32. de verbis Apostoli.  
I omit many other such things, which aswell this learned doctor, as other most holy fathers of the primative Church, do avouch, by only tradition of Christ and his Apostles, without writing: which to believe or credit, if it be such great iniquity and blasphemy, as W. Charke will have us to esteem: then were these ancient fathers in a miserable case, and this new minister in a fortunate lot. But if the countenance of this new Sir do not surpass the credit of those old Saints: I ween it will not be hard to judge how fond and foolish his railing speech is against a doctrine so uniformly received in Christ his Church, as the doctrine of traditions hath been from the beginning.    

Whether the Jesuits speak evil of Scripture. Art. 6.  

THE CENSURE.  

The scripture may be wrested to an evil sense.  You report the Jesuits to say: The holy Scripture is a nose of wax. Cens. 117 God forgive you, for abusing so much these learned men. Marry you take the way to overmatch both learning and truth too, if you may have your desire. He that will read the place by you quoted, shall find the Jesuits, upon occasion given them, to say in effect thus: that before the rude and ignorant people, it is easy for a noughty man, to wrest the scripture, to what interpretation pleaseth him best, for the flattering either of Prince or people: even as a man may frame a nose of wax what way, or to what form he list. And will you of this make them to say, that the holy Scripture is a nose of wax? Christ is likened to a serpent, 
Nu. 21. joh. 3. Math. 25.  and yet is no serpent: Also to a covetous Usurer, and yet is none: Nether doth the Scripture commit blasphemy in using such similitudes. But how prove you (M. Charke) that the scripture may not be wrested into many senses before the rude people, as a nose of wax may be into many forms? Because it is contrary (say you) unto the words of David: 
Psal. 18.  The law of the Lord is perfect, converting souls surely I would you might be feed even for the saving of your credit (M. Chark.) to allege one place without corruption. Do you translate, Lex domini immaculata: The Law of the Lord is perfect in sense, so that it may not be wrested to a wrong interpretation? This is marvelous. Immaculata signifieth in these countries, unspotted, void of filth, or dishonesty, wherewith profane writings are often times defiled: But the la of God is devoid of all such things, and therefore converteth souls, whereas other writings do often times corrupt them: But that Immaculata can not be translated, perfect in sense, it is evident by this, that every syllable and word in God's Law is unspotted, but yet not perfect in sense, & much less so clear, as it may not be perverted to an evil meaning: whereby your fraudulent translation is discovered.   

