Towching the Societie.

The first part. MAISTER Charke imploye the all his power, and laboureth paynful­ly, to bring in defiance the order of Ie­suites, contayning most notable, lear­ned, and vertuous men. For the which purpose he vseth dyuers meanes, and first his ordinarie waye of rayling, by calling them. A blasphemous secte, new and detestable Iesuites, a weake & sham full order, Scorpions, Heretiques, Ie­busites, poisoned spyders, wicked mon­kish fryers, and fryerly monkes, scoutes to rebellion, frogges and caterpillers of Egipt, absurde and blasphemous Doc­tors, bellowes to kindle persecution, of [Page] beggerly estate, traytours, swarmes of grashoppers, noysome beastes. To whom M. Hanmer addeth. That they are the broode of a cryppled souldiour, and of the lowsiest order of al. Al which I let passe without aunswering, for that it proueth nothing but one, which is, that they lack Christian and honest modestie, which abuse so much soe ma­nye good men, whose wisdome lear­ning and honestie of lyfe, is better kno­wen to the world, then anye such ray­lers can be credited to the contrarye. Marye I cannot let passe to tell M. Charke, that to call them A blasphe­mous sect, Iesuites noe Secte. séemeth not onlye lewd, but also vnlearned. And as for their blas­phemies they come to be examined af­ter: but how they maye be termed A Secte, I cannot sée, For if liuing more straitlye then the common sorte, in apparel, dyet, or order of lyfe, doe make a Secte:1. Reg. 17. 4. Reg. 1. 4. Dan. 1. Marc. 1. then not onlye Iesuites, but Elias, Elizeus, Daniel and Iohn Bap­tist, are also to be called sectaries, for that they are reported in the Scripture [Page] haue lead a different and more strayte lyfe in those poyntes, then the cōmon sorte, and yet are commended for the same. But if Sectaries are only made (as in déed they are) by cutting them selues of, in opinion of religion from the generall bodye of the Catholique Church, as branches from the trée, and by houlding a seueral fayth in religion to them selues: then can not Iesuites (by your owen confession) be any secte, who differ not one iote in opinion of re­ligion, from the vniuersal Catholique Church, but as you saye, defend euery litle poynt of the same, be it neuer soe vntrue or absurd in your sight. The name of Iesuites.Wher­fore, vnlearnedly you cal them a secte, as also vnséemly you scofe at their nāe of Iesuites, which they chaleng not to them selues, nor euer vse it, in their writinges or spéeche, but only naming them selues a Societie, dedicated pecu­lierly to the honouring of the name of Iesus, by preaching the same in all pla­ces of the world, without any reward, and with what danger bodely soeuer.

[Page] Secondly you séeke to deface the So­cietie by contemptuous deprauing of al religious men: calling them, Base and beggerlye monkes and fryers, popishe orders, and the like: wherin you folow the oulde heretique of the primatiue Church, whose propertie hath bene frō time to time, to hate and depraue those kind of men aboue al others, as S. Au­sten testifieth of the Manachies, and Rufinus of the Arians.In psal. 132. lib. 11. hist. ca. 3. And Petilian the Donatist [...] folowing the same spirit scoffed at S. Austen for being a fryer, as S. Austen him selfe writeth in these wordes.Li. 3. con. lit. Petil. ca. 40▪ After this, Petilian proceeded on with his slanderous mouth, to speak euill of monasteries, and of monkes, blaming me also for that I had set forth this kinde of lyfe, the which lyfe ether he knoweth not, what it meaneth, or else fayneth him selfe not to knowe it, though it be notorious to all the world. S. Austen sayth this kinde of lyfe (of Monkes and Fryers and other reli­gious men) was notorious and kno­wen to the world in his tyme, both in [Page] in respect of the famous men, that had liued in the same, as Anthonie, Paule, Hilarion, Basill, Nazianzen, Martin him selfe & others: Bookes writ­ten in the cō ­mendation of monkes and fryers.as also of the infinit bookes and treatises which holye Fa­thers of the Primatiue Churche had written in defence and comendation of that kind of lyfe, as Athanasius in the lyfe of S. Anthonie the Abbote, besides a peculiar treatise intituled An exhor­tation to monkes or to monastical lyfe. S. Basil also wrot a great volume in­tuled, Constitutions or lawes for mon­kes, besides diuers other treatises of that argument written both by him selfe and by Gregorie Nazianzen. S. Christostom hath fouer homilies extant in cōmendation of the life of monkes, & two whole bookes of the comparison betwixt the monke and the King, wher in he preferreth the lyfe of the monke, before that of the Kinge. Also he wrote a booke against you M. Charke, inti­tuled Against the blamers of Mon­kes and monastical lyfe. Iohānes Cas­sianus a lytle after wrote 12. bookes [Page] intituled, Of the lawes and ordinances of monkes. Seuerus Sulpitius wrote a dialogue contayning the notable con­uersation of the Esterly monkes with Saynt Martin Abbot of eyghtie mon­kes. And finally Saynt Austen, (for I will come no lower) hath written manye treatises of monkes, commen­ding highly that excellent kinde of life, and defending it against the detracti­ons of heretiques. Let anye man read his hundred thirty seuen Epistle, wher­of the tytle is, That for a few euill monkes we should not infame al mon­kes. In which Epistle hee shall sée all the slaunderous arguments of all here­tiques, against this kinde of men, an­swered. Wherfore M. Charke and his felowes in condemning and deprauing the lyues of monkes and fryers, fo­lowe their auncestours, and make warre with all the Sayntes of Christe his holye Church, who haue soe much reuerenced and commended the sayde lyfe. In lyke manner bye callynge [Page] them soe often Base and Beggerly, he sheweth what spirite he is of, that is, farr differing from the spirit of Christ, whose voluntarie pouertie is noted in the scripture, and the same most high­ly cōmended by him, to al his folowers.Luc. 9. Ioh. 12. Math. 19.

