A BRIEF CENSURE upon two books WRITTEN IN Answer to M. Edmonde Campions offer of disputation.  Deuter. capit. 5. ver. 5. You feared the fire, and therefore you ascended not up the mountain. 
IHS  
Imprinted at Douai by john lion. 1581. WITH PRIVILEGE.   

A Brief Censure upon two books written in answer to M. Ed. Campions offer of disputation.  
THERE Came to my hands two books of late, in answer of Mast. Edmonde Campion 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 learned reply. Advertising notwithstanding the Reader, that in mine opinion, this offer of M. Campion, 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 effect of M. Hanmers' book.  Meredith Hanmer answereth more quietly, plainly, and more good fellow 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 Sleidan, Kemnitius, and friar Bale against the Pope, and in derision of the Catholic religion, which he struggleth to utter in divers places, without occasion given. He oppugneth féerslye and confirmeth divers things, neither said, nor denied, nor thought of, by M. Campion. 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 effect of M. Charke his book.  William Charke dealeth more subtly: for he reporteth the Challenge only for his purpose, and that also some times falsified, except it came corruptly to his hands. He uttereth also much more malice, by drawing every thing to disloyalty and rebellion, which is done by the Catholics, for conscience and religion. He flattereth the higher states, which can pleasure him, palpably. He wearieth his hearer with the infinite repetition of the worn out terms, of Pope and Popery. He excéedethe in invention of rayletyve speech. He undertaketh all manner of lies without blushing, and ventureth upon any assertion what so ever, for the bringing of the jesuits in discredit with the Reader.  
Upon this answer therefore of Master Charke, I mean to enlarge myself a little, in brotherly charity, not omitting to remember also the other, where occasion shallbe given. And for the restraining of Master Charkes rovinge to some certain points, I mean to consider first of that which he uttereth touching the Society of jesuits. 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.  

touching the Society.  

The first part.  MASTER Charke employ the all his power, and laboureth painfully, to bring in defiance the order of jesuits, containing most notable, learned, and virtuous men. For the which purpose he useth divers means, and first his ordinary way of railing, by calling them. A blasphemous sect, new and detestable jesuits, a weak & shame full order, Scorpions, Heretics, jebusites, poisoned spiders, wicked monkish friars, and fryerly 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 al. Al which I let pass without answering, for that it proveth nothing but one, which is, that they lack 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. Marry I cannot let pass to tell M. Charke, that to call them A blasphemous sect, 
jesuits Noah Sect.  seemeth not only lewd, but also unlearned. And as for their blasphemies 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, in apparel, diet, or order of life, do make a Sect: 
1. Reg. 17. 4. Reg. 1. 4. Dan. 1. Marc. 1.  than not only jesuits, but Elias, Elizeus, Daniel and john Baptist, are also to be called sectaries, for that they are reported in the Scripture have lead a different and more straight life in those points, than the common sort, and yet are commended for the same. But if Sectaries are only made (as in deed they are) by cutting themselves of, in opinion of religion from the general body of the Catholic Church, as branches from the tree, and by holding a several faith in religion to themselves: then can not jesuits (by your owen confession) be any sect, who differ not one jot 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. 
The name of jesuits.  Wherefore, unlearnedly you call them a sect, as also unseemly you scoff at their 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.  
Secondly you seek to deface the Society by contemptuous depraving of all religious men: calling them, Base and beggarly monks and friars, popish orders, and the like: wherein you follow the old heretic 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, and Rufinus of the Arians. 
In psal. 132. lib. 11. hist. ca 3.  And Petilian the Donatists' following the same spirit scoffed at S. Austen for being a friar, as S. Austen himself writeth in these words. 
Li. 3. con. lit. 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 in respect of the famous men, that had lived in the same, as Anthony, Paul, Hilarion, basil, Nazianzen, Martin himself & others: 
Books written in the commendation of monks and friars.  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, as Athanasius in the life of S. Anthony the abbot, besides a peculiar treatise entitled An exhortation to monks or to monastical life. S. Basil also wrote a great volume entituled, Constitutions or laws for monks, besides divers other treatises of that argument written both by himself and by Gregory Nazianzen. S. Christostom hath four homilies extant in commendation of the life of monks, & two whole books of the comparison betwixt the monk and the King, where in he preferreth the life of the monk, before that of the King. Also he wrote a book against you M. Charke, entitled Against the blamers of Monks and monastical life. johannes Cassianus a little after wrote 12. books entitled, Of the laws and ordinances of monks. Severus Sulpitius wrote a dialogue containing the notable conversation of the Esterly monks with Saint Martin Abbot of eighty monks. And finally Saint 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. 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 buy calling them so often Base and Beggarly, he showeth what spirit he is of, 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. 
Luc. 9 joh. 12. Math. 19   
thirdly, you endeavour to bring the jesuits in contempt, by their obscure conception (as you term it) from one Loyolas a Spaniard and had not their full creation and commission until about thirty years passed, from Pope Paulus quartus, wherein you err: for it was from Paulus tertius, the third Pope before Paulus quartus, and the third Pope after Leo decimus, in whose time Luther began. So that there is not much difference, betwixt jesuits and Protestants, in there antiquity of name, mary 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, than the common sort of people used: 
The true life of jesuits.  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 fourth, as none of that Society hath or may take, any spiritual or temporal livings or commodities what so ever, though divers great Princes have pressed them often times with the same, but of free cost they preach and 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 Theatinus a jesuite 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.  
But because M. Charke objecteth against the jesuits, their first father Loyolas, whom contemptuously he calleth a soldier: And M. Hanmer, a crippled soldier, which lived in the same time with friar Luther, Progenitor of the Protestants: Let us consider in two or three words, the difference betwixt 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 the beginner of the jesuits.  Ignatius de Loyola, was a gentleman of a Noble house in Spain, which yet remaineth, who being chief captain of Pompeiopolis, and defending it, against the frenchmen in the year 1536 was hurt and taken prisoner by the same. 
Vide jaco. Payvam li. 1. orthodo. explicat. & Pet. Maffeum in vita Ignatij de Loyola.  But afterward being perfectly healed, and courteously restored to liberty again, and now in great possibility of honour and prefermente in his 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, and distributing all that he had to the poor: stolen away from the Court, and betook himself to a marvelous strait life, and after he had with continual labour of many years, gotten learning, and gayened many souls from sin, unto virtue, and from the Devil unto almighty God, by his example of austere life and godly persuasions: there adjoined them selves unto him, nine other of divers nations in the University of Paris, to the like travelsome life for gaining of souls. Which kind of life was afterward (after divers examinations and probations of their spirit and purpose) allowed and confirmed by Pope Paulus tertius, and so consequently (divers worthy 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 and holiness, but especially in zeal of gaining of souls and recalling men from sin, and his posterity after him hath by imitation of the same virtues, brought forth infinite fruit unto the world.  