THE DEFENCE.  
To avoid the reproach of belyeing and slandering the jesuits in this place, 
Pay● Andrad. orth. expl. lib. 2. pag. 104.  M. Charke hath this refuge. I appealle (sayeth he) from your Censure, to Andradius plain confession. He defended the Iesuites● in these points against kemnitius, which you defend against me. This Andradius in handling this article, doth not at all cry ou●, as you do, but acknowledgeth & defendeth the matter without such needle's scoffs: What scoffs the Censure useth, or what cryeing out there is in this article, the reader seethe, and can judge of your report M. Charke. But that you are the same man, which you were before (that is, most false and shameless in your avouchementes) it shall now appear. You say here of Andradius two things: First, that he plainly confesseth, and acknowledgeth the matter: secondly, that he crieth not out against kemnitius for this report. And for both these things, you quote Andradius in the hundred & forty page of his second book. As for the first, let any man see the place by you quoted, and if Andradius confess any more of the matter, than is set down in the Censure itself: let him believe you an other time upon your word. For the second, it is totoo impudent. For albeit Andradius had not altogether so much cause to take stomach against kemnitius as I have against you, for making a greater lie than he did, as shallbe showed: yet let the reader view over but the two pages, 
pag. 102. & 103.  which go immediately before that which you cite, & he shall see nothing else in them but a most earnest & sharp invective against kemnitius, and all other protestāns, for malicious slandering, and misreporting the jesuits. And among other things Andradius sayeth there, that for a great● time he took pity of the protestāns, thi●king that they had erred of ignorance. But now seeing their malice in forging open lies against their own consciences: that is, which they must needs know and understand to be lies: his affection of compassion was turned into hatred. This and much more hath Andradius in that place, against kemnitius, for shameless lying. And yet M. Charke sayeth, that he crieth not out as I do, but c●fesseth all. What may be said to such?  
But (as I said before) Andradius had not so much cause of Choler against kemnitius, as I have against M. Charke: for that he doth not only report again an open untruth, which he knew to be a lie before he reported it: but also hath corrupted, and falsified that lie, to make yet a greater lie. Which thing that you may see, I will here lay down the very words both of kemnitius, & of Gotuisus M. Charkes author: 
Shameless dealing of M. Charke: Gotuisus in Antithetis: pag. 216.  for that their words are the self same: and Gotuisus took them syllable for syllahle from kemnitius. Gotuisus words than are these: The Jesuits say, that the holy scripture in those things which it containeth and settetb forth, is, as it were, a nose of wax, not yielding any certain and immovable sentence, but such as may be wrested into any interpretation. Censura Colon. fol. 117. & in opere catechestico Canisijs fol. 44. For this false report of kemnitius against the Jesuits, Andradius falleth into the long and vehement invective whereof I spoke before. But what should I do here with W. Charke? or rather what should the reader think of him, for so great a falsehood, as in this place he useth? for first he concealeth the quotation of Canisius fol 44, as well in his first book, as also in his second reply. And the cause hereof is (as often hath been noted before) for that the quoting of Canisius, according as he found him quoted in his author, would have discovered the lie, which M. Chark hoped to conceal by passing over Canisius, and citing only the Censure of Colen, which he was sure no man could find in England. And is this dealing excusable?  
secondly, out of the large sentence of Gotuisus now repeated, M. Charke took only three or four words, that seemed most odious, and yet falsified too, thereby to make them more odious. For where as Gotuisus sayeth, the jesuits hold the scriptures to be as it were a nose of wax: M. Chawke writeth that the jesuits say, the holy scripture is a nose of wax, and quoteth for it Censura Colen. fol. 117. which he knew was not to be had: & concealeth purposely both kemnitius, Gotuisus, and Canisius, where the forgery was to be discovered. What shall a man say of this ministers falsehood? shall we believe any longer this puritan protestation of plain and simple dealing in the lord? what hypocritical deceiving of the reader is this?  
And thus much for the slander and falsehood in reporting. But now to come to the matter itself: the Censure granteth, that upon certain circumstances the Jesuits do compare the heretical wre●ting and detorting of scripture, unto the bowe●ng of a nose of wax into many forms. Marry the circumstances of this comparison are these. first, that they speak not in respect of the scripture in itself: but in respect of heretics and other wicked men, which abuse scripture. secondly, they add, apud rudem populum, qui judicare non potest. This abuse and wresting of scripture happeneth commonly before the rude and ignorant people, which can not judge of the deceit. thirdly, they adjoin, ut palpentur vitia principum aut vulgi. Heretics do it to flatter the princes or people present, in their vices. By which words they signify the favour of the hearers. All these circumstances the jesuits lay down, when they compare the scripture abused to a nose of wax wrested. And who is so foolish but will confess, that a lewd and wicked man in an ignorant audience, & where all men favour his doctrine (for that he flattereth them in their sins:) may wrest & abuse the holy scripture (as men are wont to bend a nose of wax) to what plausible sense it liketh him best? No marrow (sayeth M. Chark) it can not be. 
A ridiculous evasion 2. Pet. 3,  For albeit an hereretike may wrist and pervert the scripture, yet S. Peter teacheth that it shallbe to his own destruction, and the scripture notwithstanding shall remain perfect and undefiled. As though we did hold the contrary to this: or as though we did impute the wresting of the scripture unto imperfection of god's word, & not to the malice of the wrester: or as though we said that this wresting were not destruction unto the wrester. Who ever heard such kind of answering? he sayeth the scripture may be wrested and perverted: and yet he will even with these words answer and refute us, which hold also that it may be wrested. He sayeth the very same that we do, and yet will he have men believe that he sayeth the contrary. Where were your wits (sir william,) when you wrote this answer?  
But you storm greatly against the comparison, saying, shall jesuits maintain this directly, or in directly in a k●ngdome, where the gospel is preached? What else good sir? even in the kingdom of you ministers, & to the confusion of your false named Gospel: which is nothing else, but the letter of scripture perverted, and worse abused, and wrested by you to all errors and licentiousness, than ever waxed nose was yet bended to divers fashions. 
It is no fault of scripture that heretics abuse it.  It is no fault of holy scripture, that wicked men may abuse it. For the more excellent a thing is, the more easy and pernicious is the abuse thereof. Christ was the excellentest benefit that ever God gave unto this world: and yet is he called notwithstanding, 
Rom. 9  lapis offensionis, & petra Scandali: the stone of offence, and rock of scandal: not for any fault or imperfection in him: 
In ca 1. ep. ad Gal. In verba. ps. 10. ecce peccat. etc. Iren. lib. 1. cont. haer. cap. 1.  but through the wickedness of such as abuse that benefit. So, when S. Jerome doth call the scripture alleged corruptly by Marcian and Basilides, evangelium Diaboli, the devils Gospel, yielding this reason: that the Gospel consisted not in the words of scripture, but in the sense. Also when S. Austen calleth the scripture, arcum haereticorum: The bow of heretics. And Ireneus compareth it abused by heretics, to a jewel stamped with the form of a dog or fox. 
Naz. ad Nicob. Tertull. de praescrip.  In Likewise when Gregory Nazianzen compareth it to a silver skaberd with a leaden sword within it: Tertullian to the deceitful ornaments of harlots: Vincentius Lyrinensis to poisoned herbs, 
Lyrin. contra haereses.  covered in the apothecary's shop, with fair titles, and superscriptions on the boxes where they lie: No doubt these fathers meant not by such comparisons, to detract any thing from the dignity and excellency of holy scripture, no more than the jesuits did in comparing it to a nose of wax, abused and wrested by malicious heretics.  