Thirdlye, you endeuor to bring the Iesuites in contempt, by their obscure conception (as you terme it) from one Loyolas a Spaniard and had not their full creation and commission vntill a­bout thirtye yeares paste, from Pope Paulus quartus, wherein you erre: for it was from Paulus tertius, the third Pope before Paulus quartus, and the thyrd Pope after Leo decimus, in whose time Luther began. Soe that there is not much difference, betwixte Iesuites and Protestants, in there an­tiquitie of name, marye in matter ve­ry great: for the Protestants faith and beléefe began at that time: but the Ie­suites, followinge with humilitie the fayth which they found in the Catho­licke Church, onelye began a strayter kinde of lyfe in manners and behaui­our, [Page] then the common sorte of people vsed: The true lyfe of Iesuites.for reforminge of whose vices, they dedicated them selues to God, and to al kinde of labor, paynes, trauaile, and peril, with abandoninge al world­ly pleasures, and al possibilitie of pre­ferment in the same, so farre fourth, as none of that Societie hath or may take, any spiritual or temporal liuings or commodities what so euer, though dyuers greate Princes haue pressed them often times with the same, but of frée cost they preach and teach in al pla­ces where they are sent, with al humi­litie of spirite, and without intermed­dling with matters of estate, as shalbe shewed more hereafter. Wherefore M. Charke offereth them the greater wrōg in charginge them with the contrarye. M. Hanmers notorious lye.And M. Hanmers impudencie is the more to be woondered at, who blusheth not to put in print so notorious an vn­trueth, in the sight of al the world, and to repeate, vrge, and amplifie the same so often in his booke, sayinge, that one Theatinus a Iesuite hypocritically got [Page] to be Cardinall and Pope,Vide Iaco. Payuam li. 1. de ortho. explicat. meaninge thereby Paulus quartus, called before Iohannes Petrus Caraffa of the order of Theatines, and not of Iesuites, which al the world knoweth to be two seueral and distincte orders of religion. And therefore M. Hanmer with fryer Bale whom he cyteth in the margent, may be ashamed of soe false a slander, both towardes the man, and also the religion.

But because M. Charke obiecteth a­gainst the Iesuites, their first father Loyolas, whom contemptuouslye he calleth a souldier: And M. Hanmer, a crippled souldier, which lyued in the same time with fryer Luther, Proge­nitor of the Protestantes: Let vs con­sider in two or thrée wordes, the diffe­rence betwixt these two men, whereby it may appeare, which of them had the better spirit, and whether of them may more iustely geue credit and commen­dation to their followers. The lyues of them both, are extant, wryten by men of their owne times, which knew them [Page] and liued with them, and therefore I shal easely discharge my credit, for that which I shal out of these wryters, re­port of them.