Luther beginner of the new gospel.  Martin Luther, walking in his youth in a certain meadow, was strooken with a thunderboult, and thereupon suddenly for very fear made himself an Austen friar, where after in the abbey of Erford, serving in the Church upon the third sunday in Lent, 
Vide joan. Cocle. in vi. Lutheri. & Lindan. li. de fug. ido. ca 8. & 9  when the gospel was read of the deaf and dumb devil thrown out by Christ, he suddenly fell 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, betwixt him and 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. 
Luther's doctrine.  
There is no Sin but incredulity: neither can a man damn himself, do what mischief he can, except the will refuse to believe. In his book de capti. Babil. cap. de baptis.  
The ten commandments appertain nothing unto 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 and principal gospel. In prefa. ad nowm Testam. 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 matri. in epithal. super 1. Cor. 7.  
If the wife will not come, let the maid come. Serm. de matrim.  
Matrimony is much more excellent, than virginity. Li. 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. Li. de vo. coniu. & in asser. art. 16.  
All Christians, are as holy and is just as the mother of God, and as the Apostles were. Serm. de Trin. de B. Maria & come. ep. 1. Pet.   
I leave other infinite beastly doctrines which he taught, for the invention whereof, he had much conference with the devil himself, whom Bishop Lindan, and divers others write, to have been seen talk bodily with him, by men of very great credit. 
Lib. de fug. idolis. ca 8. Li. de miss. angul. pag. 228. to. 7. & li. de missa. priva.  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 diserybeth his voice saying, that it was so terrible, huge, and dreadful, 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. 
Hoss. li. 1. de heres. Claudi. de Saint. li. de reb. eucha. Lindan. li. de fug. id. ca 8.  But yet nevertheless he was deceived in the end, as all men are that deal with such Merchants. For Luther going one night drunk to bed, (as Hosius writeth) was found there the next day dead, slain (as is thought) by this his familiar devil. For he was a pitiful creature to look on, (as Saints describeth) all black, with his tongue lying out, as a man stranguled. 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, but also with his own brood and offspring Carolostadius, Oecolampadius, Bucer, and Zuinglius parents of the Protestants religion, whom he perseruted, cursed, and condemned, to the very pit of hell, for damned Heretics, as yet appeareth in his books written against them. 
Luth. ep. ad Argenti. & epist. ad. Io. Har. Bucer. ep. ad Luth.  Wherefore whether the Protestants, or the jesuits, may be more ashamed of their first father, let the indifferent Reader judge. There is the like life or worse, written of Calum by a french man that lived with him, of the same religion at that time, and was translated into English by a country man of ours, and had been put in print ere this, had not my L. of London by an evil chance gotten the copy into his hands.  
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 the which you have, for example's sake, put down thirtine blasphemies, in their own very words (as you say) noting the leaf, and adding the clean contrary doctrine out of the word of God: And that men should know that you deal plainly, and bring their very words, and no syllable of your own you have put their sayings down, in a different roman letter. But M. Charke in brotherly charity, let me reason the matter 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 yourself, and your searchers are so watchful, as nothing can pass their hands, to the discovering of your doings, and therefore you may both say and print what you will: And our ears may well burn on this side the sea, and our hearts rue, at the shameless untruths which we hear and see uttered there amongst you daily: but we can not remedy it, and this that I write now, I make account, it may as well 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, and 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 the examination? But now let us consider these wicked blasphemies of the jesuits: with whom, if you have dealt truly and honestly, them 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 sayings towards us. 1. First therefore you report the jesuits to say: It is not sin, what so ever is against the word of God. Censura Colon. leaf. 44. These words are guilefully reported, péeced and culled out for your purpose of a large discourse, and yet most true in their sense. The occasion whereof was this. One Monhemius a Lutheran against whose Catechism this Censure of Colen was made, would needs prove Concupiscence remaining after Baptism, to be a damnable mortal sin, albeit no consent of heart were given unto the same, and for proof of the same, he brought in this definition of sin: 
A definition of sin..  Sin is what so ever repugneth to the law of God. The which definition, the Censure of Colen affirmeth not to be in all respects perfect, but that divers words should be added to the same: as for example, in steed of that he sayeth (Sin is what soever &c.) he should have said (Sin is an action) for that there be divers things which repugn against the law of God, as evil men, evil laws, the devils, and the like, which notwithstanding are not properly sins, for that they are not actions. secondly he should have said not only (Sin is an action) but (Sin is a 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. Thirdly he should have added (voluntary) for if a man should do a noughty act against his will, as the virgins which were ravished by violence in the primative Church did, it were no sin. Lastly, he should have added (done wittingly) for although jacob lay with Lya which was not his wife, 
Gen. 29.  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 jesuits together with S. Austen and other learned Fathers have set down, 
Aug. li. 3. de lib. arb. cap. 19  to wit. Sin is a human act voluntarily and wittingly committed against the law of God. And this is to be understood of actual sin properly.  
But now how doth M. Charke overthrow this doctrine, forsooth thus. Contrary to this (saith he) is the word of God 1. john 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 falsifying? 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. 
Transposition in alleging of Scripture.  But why have you fraudulently turned it backward? you knew well the force of transposition out of Sophistry 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 creatire 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 blasphemy 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 huddle up matters as M. Campion 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.  

Concupiscence no sin.  2. You report the jesuits to say: Concupiscence remaining in the regenerate, although it be against the law of God, yet is it not sin properly in it self or of his own nature. Cens. fol. 38. 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 some times 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. And albeit S. Paul do some times call it sin: 
Rom. 7.  yet meaneth he not properly but by a figure, whereby the name of the cause is often times attributed to the effect: 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 some time's sin, but not properly, but only figuratively, as also S. Paul calleth Christ himself, 
Rom. 8.  Sin, because he was the sacrifice for sin. And all this is S. Austen his note, whose plain words in the same place are: 
Li. de Nup. & conc. ca 23. & 25. & li. 1. con. ep. 2. Pelag. ca 13. et. li. 1. Re tract. ca 15.  Concupiscence is not sin in the regenerate, if consent be not yielded unto her for the accomplishing of unlawful works. The same teacheth not only S. Augustine in divers other places, but also all other Fathers of the primative Church, as Nazianzenus orat. de S. Lana. Pacianus orat. de bap. Clemens Alexandrinus Li. 1. Pedago. cap. 6. Cyprian servant de. lot. pedum et Li. 2. ep. 2. Ambro. Li. 1. de vocat. gentium. capit. 5. So that all these good Fathers are partakers with the jesuits of this blasphemy which you enforce upon them. But how do you prove it to be blasphemy? marry because Christ saith: 
Math. 5.  Whosoever 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.  

First motions no sin.  3. You report the jesuits to say. 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 and consent of heart, (as I have showed before) these first motions, can be no more sins in us, than they are in beasts, for the like reason. Nether is the ten the commandment, 
Exo. 20.  alleged by you for the contrary doctrine, to wit, Thou shalt not covet, any way repugnant to this. For this commandment forbiddeth consent to these motions, and not the very motions which are not in our power, as the Scripture itself signifieth when it saith. 
Deu. 30.  This commandment which I do give the this day, is not above thee. 
Li. de nupt et concupis. capit. 23.  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. 
Eccl. 18.  That is, consent not to them, or follow them not.  