Luther's testimony  And I would know of M. Charke, for that he exaggerateth so much the indignity of this comparison, how he will interpret his holy man Martin Luther's own words: which, after a long discourse to prove that all heresies seek their foundation in scripture, are these. 
In postilla conc. 2. in dom: 8. post trinitatem.  Quare verum est (sicut dicitur) Scripturam sanctam esse librum haereticum: hoc est, eiusmodi libr●̄ quo potissimùm haeretici nituntur: Wherefore it is true (which is said) that the holy scripture is an heretical book: that is, such a book as heretics most of all lean unto. And a little after: Haereseon liber biblia sunt: The bible is a book of heresies. Oh that the Jesuits had used such words: how would W. Chark and his fellows have triumphed against them for the same? And yet (though Martin Luther's fashion was to run over the shoes, in what soever he took in hand) I think he meant nothing in these words, against the dignity of scripture. For he addeth in the very place alleged, Scriptura sancta haereseon liber est, non sui causa, sed istorum nebulonum qui eam depravant. The holy scripture is a book of heresies, not of itself, but by the means of those knaves, which do pervert it. This is father Luther's sweet benediction upon sacramentaries: whereof (I trow) M. Charke will not deny himself to be one.  
And thus you see that the Jesuits have not only truth and reason on their side, to use that comparison: but also have examples in this kind: both of ancient fathers, and of our adversaries themselves. What intemperate malice than is this of william Charke, so to rave against them, for this one comparison, used without all derogation of Scripture? if they had spoken evil of any scripture in itself: if they had rejected any one book thereof, as protestants do many: if they had discredited or defaced any one sentence thereof, as Luther doth most odiously the whole epistle of S. james: 
Vide sixth. sent. li. 7. biblio.  if they should say any book of the scripture to be written with a profane and ambitious spirit, as your D. Fulk doth of the Machabies: 
Against purge. pag. 209.  if they should jest at the Angel raphael in the book of Toby, as M. Whittaker doth: or fall to that extreme impudency, as to revile in open audience any holy person commended in sacred write, 
Against M. Campian pa. 18.  as you did (M. Chark) without shame, when you called that blessed woman of God, judith, unchaste judith, in your disputations with M. Campian: if the Jesuits (I say) should say, or do any of these things, as you are driven to do: then might you justly accuse them, & draw them into hatred, for depraving of god's word. But seeing they do not so, but altogether the contrary: seeing they defend gods whole word against you, that offer violence to the same: seeing they maintain the number of books, which antiquity hath left them: the unwritten traditions that the Apostles have delivered them: the Catholics expositions which ancient fathers have assigned them: seeing they nether chop nor change, nor corrupt nor put out, nor contemptuouslie reject any one thing, as you do infinite, for maintaining of your ruinous, and most impious cause: you endeavour in vain to discredit them, by exaggerating one poor comparison or similitude, which they upon occasion used, to express the wickedness of you heretics that abuse scripture: and not to attribute any imperfection to scripture itself.  
No man in the world ever spoke more reverently of holy scripture, than Jesuits do. 
The jesuits most reverent speech of holy scripture.  And whether they seek to execute it in life, as much as our ministers of England or no: let them be judges that know both their conversations. I might here allege infinite testimonies out of their works, how & with what reverence they speak of scripture. But one place only of Canisius shall serve for this tyme. He hath written two large and learned volumes of the corruptions of gods word, 
In prefat. ad lectorem, in li. de corruptelis verbi dei pro Io. Ba.  by the heretics of our time, where he hath these woo●des: Est ergo verbum dei etc. Wherefore the word of God is (as holy scripture containeth) the knowledge of salvation: the clear lantern, and shining lamp: it is the hidden mystery: the heaventlie Manna: the pure and proved gold: the learning of Saints: the doctrine of all spirit and truth: the looking glass: the lively fountain: the sealed book: which book who soever do use well, they are Gods scholars, they are spiritual, they are wise, they are just, they only are made the friends, and heirs of almighty God. These are Canisius a jesuits words. And do these men speak basely of scriptures, as M. Chark here accuseth them?  