Ignatius the beginner of the Iesuites. Ignatius de Loyola, was a gentleman of a Noble house in Spayne, which yet remayneth, who being chéefe captayne of Pompeiopolis, and defending it, a­gainst the frenchmen in the yeare 1536 was hurte and taken prisoner by the same.Vide Iaco. Payuam li. 1. orthodo. explicat. & Pet. Maffe­um in vita Ignatij de Loyola. But afterward beinge perfectly healed, and curteously restored to liber­tie agayne, and now in great possibili­tie of honour and prefermente in his countrye, resolued him selfe, to serue God onelye for the time to come, and to take paynes for the gayning of Hea­uen. Wherupon leauing al his frends, and distributinge al that he had to the poore: stale away from the Courte, and betooke himselfe to a maruelous straite lyfe, and after he had with contynuall labour of manye yeares, gotten lear­ninge, and gayened manye soules from sinne, vnto vertue, and from the Deuill vnto Allmyghtye God, [Page] by his example of auster lyfe and godly persuasions: there adioyned them sel­ues vnto him, nyne other of diuers na­tions in the Vniuersitie of Paris, to the like trauelsome lyfe for gayning of soules. Which kinde of lyfe was after­ward (after diuers examinations and probations of their spirit and purpose) alowed and confirmed by Pope Pau­lus tertius, and soe consequently (dy­uers worthye men leauing the worlde and taking vppon them that order of lyfe) was made a distincte order of re­ligious men, in the which this Igna­tius bothe liued and dyed with singuler example of al humilytie, vertue and ho­lynes, but espetially in zeale of gay­ninge of soules and recalling men from sinne, and his posteritie after him hath by imitatiō of the same vertues, broght forth infinit frute vnto the world.

Luther begin­ner of the new Ghospel. Martin Luther, walking in his youth in a certayne medowe, was stro­ken with a thunderboult, and thervp­pon sodaynlye for very feare made him selfe an Austen fryer, where after in [Page] the Abbaye of Erford, seruinge in the Church vpon the third sunday in Lent,Vide Ioan. Cocle. in vi. Lutheri. & Lindā. li. de fug. ido. ca. 8. & 9. when the ghospel was read of the deafe and dumme deuil throwē out by Christ, he sodenly fel doune on the pauemente, and the deuil cried horriblye out of his mouthe sayinge: I am not, I am not dūme, I wil speake yet vnto the world. After this, vpon a certayne emulation and contention, betwixt him and the fryers of S. Dominiks order, he lefte his religion, cast away his habite, broke his vowes, married a nonne, and by li­tle and litle began to preache straunge new doctrines, especiallye tending to al libertie and carnalitie, as for example saying.

[Page] I leaue other infinit beastly doctrines which he taught, for the inuentiō wher­of, he had much conference with the de­uil him selfe, whom Bishoppe Lindan, and dyuers others wryte, to haue bene séene talke bodyly with him, by men of very great credit.Lib. de fug. idolis. ca. 8. Li. de miss. angul. pag. 228. to. 7. & li. de missa. priua. And Luther himselfe confesseth in his workes, that he had often and familier speache with him, and that he was first moued by him to wryte agaynst the Masse, in the yeare 1534. He also diserybeth his voyce say­inge, that it was so terrible, huge, and dreadfull, that he was lyke to dye dy­uers times, after the nightes confe­rence with him: And that dyuers men were slayne by such conference. Not­withstanding it was his chaunce to es­cape, albeit (as he sayeth) he did eate more then a bushell of salte together with this deuil.Hoss. li. 1. de heres. Claudi. de Sainct. li. de reb. eucha. Lindā. li. de fug. id. ca. 8. But yet neuerthelesse he was deceaued in the ende, as al men are that deale with such Marchantes. For Luther going one night drunke to bed, (as Hosius wryteth) was founde there the next day deade, slayne (as is [Page] thought) by this his familier deuil. For he was a pitifull creature to looke on, (as Sainctes describeth) al blacke, with his tonge lying out, as a man strangu­led. And this was the end of Luther af­ter almost thirtye yeres lyuinge, in all kynde of sensualitie, pryde, and dissen­tion, not onelye with the Catholique Church, but also with his owne broode and ofspring Carolostadius, Oecolam­padius, Bucer, and Zuinglius parents of the Protestantes religion, whom he perseruted, cursed, and condemned, to the very pitt of hel, for damned Here­tickes, as yet appeareth in his bookes writen agaynst them.Luth. ep. ad Argenti. & epist. ad. Io. Har. Bucer. ep. ad Luth. Wherefore whe­ther the Protestantes, or the Iesuites, may be more ashamed of their first fa­ther, let the indifferent Reader iudge. There is the lyke lyfe or worse, wry­ten of Calum by a french man that ly­ued with him, of the same religion at that time, and was translated into En­glishe by a countrye man of ours, and had bene put in print ere this, had not my L. of London by an euil chance got­ten [Page] the copye into his handes.