All things not expressed in Scriptures.  4. You report the jesuits to say. The holy Scripture is a doctrine unperfect, maimed, lame, not containing all things necessary to faith and salvation. Cen. fo. 220. You are too shameless, M. Charke, in setting for the 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. For reproof of which heresy, 
Things believed which are not in Scripture.  they give examples of many things, which both we and our adversaries also do believe, which neverthelese, are not set down expres●ye in the Scriptures, although perhaps ●educed thereof. As the perpetual virginity of our Lady after her childbirth: two natures and two wills in Christ: the proceeding of the holy Ghost equally from the Father and the Son, with out 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 baptized: That the common creed was made by the Apostles: The celebration of the sunday, in stead of the satterdaye: The celebration of Easter only upon a Sunday: The four Gospels which we use to be the true Gospels and 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 Laodycenses, is feigned and not written by him, seeing notwithstanding Saint Paul never mentioneth any epistle written by himself to the Romans, 
Colos. 4.  but yet sayeth that he wrote one to the Laodicenses. All these things (I say) and many more, are believed by us generally, and yet none of them expressye to be found in scripture.  

Objection.  But how do you now overthrow this doctrine, and prove it blasphemy, M. Charke? By a place of S. Paul: 
2. Timo. 3.  Al (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 wrongfully 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, throughlie) which audacity, if it were in translating of Aesop's fables, it were follerable, 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. 
Profitable.  The first is, because S. Paul saith not here, that the Scripture is sufficient to perfection, but only, that it is profitable. 
Necessary.  Now you know, that a thing may be very profitable, yea necessary to an effect, 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 omns homo, signifieth, every man. And M. Charke himself, in this very same sentence, hath translated, Omne opus bonum, Every good work: And yet deceatcfullye, hath he translated Omnis scriptura, All the scripture. As though S. Paul had mente 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 wrote this, wanted divers important parts, as the Ghosepl of S. john, the apocalypse and some other, which were written after, and consequently should have been superfluous, if the other before, had been sufficient. 
Parts of scripture lost.  Secondly, 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 wrote 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. Charks 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.  

adding to Scripture.  5. You report the jesuits to say: That the want of holy Scriptures must be supplied, by piecing it out by traditions. Cens. fol. 220. 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: 
Deut. 4. Non addetis ad verbum etc.,  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 law M. Charke in reporting the law? you have here added the singular number in the Verb, and the plural in the Noun, and have taken away the numbers which the law giver used, and 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 law for your purpose? By your meaning the Apostles and Evangelists did offend, in adding any thing besides the law of Moses, which is absurd. 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 noughty 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 jews to hear the Prophet which God should raise after him, 
Deut. 18.  as himself, meaning thereby Christ.  

The Scripture may be wrested to an evil sense.  6 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 naughty 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, and yet is no serpent: 
Nu. 21.  Also to a covetous Usurer, and yet is none: 
joh. 3.  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? 
Math. 25.  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. Charke, 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, signisieth in these countries, unspotted, void of filth, or dishonesty, wherewith profane writings are often times defiled: But the Law 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 his Law, is unspotted, but yet not perfect in sense, and much less so clear, as it may not be perverted to an evil meaning: whereby your fraudulent translation is discovered.  
7. You report the jesuits to say: 
The reading of Scripture.  The reading of the Scripture, is not only not profitable, but many ways very hurtful to the Church. Fol. 21. Did you think M. Charke, when you wrote this, that any of these books whose leaves you cite, were to be had or seen in England? I think Noah, or else you are at a point, to make none account what you speak hereafter. The jesuits have not this, which you report here in their names. But only they lay down certain weighty reasons, why the reading of Scripture is not rashly, and without very great consideration to to be permitted to the rude and ignorant people, which understand it not, and therefore may easily misconceive the meaning thereof, showing also that all heresies from the beginning, have been founded upon the misunderstanding of the Scripture, and yet this without all fault of the word of God, but by the ignorance or malice of the misconsterer. As in like manner all sins arise by the misuse of the creatures of God, which creatures notwithstanding are good in their own natures, as the Apostle teacheth: 
1. Tim. 4.  and Christ himself is said to be an occasion of ruin unto some, 
Luc. 2.  and yet without any fault of his.  
This is the jesuits doctrine, the contrary whereof I would see now, how M. Charke (according to his promise) will prove out of the clear word of God, Mary (saith he) Christ delivereth a contrary note. Math. 22. Ye err not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God: whereof he would infer, that all men must read the Scriptures. A strong argument the circumstances considered: for first, the men to whom Christ spoke these words, were no ignorant people, but learned Saducees, which came prepared to pose Christ, about the resurrection. This appeareth by the subtle question which they put for the, 
Math. 22.  of seven brethren which had alone wife, 
Deut. 2.  grounded upon the law of Moses, whereby they thought to overthrow the doctrine of resurrection. But Christ having heard their question, told them, that they erred, not understanding the Scriptures touching that point of resurrection, which Scriptures he interpreted to them presently out of the iij. chapter of Exodus. Also he said, they erred, not understanding the power of God, whereby he is able to raise again the self same body in number, which is dead, though it be unpossible (as it is) in all natural reason. So that Christ spoke not here to unlearned men, nor of all Scriptures, nor of reading, but of understanding. What maketh therefore this to your purpose M. Charke? forsooth as much as if you should reason thus: my Lord chancellor said to certain Doctors of the Arches, pleading a case unskilfully before him: you err, not understanding the common law in this case, nor the Princess authority. Ergo, by these words he meaneth, that all the clowns of England, shall fall to reading of the common law, albeit they understand never a word thereof.  

Faith and works.  8. You report the jesuits to say: That the righteous man liveth by faith, ne hath it not in Christ, but by his own works. fol. 118. You weary me out with your impudent lies: there is no such thing: what should I answer you? and yet as though they had said it, you bring in a place of S. Paul against the same, saying: 
Rom. 11.  If righteousness come by our works, it is not now grace. As though no man's works could be righteous in this life: which is both from the purpose, and false. For we deny not but the first and chief righteousness, whereof Saint Paul speaketh in this place, that is, whereby a man is called first from sin or infidelity to the service of Christ, his sins forgiven him, and he justified by the infusion of grace, this righteousness (I say) is only of God's merry and no way of our works, or by any merit of the same. But yet notwithstanding, after we are now made just, and by the mercy of God, placed once in state of grace, the good works which ensue of this grace, may be righteous and meritorious, not of themselves, or of their own natures (as you wickedly affirm us to hold) but through the dignity of that grace of Christ, which remaineth in the doers. The which grace being once lost, their good deeds are no more righteous or meritorious. The which true doctrine of ours, you will not understand, but always of malice report it contrary, as also you do shamefully this place of S. Paul, to make it serve your purpose. For S. Paul saith that God's election, whereby he chooseth men to be Christians, is of grace only and not by merit of works: and you draw it generally against the righteousness of all good works. And because it would not stretch so far, you have added unto it of your own, these words: If righteousness come by our. etc. which words are not in S. Paul.  