Psal. 18. v. 7.  But now we come to examine the text alleged by M. Chark against the Jesuits to wit, Lex domini immaculata:" the law of our Lord is unspotted, or undefiled: which M. Charke would have to signify: that the scripture is so perfect & plain in sense, as no wicked man may wrest or abuse the same. For which absurd reasoning and wresting of scripture, he being now reproved by the Censure: hear what he answereth, and how he defendeth himself. The Censure (sayeth he) supposeth me to have but one Bible, and that of the old translation only, which hath, [the law of the Lord is undefiled] etc. but the original hath: [the law of the Lord is perfect.] And the best translations have so translated it. your old translation goeth alone. The 70. follow the rest. here you see that M. Charke bringeth divers reasons for his defence. First, that he hath divers bibles in his house, and that of divers translations. secondly, that the original or hebrew text of this verse in the Psalm, hath not immaculata: that is, undefiled or unspoted: but rather perfect, in that sense as he defendeth it. thirdly, that all the best translations have it so: and that our old translation differeth from them all. Foverthlie, that the septuagint or seventy greek interpreters are also against us here in. This is all M. Charkes defence.  
But here by the way would I have the reader to Mark, how much M. Charke getteth to his cause. If I should grant him all that he hath here said: surely he should gain only, that the law of God, is perfect. And is this against any thing that we say or hold? or is it against the signification of the word immaculata in the old latin translation, which he impugneth? Is not a thing immaculate or undefiled also, called perfect? even as on the contrary, a filthy or defiled thing, is called imperfect? If then we should grant that the hebrew and greek texts had the word perfect in them, in steed of the latin word immaculata: yet this doth not condemn the old translation for using the word immaculata, immaculate. For that immaculate (as hath been showed) signifieth also perfect from spot: marry not perfect in that sense, wherein M. Charke talketh: and for proof whereof he alleged this sentence: to wit, that because the law of the lord is perfect, therefore the scripture can not be wrested: which is a most false and absurd illation upon the word perfect. For S. Paul's epistles are perfect together with other scriptures: and yet S. Peter sayeth that many men did wrest and deprave them. 
2. Pet. 3.  But now let us consider the several four points of M. Charkes former answer, which (as you see) if we should grant unto him, without contradiction, yet had he gained nothing thereby. But let us examine them.  
Touching the first which he answereth: that is, about the variety of bibles and translations, which he hath at home, I will not stand or contend with M. Chark. Let him have as many as he please: the matter is, how well he understandeth, or reporteth those bibles, and not how many he hath. The second point is false, that the hebrew text disagreeth from the old latin translation: as shallbe showed after. The third is fond, that all the best translations do differe from the old translation herein. 
The old latin translation.  For what best, or better, or other good latin translation hath he, than the old, which was in use in gods Church above thirteen hundred years past: as may be seen by the citations of the fathers, which lived then? which was afterward also overvewed & corrected by S. jerom? 