Fourthly you wil néedes bringe the Iesuites in discredit by certayne blas­phemous doctrines, which you say they hold, in a booke writen by common con­sent, called Censura Coloniensis: out of the which you haue, for examples sake, put downe thirtine blasphemies, in their owne very wordes (as you saye) noting the leafe, and adding the cleane contrarye doctrine out of the worde of God: And that men should knowe that you deale playnely, and bring their ve­ry words, and no sillable of your owne you haue put their sayinges doune, in a differēt romane letter. But M. Charke in brotherly charitie, let me reason the matter a litle with you: Are you not a­shamed of this falshode? did you not thincke that this your booke might be examined by some man or other? in déed you haue al the Printes to your selfe, and your searchers are so watchful, as nothing can passe their handes, to the discouering of your doinges, and there­fore you may both saye and print what [Page] you wil: And our eares may wel burne on this side the sea, and our harts rew, at the shameles vntruethes which we heare and sée vttered there amongste you dayly: but we can not remedie it, and this that I wryte now, I make ac­count, it may as wel perishe as dyuers things of greater importāce haue done heretofore. But suerly me thincketh a wise man that had care of his soule, might sée the lighte at a litle hole, and descrye the conclusion by a few premis­ses. If you in so short a pamphlet, vtter so many, so manifest, so inexcusable vn­truethes, as I wil now shewe, which notwithstanding you might reasonably doubt leste perhapps they might be dis­closed: what wil you, and your felowes dare auouch in your sermons, spéeches, and discourses, which you are sure shal neuer come to the examination? But now let vs consider these wicked blas­phemies of the Iesuites: with whom, if you haue dealt truelye and honestlye, thē let al be beléeued which you speake dayly of vs: if you haue done otherwise [Page] then the same malice which droue you to abuse your selfe towards them, may also iustelye be suspected in the reste of your doinges and sayings towards vs. 1. First therefore you reporte the Ie­suites to say: It is not sinne, what so euer is agaynst the word of God. Cen­sura Colon. leaf. 44. These wordes are guilefully reported, péeced and culled out for your purpose of a large dis­course, and yet most true in their sense. The occasion whereof was this. One Monhemius a Lutherā against whose Catechisme this Censure of Colē was made, would néeds proue Concupiscēce remayninge after Baptisme, to be a damnable mortal sinne, albeit no con­sent of harte were geuē vnto the same, and for proofe of the same, he brought in this definitiō of sinne: A definition of Sinne. Sinne is what so euer repugneth to the law of God. The which definition, the Censure of Colen affirmeth not to be in al respects perfecte, but that dyuers wordes should be added to the same: as for example, in stéede of that he sayeth (Sinne is what [Page] soeuer &c.) he should haue sayed (Sinne is an action) for that there be dyuers things which repugne against the law of God, as euil men, euil lawes, the de­uils, and the lyke, which notwithstan­dinge are not properlye sinnes, for that they are not actions. Secondlye he should haue sayed not onely (Sinne is an action) but (Sinne is a humane or reasonable action) for if a mad man, a foole, or a beast, should commit an acte prohibited by Gods lawe (as for ex­ample kill a man) it were properly no sinne. Thirdly he should haue added (voluntarie) for if a man should doe a noughtie acte against his will, as the virgins which were rauished by vyo­lence in the Primatiue Church did, it were no sinne. Lastly, he should haue added (done wittingly) for although Iacob laye with Lya which was not his wife,Gen. 29. yet because he knew it not, but thought her to be Rachel his wyfe, he sinned not. Soe that the perfect de­finition of sinne, is not that which Monhemius did put down and the Protestantes [Page] folow: but rather that which Iesuites together with S. Austen and other learned Fathers haue set doune,Aug. li. 3. de lib. arb. cap. 19. to wit. Sinne is a humane acte volunta­rilye and wittingly commited against the law of God. And this is to be vn­derstood of actual sinne properly.