Faith and hope.  9 You report the jesuits to say: Men do surely hope, that everlasting life shall be given them, but they do not believe it: now hope often faileth, otherwise it were no hope. Cens. 118. For confutation of which doctrine you aleage out of S. Paul, Hope is the sure anchor of the soul. 
Heb. 6.  And again: Hope maketh not ashamed. 
Rom. 5.  In the which you show yourself unlearned, huddling up and confounding, faith and hope as one thing, the which S. Paul 1 Cor. 13 doth affirm to be distinct things. The jesuits doctrine (if you understood it) is true, learned, and clear, to wit: 
Luc. 10.  that no man, with out a special revelation from God (as the Apostles had from Christ, when he said that their names were written in the book of life,) may believe, that he in particular shallbe saved, albeit he may well hope it. 
Faith grounded only upon the word of God.  And the reason of this is, for that the only object of faith is the word of God revealed unto us, either by writing, or by tradition: that is as much to say, as no man may believe or have faith in any thing, except it be revealed unto him by the word of God. Whereof it followeth, that whatsoever a man believeth, must be so certain, necessary, and infallablye true, as it cannot possibly be false. Which two reasons prove, that albeit a man may hope his own salvation, in particular, yet he may not make it of his belief. First, for that he hath no express word of God that he in particular shallbe saved: for what Scripture saith, (for examples sake) that William Charke shallbe saved? none I think, but only in general, and upon conditions: as if he believe as he should do, joining charity with it. 1 Cor. 13. If he keep the commandments. Math. 19 If he persever in honesty unto the end. Math. 10. If he leave his lyeinge. Apocal. 21. & 22. and the like. The which things all, no man can tell whether he observe or whether he shall observe them unto the end or Noah. secondly it is not so certain that any man in particular shall be saved, but he may be damned, at the least wise it is not unpossible: for he may deny his faith, if he will he may commit adultery, murder, and the like enormities, and so damn himself. As we see judas and divers other have done which seemed good for a time, and so may I toe, if I list? and therefore my salvation in particular, being not infallibly certain, can not be the object of faith and belief, but only of hope.  

Hope hath doubt in it.  Now this hope hath joined with it, both confidence and doubt, and that in respect of two things. For in respect of the goodness and mercy of God, it is full of confidence and assurance, and in this respect S. Paul calleth hope, the anchor of the soul which maketh not ashamed, 
Heb. 6. Rom. 5.  as you allege. But in respect of God's justice, and our sinful frailty, hope hath also doubt and fear annexed with it. For when I consider that God, as he is merciful, so is he just, Psal. 10. nay, that he damneth more by his justice than he saveth by his mercy, Math. 7. & 2. Luc. 13. also that he will take a strait account of every little sin at the day of judgement, Math. 12. and that there be many secret sins which may be in me without my remembrance, Psal. 18. 1. Cor. 4. moreover, that divers shall come confidently at the last day hoping to be saved and yet shallbe damned, Math. 7. when I do consider this (I say) adding to it, mine own noghty inclination unto sin, & my weakness in perseverance of virtue I cannot choose but join fear with my confidence, and so the scripture teacheth me to do, saying. Do you converse in fear during this time of your habitation: 
1. Pet. 1.  And again: Work your salution in fear and trembling. 
Phil. 2.  The reason whereof, is put down also in the scripture, to wit: Because a man knoweth not, whether he be worthy of hate or love. 
Eccle. 9  So that we, M. Charke (as you see) reconcile all scriptures together, and maintain both confidence and fear, in Christian hope, and you take one part only, and leave out the other, and yet you are offended with M. Campion, for saying that you confound and huddle up matters.  

Invocation of saints.  10 You report the jesuits to say: The scripture in deed never teacheth invocation of Saints: yet we must believe, deceive, and hold it. fol. 230. This is falsely reported too, for they do not say: The Scripture never teacheth invocation of saints. But Monhemius against whom they wrote, said so, and thereof inferred, that therefore it was not to be believed. Which consequence of argument, the jesuits deny to be good, and give examples in many things which are not expressly set down in the scriptures, and yet are to be believed as I have showed before in your fowrthe report. And touching this doctrine of Invocation of Saints to pray for us and with us to our Saviour: the Catholic Church foundeth it in the word of God, and deduceth it by necessary consequence, out of many and evident places of Scripture, adjoining thereunto the explication and determination of the ancient general Counsels, and the testimonies of the holy Fathers, with the universal practice of all Christendom from the beginning, as it may appear to them that will read the Catholic books written of this matter. And now you Sir, to overthrow all this, bring in only, besides your lie, a metaphorical place of the prophet Isaiah: Thou art our Father, and Abraham hath not known us, and Israel hath been ignorant of us. 
Esa. 63.  Are these your plain, clear, and evident Scriptures, which you brag of so much? I will answers your place to show your weakness. First if the prophet had spoken of invocation of Saints in this place, and of their intercession for us, yet were not thes words against us: for we grant that the Fathers of the old Testament, until Christ's ascension, were not in heaven, as our Saints are now, but in Limbo patrum, expecting Christ his coming, & therefore could not hear us, or understand our necessities as they can now in heaven, & therefore in this sense the words may be true: Abraham hath not known us etc. Secondly the prophet talketh of no such matter in this place, but only bringing in Christ, all bloody after his passion, reasoneth with him in the name of the whole people of Israel, confessing their great sins, from the which, Abraham & Israel were not able to deliver them, but rather had rejected & cast than of for the same sins, & so knew them no longer. Wherefore they were constrained to come unto Christ, as to their father and only redeemer, & therefore they say to him: Thou art our father and Abraham hath not known us etc. The which kind of speech S. Jerome proveth out of the Gospel, 
jeron. in ca 63. Esa. Math. 25.  where Christ said unto the foolish virgins that came to late: I know you not: that is, I know you not for my servants, I refuse & reject you, I care not for you: and not, as M. Charke doth interpret, I know not your case or your necessities, for he knew it well enough: but yet would not relieve them.  
11. You report the jesuits to say: Christ never said to lay men, do this in remembrance of me: fol. 302. The which (as you say) S. Paul doth plainly confute 1. Co. 11 You will never understand the jesuits a right. 
Hoc facite.  They prove in that place, that Christ in his last supper, having consecrated his own body & blood, & commanding his Apostles (which were priests) to do the very same by the words: Hoc facite: do this, or the fane that I have done: they prove (I say) that this authority of consecrating Christ his body, was committed only to priests & not to lay men, neither doth S. Paul any way impugn this. For we deny not to lay men the communion of Christ his body but the consecration of the same, the which consecration to be given by those words of Christ. Hoc facite, Do this, all holy Fathers of the Church from time to time have understood: namely, Clemens Romanus Li. 5. con cap. 20. Ambros. Li. 4. de sacram. ca 6. Cyprian. Li. 2. Ep. 3. chrysostom. Ho. 14. in ep. 1. ad cor. Isodorus. Li. diu. office cap. 18. Damascenus. Li. de ortho. fid. cap. 14. with others. Nether importeth it any thing, though the word facere doth not signify to consecrate of his own nature: for the fact of Christ, going before, draweth it to that signification: as if a man should sing, and afterward say to the standers by, Hoc facite, Do the same: here facere should signify to sing, though not of his own nature.  