jerom. ep. 102. & in fine catalo. Augu. ep. 10. ad hieron.  
Praefat. in Nowm tes. an. 1556.   which was also so highly commended by S. Augustin? what other better translation (I say) hath william Charke than this ancient, which he so contemneth? except he will name some latter of our time, as of Erasmus, Luther, or the like: which Beza himself notwithstanding affirmeth to be nothing like the old translation for exactness. The fowerth point which he addeth is a shameless lie, that the septuagint in greek do dissent from the word immaculata in the latin. For their word is AMOMOS, 
AMOMOS.  which their own lexicon will expound unto them to be immaculate, innocent, irreprehensible.  

TAMAM or TAM.  To return therefore in a word or two to the original text, the hebrew word is TAMAM, or TAM which the septuagint do interpret (as you have heard) AMOMOS: that is, irreprehensible: and the ancient latin translation immaculata, 
Abovut the translation of immaculata.  immaculate. And what refuge then can M. Charke find here? I do not deny, but that it signifieth also, perfect: for that, what soever is irreprehensible and without spot, may also be called perfect, as hath been showed. But how doth this prove that it signifieth to be perfect in sense, in such sort, as it may not be wrested, or perverted? In the 118. Psalm where our ancient translation hath beati immaculati in via: 
An. 1549  your own english bible hath translated it (M. Charke) blessed are those that be undefiled in the way: and the Hebrew and greek words are TAM, & AMOMOS, as in the other text. How then do you rail at our old ancient translation for that wherein your new english bible doth the very same? the like you may see in infinite other places: as levit. 3. v. 1. & 6. Also Num. 6. v. 14. Where sacrifices are appointed to be immaculate, according to the ancient tranflation. And your english bible translateth it so too, saying they must be without blemish: where the hebrew and greek words are TAM and AMOMOS, as before.  
By which is seen, that M. Charke careth not whether he runneth, what he forgeth, or whom he reprehendeth, so he may seem always to say somewhat: And of all other shifts, this is the last, and the easiest, and of most credit, and least able to be spied of his reader, (as he thinketh) to inveigh against the old latin translation, when he is pressed unavoydablye with any place of scripture alleged. For this shift, besides the present covering of the difficulty, yieldeth also some opinion of Learning to his Master, giving men to understand, that he is skilful in the learned tongues: whereas God knoweth, the refuge is used for bare misery: as it always appeareth, when it cometh to examination. And this shall suffice for this sixth article.  
HERE the Author was interrupted by a writ de removendo, so as he could not for this present pass on any further: as more at large is showed at the beginning, in an epistle to M. Charke.     

A BRIEF TABLE OF THE PRINCIPAL matters contained in the defence of the Censure.  