But now how doth M. Charke o­uerthrow this doctrine, forsooth thus. Contrarye to this (saythe he) is the woord of God 1. Iohn 3. the transgres­sion of the lawe is sinne. You séeme to haue made a vowe M. Charke not to deale playnlye in anye one thing. Can you not aledge one litle sentence with­out falsifyinge? The woords of S. Iohn are these. Euerie one that sinneth com­mitteth iniquitie, and sinne is iniquitie. (Or as you will perhapps séeme to en­force it out of the gréeke woorde (Ano­mia): Sinne is transgression of the law. Transposition in alledginge of Scripture.But why haue you fraudulently tur­ned it backward? you knew well the force of transposition out of Sophistrie that it changeth all the meaning of the sentence. For if I saye, Euerie man is a [Page] liuing creature, it is true: but if I turne it backward and saye: Euerie lyuinge crature is a man, it is false. Soe these woordes, as S. Iohn vttereth them are most true, Euerie sinne is iniquitie or transgression of the law: but as you vt­ter them, they are false, to wit, That euerie iniquitie or transgression of the lawe, be it neuer soe little, or donne without ether consent or knowledge, or by a madd mā, or brute beast, should be properlye a mortal sinne. Soe that this firste blasphemye of the Iesuites commeth not to be soe haynous as you would make it, but rather to confound your ignorance which vnderstand not soe cléere doctrine, but huddle vp mat­ters as M. Campion telleth you: alsoe to note your vntruthe in misreporting their woordes, and the Scriptures a­gainst them. And of this first depend the other two that folow.

Concupisence noe synne.2. You report the Iesuites to saye: Concupiscence remayning in the rege­nerate, although it be against the law of God, yet is it not sinne properlye in it [Page] selfe or of his owne nature. Cens. fol. 38. You wil néedes helpe the Iesuites out, with that which maketh for your pur­pose. Wher finde you in them, the wor­des (Although it be against the lawe of God?) They saye, that albeit this Concupiscence doe sturre or moue a man some times to doe things whiche are repugnant to the lawe of God: yet if no consent of harte be yelded vnto it, it reacheth not to the nature of a mor­tal sinne woorthye of eternal damnati­on. And albeit S. Paul doe some times cal it sinne:Rom. 7. yet meaneth he not proper­lye but by a figure, wherby the name of the cause is often tymes atributed to the effect: as the latine spéeche, is called the latine Tongue, because spéeche is the effect of the tongue. Soe Concupi­scence being the effect of original sinne, is called some times sinne, but not pro­perly, but only figuratiuely, as also S. Paul calleth Christ him selfe,Rom. 8. Sinne, because he was the sacrifice for sinne. And all this is S. Austen his note, whose playne woords in the same place [Page] 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 sinne in the regenerate, if consēt be not yelded vnto her for the accomplishing of vnlawfull woorkes. The same teacheth not only S. Augustine in dyuers other places, but also all other Fathers of the Pri­matiue Church, as Nazianzenus orat. de S. Lana. Pacianus orat. de bap. Cle­mens Alexandrinus Li. 1. Pedago. cap. 6. Cyprian ser. de. lot. pedū et Li. 2. ep. 2. Ambro. Li. 1. de vocat. gentiū. capit. 5. Soe that al these good Fathers are par­takers with the Iesuites of this blas­phemie which you enforce vppon them. But how doe you proue it to be blas­phemie? marie because Christ saythe:Math. 5. Whosoeuer shall see a woman to luste after her, he hath alredye committed a­dulterie with her in his harte. But are you soe ignorant M. Charke, doe you not sée that Christ by adding the woords (in his harte) meaneth onlye of him, which geueth consent of harte to his luste and concupiscence, and would put it in execution if he had tyme and place and abilitie? but this is your common alleaging of Scripture.

[Page] First motions noe synne.3. You reporte the Iesuites to saye. That the first motions of lust, are with­out hurt of sinne. Cens. 54. 89. It is most true and playne, as they deliuer it but you, by clipping their woords, make euerie thing to séeme a paradoxe. They saye, the first motions of luste, if they come of natural instinct only, without anye cause geuen by vs, are no sinnes, so longe as we geue no consent of hart vnto them. And the reason is, because it lyeth not in vs, (they being natural) to prohibit them to come, no more then it dothe, to prohibit our pulse from bea­ting. And therfore séeing no sinne can be cōmitted without our will and con­sent of hart, (as I haue shewed before) these first motions, can be no more sin­nes in vs, then they are in beastes, for the like reason. Nether is the ten the commaundement,Exo. 20. alleaged by you for the contrarie doctrine, to wit, Thou shalt not couet, anye waye repugnant to this. For this commaundement for­biddeth consent to these motions, and not the verie motions which are not in [Page] oure power, as the Scripture it selfe signifieth when it saythe.Deu. 30. This com­maundement which I doe geue the this daye, is not aboue thee. Li. de nupt et concupis. capit. 23. And as S. Aus­ten learnedlye prouethe out of an other place of scripture, wher this commaun­dement is expounded, to wit. Goe not after thy concupiscence. Eccl. 18. That is, con­sente not to them, or followe them not.