Traditions.  12. You report the jesuits to say: Traditions are of equal authority with the word of God, we must believe them though they be manifestly against the Scripture. Cens. fol. 230. You draw towards an end M. Chark, & therefore you will make a sound lie, for a parting blow. You have here added of your own. We must believe them, though they be manifestly against the Scripture. The jesuits say no such word, but they affirm the former part of your words, although not so generally, & confusedly, as you report. For they say not that all traditions are of equal authority with the word of God, but only such as are certainly descended from Christ & his Apostles, and were delivered by them to be observed as part of the word of God. 
Two kind of traditions.  For there are two kinds of traditions, or doctrines received only by word of mouth: the one called Ecclesiastical, because they were begun and left us only by the Church: and thes are of no greater authority than the writings and other decrees of the Church are. The other are called, Apostolical or divine, left unto us by Christ & the Apostles: and thes are of no less authority, then if they had been written by them, or then are the other things which they wrote. For if a master should leave unto his servants, one thing in writing, and an other thing by word of mouth, they are of equal authority as all men will grant. Thes traditions therefore if they be certainly known to come from Christ & his Apostles, the jesuits say, they are of equal authority with the written word, & not all traditions as you maliciously report. And now that Christ & his Apostles left unto the Church divers doctrines by word of mouth only, & not written, it is proved by invincible arguments: as by the testimonies of the Counsels, Fathers, & stories of the primative church, by many places of scripture, as namely by that S. Paul saith to the Thessalonians: 
2. Thes. 2.  brethren stand fast and hold the traditions which you have learned either by word of mouth or by our epistle. Also it is proved, by doctrines which we have and hold, & the Church hath so done from the beginning: which doctrines notwithstanding are not written, but received by word of mouth from Christ and the Apostles: as baptism of infants, celebration of the sunday, the number of the books of Scripture, the fast of lent, and the like, whereof I have given more examples before in your fourth report.  
Now this being so, how vainly do you bring in (M. Charke) against this, the saying of Christ touching the superstitious scribes and Pharases: 
Marc. 7.  In vain do they worship me teaching doctrines that are but the traditions of men. In your own conscience, I ask you, is this anything pertaining to our purpose, or contrary to the Catholics doctrine which I have set down? & if it be not, why do you so shamlesly deceive the people with such impertinent stuff? But this is your only refuge, and herein lieth the whole maintenance of your cause, to report us still amiss, and to refute us with that which nothing pertaineth to the matter. As in this place which you have here brought in, let the reader mark how many differences there be, betwixt it and our purpose. First Christ in this place reprehendeth the teaching of doctrines that are but of men: and we talk of doctrines, delivered us by Christ and his Apostles. Secondly Christ reprehendeth not all observation of traditions of men, but the noughty observation of them, by esteeming them more than the word of God, and by breaking the word of God for the observing of them, which we also do condemn. thirdly those traditions of the Pharases which Christ reprehendeth, were certain idle and foolish external ceremonies: as the washing of cups, and the like, and divers of them were direct contrary to the word of God, as certain corrupt expositions of the law, as Christ noteth there: 
Three kinds of Rabbinical expositions of the Law.  And these were of three kinds: The one left by Rabbi Akivam, the other by Rabbi juda, the third by the sons of Asomoneus, which interpretations all, were called Deuteroseis, that is, secondary expositions after Moses, of which perverse expositions, came all their errors of the Talmud. But now what is this, to the holy Traditions of Christ and his Apostles, or of the primative Church?  

Worship of Creatures.  13. Lastly you report the jesuits to say: We must worship the image of Christ with like honour that we do the holy books of the gospel. fol. 66. Against which, you bring in S. Paul, asking, What agreement is there between the temple of God and Idols. 
2. Cor. 6.  I answer, much more agreement, than there is between the matter we talk of, and this place of S. Paul. For he talketh of drawing the yoke with infidels, and our question is, whether the worship done to the image of Christ, and to the Bible, be all one or no? 
Act. 5. & 7.  But you by calling the image of our Saviour, an Idol, show yourself impious, and you are accursed for it by the seventh general Council. And by putting such great difference between the worship of Christ's Image and his books of the Ghospel, you prove your understanding to be very little: For if you grant any kind of worship to the one, how can you deny the same to the other? seeing that both are creatures, and as the Image was made by the carver, so the letter of the Bible, by the Printer, and the hononr done to the one and the other, is not to themselves, but only to God whose Image and word, they are. But if you deny all kind of honour to them both, in that they are creatures, (for we assign no divine honour unto them:) 
Exod. 25. Num. 21. joh. 3. Psal. 45. Phil. 2.  Then first your place of S. Paul of difference, is nothing to the purpose: secondly, what will you say to the worshipppe done unto the Ark, unto the Cherubins, unto the serpent of brass? Why doth David say, Do you adore the stool of his feet? Why are we commanded to bow our knee at the sound of the name of jesus, which is but a creature representing Christ to the ear, as his image doth to the eye? S. Austen giveth this reason for it. 
Aug. li. 3. de Trin. cap. 9 & 10.  Because the honour done to these things, doth redound unto him, who is signified by them. But you are so wilful M. Chark, as you will not understand the difference between an image and an idol, nor between the honours done unto a creature and to the creator: but maliciously you will still confound the same in our names, whether we will or Noah, and that only to blind the poor people withal, and to maintain matter of railing against your mother the Catholic Church, God forgive you for it.  
And thus M. Charke, I have answered briefly your slanderous false reports, of the jesuits doctrine. Now let modest men judge, what cause you had to break into those unseemly words, saying: 
M. Charke his lack of modesty.  These and many other blasphemies, do the jesuits maintain. There is not a spider, nor a spider's web in any corner of the Pope's breast, but these doctors will hold it no less holy, than that which cometh out of Christ's breast. But do not even the Papists, that know these things, easily see, how thes jesuits in these doctrines, bewray the spirit of Antichrist. What needeth all this, M. Charke? If a lying spirit be the spirit of Antichrist: then he is bewrayed, either in them, or in you. If an ignorant railing spirit, be it: we can give a good guess, where he dwelleth. 
M. Charke his zeal.  Surely me think your zeal overran your wit in this place, as it did also not long agone when you having the hew of a Mass book, and finding the blessed virgin named, Mother of God in the same, you cried out blasphemy, until your fellow, blushing at your ignorance, brought you in mind of the antiquity of that name. You are too overgréedie of our discredit, and it hurteth your own cause. You seem to have made a compact between you, every man to lie his part, and so by force to overbear us. 
lying for the game.  You have played yours: and M. Hanmer followeth prettily after you, who is not ashamed toavouch (without citing the place) that S. Thomas of aquine holdeth The wearing of Francis and dominics cowl, to have power to remove sin, as well as the Sacrament of Baptism. Which is as true as that which you affirm, to wit: That Cardinal Poole blushed at divers enormities in Popery: And, That the Catholics in England at this day, do confess Images, Pardons, praying to Saints, and Service in the Latin tongue to be wicked things. 
News from Rome printed by 10. Charlewoode & Ed. white.  All which is as true as your news from Rome, caused amongst you to be printed of late, with your ordinary approbation, of Seen and allowed. Wherein for the defacing of that city, you show the heavy hand of God towards it in signs and tokens the 23. 24. and 25. days of januarie last passed, 1580: at what time, you report 2. sons, and 3. rainbows to have appeared, with most terrible earthquakes, wherewith fell down the gate of S. Peter's, killing 14. persons, besides 8. soldiers. Also two stéeples of S. Peter's Church, crushing the Church, and killing 38. priests, besides Choristers and other people: Also the Churches of the Franciscans, of S. james, of S. Bartholomew, of our Lady, the whole abbey of Marie Magdalene, the brave artillery house of Rome, with a hospital wherein were 150. persons, besides other infinite buildings which the revenue of a Kingdom will not repair: and all this (as you interpret) in token of God's wrath towards the Pope. Of which, no one syllable being true, (as many both here and in England can testify:) your resolution appeareth, which you have made, to avouch any thing be it never so false so blush at nothing be it never so shameful, and to invent what so ever may seem for the purpose, to entertain or de lude the simple people.   