THe folly and bad dealing of Hanmer: pag. 3.4.5.6.  
How to discern a clean spirit from an unclean: page: 11. 12.13●  
The ordinary fashion of heretics in railing: as appeareth by Fulke, Chark, & Hanmer: page: 11.13.14.15. 33.34.35.36.38.158.159.  
And as appeareth by Calvin: page. 15.  
And by Luther's railing speech against king Henry the eight: page, 15.16. 17.  
And against calvinists: page, 17.18.  
What a sect and sectary is, and how it may differ or agree with heresy: page, 19.21.22.26.  
The Jesuits are no sect. page, 19  
The Pharisees a sect, page, ●4.  
Charkes absurd oversight in defining a sect page. 25.  
Religious men odious to heretics: pag. 30.31.32.33.  
The religious vocation consisteth in three vows: pa. 38  
The monks of old time made vows. page 36.  
The religious state of these times, and of the primative church all one insubstance: page. 38.  
Elias, Helizeus, and S. john Baptist patterns of religious men: page. 19.20.21.  
S. Augustin a religious man. page: 38.  
Austerity of life and voluntary poverty practised by ancient fathers, and by Christ himself. page. 27.39.  
Marriage of votaries is worse than adultery: page 37. 43. 44●50.  
Luther for fear entered into Religion: page, 49.  
His horrible doctrine and impiety: page 45. 51. and so forth to the 66. page.  
His bodily conference with the devil. page. 68.69.  
His drunken death: page: 66.70.71.  
The dissension of protestants. 74.75.76.77.92.93.  
john Calvin his falling into heresy: pag. 78.  
His burning in the shoulder for sodomy: page. 78.  
His ambition and vainglory: page 81.82.  
His manner in raising of the dead. page: 82.  
His casting out of a devil: page 83.  
His lascivious life and dayntynes: page 84.  
His horrible sickness, and death. page. 89.  
Beza his wicked disposition, Simony, and lasciviousness pag 86●87. 88.89.  
The six reformers of religion, what kind of men they were: page, 90.91.92.  
Bucer his inconstancy and death. 92.93.  
M. Chark can not be certain of his good estate, pag. 112.  
Luther's absurd doctrine, that a woman is as necessary for man as meat drink and sleep: page, 63.  
The definition of sin, pag: 101. etc. to 109. page.  
Not only incredulity is sin: against Luther's doctrine pag 51.  
Sin is a reasonable action: pag. 104.  
Sin is voluntary, page 105.  
Mad men and unreasonable creatures can not sin: pag 108.  
Concupiscence is not properly a sin in the regenerate: pag 116.117. etc.  
M. Charks marvelous impudency in translating S. Austen: page. 121.  
It is the opinion, not of Catholics, but of Calvin, that God is the author of evil. page. 124.  
The first motions, how they are no sin: pag. 125. 126.  
The true division of the ten commandments: pag. 132.133.  
Traditions of equal force with the written word: pag. 159 160.  
Tradition is called an unwritten law, page: 160.  
Fulks impudency in discrediting 8. ancient fathers, and all antiquity, page. 158. 159.  
The sufficiency of scripture: page. 149.  
M. Charks three fond reasons concerning the sufficiency of scripture page. 151.152.  
How heretical wresting of scripture is compared to a Nose of wax, page. 66.    


The faults correct thus.  
Pag. 10. lin. 25. for embreved. Read, imbrued.  
Pag. 11. lin. 9 for oder. Read, order.  
Pag. 12. in the margin for Act. 6. Read, Act. 8.  
Pag. 16. in the margin for Fol. 442. read. Fol. 342.  
Pag. 17. lin. 13. for Angelicam read, Anglicam.  
Pag. 18. lin. 16. for calvinists, who say their masters do call. Read, Caluinist● (who are their masters) do call.  
Pag. 29. lin. 26. for your. Read, you.  
Pag. 29. lin. vlt. for men. Read, man.  
Pag. 32. lin. 15. for Nouns: Read, nuns.  
Pag. 33. in the margin, Read Pag. 96. & 98.  
Pag. 40. lin. 36. for Loyalas. Read, Loyolas  
Pag. 47. lin. 19 for Praeolus. read. Prateolus  
Pag. 61. in the margin, for ingenius. Read ingenuus.  
Pag. 64. in the margin. read. council. const. act. 4. can. 2. & conci. Nic. 2. act. 1. can. 2.  
Pag. 69. lin. vlt. for actibus: Read, ictibus.  
Pag. 74. in the margin. for pag. 17. & 19 Read, 17. & 18.  
Pag. 9●. lin. 6. for Burtin: Read, Bursin.  
Pag. 102. in the margin: for cap. 14. Read, lib. 14.  
Pag. 103. in the margin: for de unct Read, de virt.  
Pag. 138. lin. 2. for Niphlet: Read, Niphleth  
Pag. 143. lin. 38. for years Read, days