All things not expressed in Scriptures.4. You reporte the Iesuites to say. The holye Scripture is a doctrine vn­perfecte, maymed, lame, not contay­ning all thinges necessarie to fayth and saluation. Cen. fo. 220. You are tooe shameles, M. Charke, in setting for the these, for the Iesuites woordes. Lett anye man read the place, and he shall finde noe such thing, but rather in con­trarie manner the holy Scripture with reuerente woordes, most highlye com­mended. Notwithstanding, they repre­hend in that place, Monhemius, for say­inge, that nothing is to be receaued or beleued, but that whiche is expreslye founde in the Scripture. For reproofe [Page] of which heresie, Thinges be­leeued whiche ar not in Scripture.they geue examples of manie thinges, which bothe we and our aduersaries also doe beleue, which neuerthelese, are not set downe expres­ [...]ye in the Scripturs, although perhaps [...]educed therof. As the perpetuall vir­ginitye of our Ladye after her childe­birth: two natures and two willes in Christe: the procéedinge of the holye Ghost equally from the Father and the Sonne, with out generation: the vni­on of the worde vnto the nature of mā, and not vnto the personne: That God the Father begat his Sonne, onlye by vnderstanding him selfe: That infan­tes without reason should be baptised: That the common Créede was made by the Apostles: The celebration of the Sondaye, in stead of the satterdaye: The celebration of Easter onlye vppon a Sonday: The foure Gospels which we vse to be the true Gospels and not fayned or corrupted: That our epistle to the Romains, was wryten by S. Paule, and the other whiche is to be séene to the Laodycenses, is fay­ned [Page] and not wrytten by him, séeinge notwithstanding Saynt Paule neuer mentioneth any epistle wryten by him selfe to the Romanes,Colos. 4. but yet sayethe that he wrote one to the Laodicenses. Al these things (I say) and many more, are beléeued by vs generallye, and yet none of them expressye to be founde in scripture.

Obiection. But how doe you now ouerthrowe this doctrine, and prooue it blasphemie, M. Charke? By a place of S. Paule:2. Timo. 3. Al (the) scripture (is) geuen, by inspiration of God, (and) is profitable, to teach, to confute, to correcte, and to instructe in iustice, that the man of God maye be perfect, (and throughly) instructed to e­uery good worke. Wherof you inferre, that the Scripture is sufficient to per­fection, but how wrongefullye it shal now appeare. And first I let passe your ordinarie misusinge of scripture, by ad­ding fiue wordes of your owne, in this litle sentence, to wit, (the, is, and, and, throughlie) which audacitie, if it were in translating of Aesops fables, it were [Page] follerable, but in the holie Scriptures, where euerie worde must be taken as from the holie Ghoste, it is impious. Secondlie this place maketh nothinge for your purpose: which I proue by two reasons. Profitable.The first is, because S. Paule saieth not here, that the Scrip­ture is sufficient to perfection, but one­lie, that it is profitable. Necessarye.Nowe you know, that a thinge maie be verie pro­fitable, yea necessarie to an effecte, and yet not sufficient to doe the same with­out all helpe: As meate is profitable and necessarie to maintaine life, and yet not sufficiēt, without natural heat, clothes, and the like. The second reason is, for that S. Paule signifieth in this place, that euerie parte, or canonicall booke of Scripture, is profitable to make a man perfecte: but yet we can not say, that euerie part or booke is suf­ficient: for then, al other bookes of scrip­ture besids that, were superfluous. And that S. Paule meaneth in this place, e­uerie seuerall canonicall booke or parte of Scripture, by the wordes (Omnis [Page] scriptura:) it is euident by that he vseth the worde, Omnis, and not Tota, which two words how much they differ both in Gréeke and Latine, all Logisioners know, For omns homo, signifieth, eue­rye man. And M. Charke him selfe, in this verye same sentence, hath transla­ted, Omne opus bonum, Euerye good worke: And yet deceatcfullye, hath he trāslated Omnis scriptura, Al the scrip­ture. As though S. Paule had mente onelye, that al the Scripture put toge­ther, is sufficient to perfection: which sense can not stand. Firste, for that al the Scripture, at such time as S. Paul wrote this, wanted dyuers important partes, as the Ghosepl of S. Iohn, the Apocalips and some other, which were writen after, and consequentlye should haue bene superfluous, if the other be­fore, had bene sufficient. Parts of scrip­ture loste.Secondly, be­cause we lacke at this day, many parts of Scripture, which of likelihoode were in S. Paules time. As the booke of Na­than the Prophet, with the volume of the Prophet Gad 1. Paralip. vlt. The [Page] booke of Ahias Salonites, and the vi­sion of Addo the Prophet 2. Paral. 9. Many of the Parables and verses of Salomon, for he wrote thrée thousande of the one, and fiue thousand of the o­ther, 3. Reg. 4. Also the epistle of S. Paul to the Laodicēses Colos. 4. wher­of it foloweth in M. Charks owne sēse, that if al the Scripture put together, is onely sufficient to perfection: then our Scripture, now lacking dyuers partes of the same, is not sufficient. And so me thinkethe, M. Charke wrestethe this place against him selfe.