touching the man..  

The 2. part.  Concerning the man whom you answer: To let pass all your evil speech towards him, as pardonable in you, which know little civility: you seem to deal otherwise very hardly with him: for what so ever he sayeth or doth, you will have it to be taken in evil part. If he speak humbly, he dissembleth: If he yield commendation, he flattereth: If he she we confidence in his cause, he vaunteth: If he offer trial, he meaneth not performance: If he protest his meaning, he must not be credited: If he desire audience, he must not be admitted: Finally, what so ever he can imagine to utter for iustifiinge of himself or his cause, it must avail nothing: William Charke will have him condemned for unlearned, proud, wicked and traitorous to the state: and he maketh this general conclusion: 
M. Charke his conclusion.  That no man can teach or maintain the Catholic faith in England, but he must be thereby, an enemy to God, and a traitor to the state. The first part whereof touching God, I let pass, as an ordinary reproach, of his unclean mouth: whereby he condemneth all the noble Princes of England, and other our virtuous ancestors, from the first conversion of that land, unto our age. But touching the second part of his conclusion, concerning the state, I must say a word or two.  

Religion standeth with temporal obedience.  Do you hold, M. Charke, that no man in England, can be of an other religion, then yours, but that of necessity he must also be a traitor? This is hot doctrine. Here again your zeal overrunneth your wit, or rather your malice overlashethe all reason. Must every man be an enemy to the state, which liketh not that religion which is favoured buy the State?  
what say you to the Apostles which were of an other religion, than the states & Princes where they came: and they taught, maintained and furthered their own religion within the same states: and will you for this fact of theirs condemn them of treason against the said states; & of teaching rebellion against those Princes? If you dare affirm it, their own words shall reprove you, 
Rom. 13. Tit. 3. 1. Pet. 2.  which declare unto us, how they (notwithstanding their contrary religion) taught all dutiful obedience in temporal matters towards those Princes, being but infidels and otherwise wicked men: the which notwithstanding the apostles did command all Christians to obey in conscience, as substitutes of God, and so they did, as appeareth by their Apologies, 
Vide apollo. duas Ius●ni. mart.  written in defence of their innocency in these points, at such times, as they were charged with the contrary as we are now. I might make the like demand of Athanasius, hilarius, Eusebius versellensis and others, which ceased not to maintain, teach, and defend, their religion, in the hottest persecution of the Arians, and yet were no traitors to the states which favoured the contrary religion. moreover in Queen mary's time will you say that all For his martyrs, were traitors to the state? or that all of your opinion in these and other countries, where the states favour not your religion, are traitors and rebels? neither maketh it any thing to the purpose for you to say, that our religion is false, and yours true: for the question is general, whether every man of a contrary religion must needs be an enemy to the state, which you affirm, and we deny.  

A bad argument.  Nether is that argument to be respected wherewith some of your chief prelate's use to press Catholics some times, saying: that they in Queen mary's time wished all evil to the Prince and estate, and therefore we must needs do the same now. This argument, I say, holdeth not, for that there is difference of spirits in men. We know your doctrine both in john Wicklife, 
Wiclif. li. 4. Trial. ca 3. Council Con. sessi. 8.  Luther, 
Luther in Bulla Leon. 10.  and calvin, 
Calvin. li. 3. inst. cap. 19 &. li. 4. cap. 10.  to be dangerous to all Princes whom you mislike: teaching, that subjects are not bound to obey their Princes for conscience sake, but that if the Prince rule amiss they are free, to restrain him and punish him at their pleasure: which doctrines we condemn. The commotions also of those of your religion in all countries where they can make their parties good, are known to the world. And I doubt whether you would live so quietly in England as Catholics do, if the state pressed you as it doth them: but we teach it to be of conscience and duty. And it is but the cruel and bloody spirit of your ministers, which by your books and sermons, seek to stir up both Prince and Magistrate to afflict Catholics more and more in England, and to account them as disloyal subjects: whereby you will one day prove, that you hinder your cause more than by any one thing. For it cometh not of that spirit, which you would seem to have, neither is it the way to gain men to your religion. As the late racking and tormenting of those virtuous priests for their consciences in the Tower, whereof, all Christendom at this day talketh, what hath it gotten to your religion? nothing, but the casting of men's hearts into a horror of such strange and unwonted dealings, and if you should drive men by such means to desperation, what gaineth your religion or the state thereby?  
But to return to M. Campion again, whose coming into England you will needs enforce (as a politic man that see the far into common wealths) that it is for practise against the state, & in hope of a golden day. For the first, he hath answered you, that he cometh with a quite contrary purpose, and with contrary commandment from his Superiors, who deal in no country with matters of estate as the world can witness, & as the Indies japon, can give example, where they have dealt so many years for the bringing of men to the Christian religion, disallowed by the states of those countries, and yet are no meddlers against those estates, nor ever caused subjects to leave their obedience to those infidel Princes. And to the second, touching the golden day, which you talk of, I know not in what sense you may speak it to that man, whom all the gold in England (as I think) will not guilt: for that he contemnethe gold as much as you desire it, and flatter for the means whereby to gain it. And to tell you more plainly M. Charke in few words, if M. Campion and you should meet in equal balances, I think you would appear to be to light in those points, wherein you would seem to your paryshoners to have your full weight.   

Touching the matter.  