Addinge to Scripture.5. You reporte the Iesuites to saye: That the want of holy Scriptures must be supplyed, by peecing it out by tradi­tions. Cens. fol. 220. This is coyne of the former forge, all false and noe one such word to be found in al their booke. But yet as though they had sayed soe, you fight manfullye agaynst this your owne sentence, sayinge in manner fol­lowinge:Deut. 4. Non addetis ad verbū &c, Contrarye to this is the lawe in Moyses. Thow shalte not adde to [Page] the wordes which I speake to thee, ne­ther shalte thou take from them. But why do you breake the law M. Charke in reportinge the law? you haue héere added the singuler nūber in the Verbe, and the plural in the Noune, and haue taken awaye the numbers which the law geuer vsed, and changed the same at your owne pleasure, and that for a purpose which I could gesse at. But let al thinges be lawful vnto you: what maketh this law for your purpose? By your meaning the Apostles and Euan­gelistes did offend, in adding any thing besids the law of Moyses, which is ab­surd. Nether did Moyses in this place (forbiddinge to adde or take awaye) speake of his wryten law (for he had not yet writen it) but of those thinges which he deliuered them by worde of mouth at that time, the which he wil­led them to kéepe and obserue whollye and perfectly, without chaunging it by additiō or diminutiō, or by their owne corrupte gloses, as noughtie men are wonte to doe: And this is the true mea­ninge [Page] of that place, and not as you would haue it, that nothinge should be beléeued besides that which Moyses set doune: for a litle after Moyses him selfe commaundeth the Iewes to heare the Prophet which God should rayse after him,Deut. 18. as himselfe, mening therby Christ.

The Scripture may be wrest­ed to an euill sence.6 You reporte the Iesuites to saye: The holy Scripture is a nose of waxe. Cens. 117. God forgeue you, for abusing so much these learned men. Marie you take the waye to ouermatch both lear­ninge and trueth too, if you may haue your desire. He that wil reade the place by you quoted, shal finde the Iesuites, vpon occasion geuen them, to say in ef­fect thus: that before the rude and igno­rante people, it is easie for a noughtye man, to wreste the scripture to what interpretation pleaseth him beste, for the flatteringe ether of Prince or peo­ple: euen as a man may frame a nose of waxe what way, or to what forme, he liste. And wil you of this make them to saye, that the holye Scripture is a nose of waxe? Christ is lykened to a [Page] serpent, and yet is no serpent:Nu. 21. Also to a couetous Vserer, and yet is none:Ioh. 3. Ne­ther doth the Scripture cōmit blasphe­mie in vsinge such similitudes. But how prooue you (M. Charke) that the Scripture maye not be wrested into manye senses, before the rude people, as a nose of waxe maye be into manye formes?Math. 25. Because it is contrarye (saye you) vnto the wordes of Dauid:Psal. 18. The law of the Lorde is perfecte conuerting soules. Suerly I would you might be féede cuē for the sauing of your credit M. Charke, to alege one place, without corruption. Doe you translate Lex do­mini immaculata The Lawe of the Lorde is perfecte in sense, soe that it maye not be wrested to a wronge in­terpretation? This is maruelous. Im­maculata, signisieth in these countryes, vnspotted, voyde of filthe, or disho­nestye, wherewith prophane wrytings are often times defiled: But the Law of God is deuoyde of all such thinges, and therefore conuerteth soules, wher­as other wrytinges, doe often times [Page] corrupt them: But that Immaculata can not be translated, perfecte in sense, it is euidente by this, that euerye sil­lable and worde in God his Lawe, is vnspotted, but yet not perfecte in sense, and much lesse so cleare, as it may not be peruerted to an euil meaning: wher­by your fraudulente translation is dis­couered.