The third part.  TOuching the petition, or matter demanded, to wit, disputation for trial of the truth: M. Charke in no wise likethe it, saying more over: That he would wonder if any which profess the gospel, should now look for disputation: whereof he giveth divers reasons. First, for that They have had truth now established so many years. But this seemeth a very weak reason, for the controversy is, whether it be truth or Noah, and we undertake to prove the negative part. And for his number of years (they being but two and twenty) they suffice not for a prescription, by the common laws of England, and much less to exclude us, which can prove our continuance for a thousand pears without interruption. another reason is, for that (as he saith) They shall gain no great victory in overcoming two or three, of the last and the least in the quarrel. But this is not so: for they shall gain all the Catholics in England to their side, and us that are abroad also, if they can show the truth to be with them. And albeit two or three do speak for the rest in this demand: yet shall there be more so dispute, even as many as they will admit with safety for their coming.  
A third reason he giveth: for that These jesuits will make the trial with false weights and measures which are abomination to the Lord: while after their custom, they dispute with unlearned and peevish distinctions, false arguments, and absurd interpretations. But this shall appear (M. Charke) in the trial, and your victory shallbe the more easy. You have used both lying arguments, and absurd interpretations, in this little book of yours, as hath been showed: but what the jesuits will do, you cannot yet tell: perhaps they are not of your spirit. And in calling them unlearned and peevish, you run further than your fellows will allow, for they have proved & confessed the contrary. And these terms, may easily be returned upon yourself, not in words but in deeds, by the wekest of thousands of their scholars. 
Distinctions.  But in deed their distinctions offend you much, which according to the saying of the Apostle, 
Epi. judae.  you condemn and revile because you understand them not. For you must know, that distinguishing in all sciences (according to the Philosopher) 
Arist. in Elench.  appertaineth to the learned and not to the peevish: but especially in divinity, where all heresies spring by confounding and huddling up matters: and all truth is displayed, by distinguishing of things into their proper natures. As also in the controversies of our time, when we have distinguished and put the clear difference betwixt the things that you confound, as between Idols & Images: bloody and unbloody sacrifices: justice by faith and merit of good works: mediation of Christ, and intercession of saints: faith and hope: tradition of men and of the Apostles: and many other the like: when I say, we have distinguished these things into their proper natures, and showed each part consonant to the word of God: than you have no more to say, for that your ignorance is bewrayed, and the truth made to every man's eyes, manifest.  

Liberty of pen.  Fourthly you say M. Charke, that disputation is not necessary, for that we have had and may have the liberty of our pen. The which is as true, as the rest of your assertions before. No, no: the world knoweth what search you make after every pamphlet, that cometh from us, and how you persecute them that bring in, or receive the same within the realm. And is this giving us liberty of our pen? Do you M. Charke, and your fellow ministers, for the credit of your cause, and for the avoiding the danger of this disputation, procure us but the liberty of one of your prints, and we will ask no further trial.  

Proofs in disputation.  lastly you forstraule your opinion of the proofs to be admitted in disputation, if the matter, against your will, should come so far fourth. That is, that only scripture were to be admitted in such disputation, and with one breath you reject by name, all Counsels, Fathers, Stories, natural and moral Philosophy. And of Counsels and stories you say: They are witnesses of contrariety one to an other. Of Fathers: Some of them are condemned of bastardy, and other not guilty of that crime: yet were they but men, how great so ever they were. Of natural and moral Philosophy you say: That they are enemies of true religion, and two great nurses of Atheism and heresy. To which I answer, that albeit we ground our belief only upon the word of God, and make that only the object of faith more than you do, as I have showed before in your ninth report: yet do we mislike this audacity of yours, in rejecting these very notable helps, left us by God for the better understanding of his word. 
Counsels, Fathers, and stories.  For by Councils, Fathers, and stories, we come to know not only which is the word of God, and which is not: but also, which is the right meaning of the same, among so infinite wrong interpretations, which so many heretics from time to time have invented upon the same: with whom I might easily err, if I had not this certain way to know what the true Catholic Church (which can not err) hath always holden. And this can not I tell, but only by the testimony of Counsels, Fathers, and stories: by the which only, Theodoret writeth, 
Theod. li. 1. hist. ca 8.  that the famous heretic Arrius was convicted, and not by the bare letter of Scripture, which he and all other heretics, would interpret as they list. 
Syno. Constan. Damas. here. 99  The seventh general Council also convicted the Monothelites, and proved two distinct wills, to be in Christ, by the help of natural Philosophy: 
Philosophy.  by which they showed it, to be a most sure and necessary consequence, that If Christ had two natures, he must needs have also two distinct wills. For that there could not be a nature endued with reason, without a wil And as for moral Philosophy, who seeth not the necessity of it, for the understanding the natures of virtue and vice, and all other actions belonging to man? And albeit these things may be abused, as also Scripture may: yet is it gross ignorance, for an abuse that may be, to condemn the things which are excellent gifts of God, and sparks of his most high and infinite wisdom. To deprive us therefore of all these helps, and to turn us over only to a bare letter of scripture, the which each man may either deny to be scripture, or wrangle at his pleasure upon the sense, it is as much to say, as that controversies in religion, shall never be ended: as both reason teacheth us, and experience, not only of all ages past, but also of our times, showeth. 
Note this reason.  For seeing there are at this day, the Hussites in Boemeland, the Trinitaries in Transiluania, the Anabaptistes in Pooleland, the Adamites in divers parts of Germany, the Lutherans in Saxony, the calvinists in France, the Puritans and family of Love in England, and other the like sects in the world abroad: which all with one voice agree against the Catholic Church in this point, that Scripture only is to be received, and all other testimonies to be rejected: How cometh it to pass, that these sects grounding their several religions upon the mere word of God, as they say, can not yet end their controversies? If the scripture be so plain, clear, easy, evident, and sufficient to end all controversies, as they say: why do they so long disagree? How can they upon so manifest and clear a thing as they say the scripture is, build so many contrary opinions and defend them out of the same Scripture? But it is but a shift of the ●ommon enemy, to deprive men first of their evidences and witnesses, and afterward to set them by the ears for the title. 
Flying only to Scripture condemned as heretical.  And I find this point of flying only to scripture, to have been an old trick of all heretics of the primative Church for the maintenance of their own devices, and therefore condemned in them as heretical, by the same Church. Namely in the Valentinians, as testifieth Ireneus li. 3. con. Herald And Tertulian li. 8. de prescript. Also in the Marcionistes, as the same author's witness. Also in the Arrians, as Epiphanius writeth Her. 69. And S. Austen li. 5. con. Maximum ca 1. And Socrates li. 1. hist. ca 14. Also in the Aetians, as S. Basil writeth lib. de spirit. sanct. ca 27. And finally in the Aerians, as Epiphanius writeth Her. 75. And S. Augustine Her. 53. Wherefore M. Charke affirming the same, draweth in on line with thes progenitors of his.   

Touching the Apostata.  

The 4. part.  M. Charke in the end of his book bringeth in for the defacing of jesuits and all Catholic religion, a dialogue written by one Christian Franken a German, brought up (as he saith) amongst the jesuits, as one of that Society: but afterward being made a Protestant, revileth in that book, both jesuits and all Catholic religion, as friar Luther, friar Bale, and many other Apostatas before him have done. touching whom, first, (if it be true and not coined by themselves as the news of Rome before was) I must answer as S. Austen did to the like thing, whose words are these. 
Aug. ep. 137 ad ple. Hip.  simply I do confess before our Lord, who is witness upon my soul, that since I began first to serve God, as I have hardly found better men than those which have profited in monasteries: so I never found worse than such as fell in monasteries. And again in the very same epistle, handling the place of the psalm, where Christ sayeth: They insulted against me which sat in the gate, and song in my reproach which droonke wine: 
Psal. 68  He applieth the whole, to such as you are M. Charke, which insult against Christ and his religion, for the faule of some on religious man. Wherefore do these men sit (sayeth S. Austen of heretics scoffing at religious men) and for what do they watch, but only if any bishop, or clerk, or monk, or nun should chance a fall, that they may make it to be thought, that all are such, though in all it be not manifest? And yet notwithstanding, these fellows do not cast out their own wives, or accuse their own mothers, for that some one married woman, is found to have committed adultery. But when any fault or falsehood, doth either sound or appear, in any of them that profess the holy name of religious life: these fellows labour, enforce, and strive by all means possible, that this fault may be thought to be in all. These men therefore which seek the pleasure of their tongues, by our griefs and sorrows, may be compared to the dogs which licked and took pleasure in the sores and wounds of good Lazarus. 
Luc. 16.   
Secondly, I answer that this railing treatise of this Apostata, translated and entitled by you, A discovery of jesuits: hath no foundation at all in it, but only a lewd foolish applying of every good thing in that religion, to some evil absurd and wicked meaning, framed by his own imagination without giving any reason or proof of the same. By which kind of argument, it is easy to deprave not only all religion but also all other ordinances, all common wealths, all actions both of God and man, and all creatures in the world, by likning them to some dishonest or ridiculous thing or other, which a lewd man's invention may find out, as this apostata hath done. But doth he charge any one of the jesuits (in so many years, as he saith, he lived in divers places with them) with any one act of dishonesty or disorder of life, which he might have done many, if he had lived amongst your ministers so long? 
The jesuits life by the enemy's confession.  Or doth he improve by learning, any one point of their doctrine? Noah not one: but rather uttereth that, of their good discipline and orderly life, in continual meditation of heavenly things, with subduing the appetites of their flesh, as may shame you and your lose ministery. I will put down his own words translated by you, which God enforced him to let faule, to his own confusion, and to the iustrifiinge of their honesty. The jesuits (sayeth he) do add unto their earnest meditations, 
Great labour.  the great toil of study also: etc. 
Divine meditations.  And from the time that a man giveth himself to such meditations, he departeth far away from all service and cherishing of the body: 
Chastising the flesh.  He abandonethe the society of the flesh to whippings, and other voluntary punishments of the body: He pressethe and beatethe down pleasure as a blot of shame: 
Perfect charity.  and (as our 18. rule doth command) he acknowledgeth the image of Christ, in every one of his spiritual brethren. 
Contempt of riches and honour.  As for riches, honour, and all things which he world esteemeth most excellent, they contemn them and make none account of them. These are his words M. Charke, translated by yourself, the which, me think, contain praise enough especially coming out of the mouth of a professed enemy, which would not report their life to the best: yet I doubt lest your enemies shall never be able to charge you iustiy with the like things. Thirdly and lastly I answer to this matter, that in this kind of argument we could easily repress you, with many for one of these examples, in learned and profound men of your religion, which by the grace of God return daily to the Catholic faith again: and that not upon a fancy, as this Apostata left it, but upon great reasons and invincible proofs which after long study and toil they have found to stand with the same. But for examples sake, I will here recount only two, both of them later than the running out of this Apostata, and both which are exstant in print: of men, that were many years ministers and preachers of your religion. 
Causae motivae N. Xilandri impres sae Ingolsta dij 1579.  The first was called Nicolaus Xylander Borussus who yieldeth these causes following of his conversion, which I have only touched in general, but the Reader may see them more at large set down and proved by himself in his book for this purpose. 

1. His first reason is, because he hath found that the Catholics have endured these 15. hundredth years in concord of one doctrine, & he recounteth up 16. distinct Sects sprung of Luther within these 60. years.  
2. For that the Catholics can bring their succession of bishops one after another from Christ his time unto ours, which the Fathers say to be an invincible demnostration of the true Church. 
Iren. li. 3. ca 3. Optat. li. 2. x Donat Aug. ep. 165.  But the contrary side bring none at al.  
3. The infinite miracles which have been in the catholic Church the which we must either believe or discredit all antiquity which report them.  
4. The authority of the universal visible Catholic Church, the which hath delivered unto us the Scriptures themselves, and have triumphed over so many enemies and heresies which from time to time have assaulted her. Whose authority was so great with S. Austen that he would not have believed the Gospel but only upon her authority.  
5. The great holiness of infinite men of that Church as S. Anthony, Hilarion, Basil, Austen, Benedict, Gregory, Bernard, Dominic, Francis and the like, which all were monks and friars and professed men of that religion, and yet no doubt are saints in heaven, which cannot be if they lived in error.  
6. The reverent speech of Catholic writers, and the railing, balsphemous, and dishonest speech to be found in the writings of the other side.  
7. The ordinary lying and fraudulent dealing of Protestants: never almost reporting the opinions of Catholics truly, but faininge them to say the which they never say nor think.  
8. For that Protestants esteem all their Ancestors to be damned, and do break their wills and ordinances, by converting to propha●● uses those reave news and livings which they assigned to the service of God.    

Professio. Catholica M. Seb. Flas chij. impres Colo. 1580.  THE second, is called Sebastianus Flaschius, who besides the reasons which the other hath given (for I omit them which have been touched before) he yealdethe these reasons of his conversion. 

1. For that he hath found the Catholics to teach quite contrary, to that which commonly their adversaries do report of them.  
2. For that he hath found by Luther's books that he was moved only of envy to write first against the catholic Church. 
Li. de cap● Bab. eth.. 〈◊〉 Pap.   
3. For that he hath found in Luther's writings so great dishonesty and scurrility of speech, as might shame any harlot to read, which could not come from a man inspired with the holy Ghost. 
Li. cont. Pap. et in sermo. convivalib.   
4. For that the Protestants do reject easily any book or piece of Scripture which maketh against them, and that which they cannot deny, he hath proved that they corrupt it, and that they esteem no more of Counsels and Fathers then of the Turks Alcoran.  
5. For that he hath found by reading of ancient histories and Fathers of the primative Church, that the most of all their new opinions, are old heresies condemned expressly and by name, in the heretics of the primative Church. 
Vide Sand. de visib. mon cap. 57   
6. For that he hath found Luther to hold many manifest contrarieties in his works. 
Fabius de antilogijs. Lut   
7. For that Luther seemeth to have believed in nothing, not being ashamed to say that he had more confidence in his Katherine Bore, and in his Philipe, then in Christ. 
Serm. conviu. et tit. de prophet. et. tit. de oper. Dei.   
8. For that he hath found them by experience, to be parshall and to exaggerate every little thing that they can find amiss in the lives of Catholics, although amongst themselves they live most viciously, especially in the sin of the flesh. For albeit they have wives of their own, yet do they in Germany (according to Luther's doctrine) 
Ser. de matrimo.  use their maids at their pleasure, and more than this, the ministers use commutation of wives amongst themselves, and a preacher of no small account would needs enforce this man to change wives with him. And many other such things which he proved amongst them, he saith, that very shame letted him to report them.     
FINIS.