7. You reporte the Iesuites to saye: The readinge of Scripture. The readinge of the Scripture, is not onely not profitable, but manye wayes verye hurtefull to the Churche. Fol. 21. Did you thinke M. Charke, when you wrote this, that anye of these bookes whose leaues you cite, were to be had or séene in Englande? I thinke noe, or els you are at a poynte, to make none accounte what you speake hereafter. The Iesuites haue not this, which you reporte here in their names. But onely they laye doune certayne waygh­tye reasons, whye the readynge of Scripture is not rashelye, and with­out verye greate consideration to [Page] to be permitted to the rude and ig­norant people, which vnderstande it not, and therfore maye easely miscon­ceaue the meaning therof, shewing al­so that al heresies from the beginning, haue bene founded vpon the misunder­standing of the Scripture, and yet this without al faulte of the woorde of God, but by the ignorance or malyce of the misconsterer. As in like manner al sin­nes arise by the misuse of the creatures of God, which creatures notwithstan­dinge are good in their owne natures, as the Apostle teacheth:1. Tim. 4. and Christ him selfe is sayde to be an occasion of ruine vnto some,Luc. 2. and yet without any faulte of his.

This is the Iesuites doctrine, the contrarie wherof I would sée nowe, how M. Charke (according to his pro­mise) will proue out of the cléere woord of God, Mary (saythe he) Christe de­lyuerethe a contrarie note. Math. 22. Yee erre not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God: whereof he would inferre, that all men must read [Page] the Scriptures. A stronge argumente the circumstances considered: for first, the men to whome Christe spake these woordes, were noe ignorante people, but learned Saduces, which came pre­pared to pose Christe, about the resur­rection. This appeareth by the subtile question which they put for the,Math. 22. of seuen brethren which had alone wife,Deut. 2. groū ­ded vppon the lawe of Moyses, wher­by they thought to ouerthrow the doc­trine of resurrection. But Christe ha­uing heard their question, toulde them, that they erred, not vnderstanding the Scriptures touching that poynte of re­surrection, which Scriptures he inter­preted to them presentlye out of the iij. chapter of Exodus. Also he sayde, they erred, not vnderstanding the power of God, wherby he is able to rayse againe the selfe same bodye in nomber, whiche is dead, though it be vnpossible (as it is) in all natural reason. Soe that Christ spake not here to vnlearned men, nor of all Scriptures, nor of readinge, but of vnderstanding. What maketh ther­fore [Page] this to your purpose M. Charke? forsoothe as much as if you should rea­son thus: my Lorde Chaunceller sayd to certayne Doctors of the Arches, pleading a case vnskilfully before him: you erre, not vnderstandinge the common lawe in this case, nor the Princesse an­thoritie. Ergo, by these woordes he meanethe, that al the clownes of Eng­lande, shall fall to readinge of the com­mon lawe, albeit they vnderstand ne­uer a woorde therof.

Faythe and woorkes.8. You reporte the Iesuites to saye: That the rightuous mā lyueth by faith, ne hath it not in Christ, but by his own woorkes. fol. 118. You wearye me out with your impudent lyes: there is noe suche thinge: what should I aunswere you? and yet as though they had sayde it, you bringe in a place of S. Paule against the same, sayinge:Rom. 11. If rightuous­nes come by our woorkes, it is not now grace. As thoughe noe mans woorkes coulde be rightuous in this lyfe: whiche is bothe from the purpose, and [Page] false. For we denye not but the firste and chéefe rightuousnes, wherof Saint Paule speakethe in this place, that is, wherby a man is called first from sinne or infidelitye to the seruice of Christe, his sinnes forgeuen him, and he iustifi­ed by the infusion of grace, this rightu­ousnes (I saye) is onlye of Gods mer­rye and noe waye of our woorkes, or by anye merite of the same. But yet notwithstandinge, after we are nowe made iuste, and by the mercye of God, placed once in state of grace, the good woorkes which ensue of this grace, may be rightuous and meritorious, not of themselues, or of their owne natures (as you wickedly affirme vs to hould) but thorough the dignitye of that grace of Christe, whiche remaynethe in the doers. The whiche grace beinge once loste, their good déedes are noe more rightuous or merytorious. The which true doctrine of ours, you will not vn­derstand, but alwayes of malyce report it contrarye, as also you doe shamfully [Page] this place of S. Paule, to make it serue your purpose. For S. Paule saythe that Gods election, wherby he chooseth men to be Christians, is of grace onlye and not by merite of woorkes: and you drawe it generallye against the rightu­ousnes of al good woorkes. And because it would not streche soe farre, you haue added vnto it of your owne, these woor­des: If rightuousnes come by our. &c. which woordes are not in S. Paule.

Faythe and hope.9. You reporte the Iesuites to saye: Men doe surely hope, that euerlastinge lyfe shall be geuen them, but they doe not beleue it: now hope often fayleth, otherwise it were no hope. Cens. 118. For confutation of which doctrine you aleage out of S. Paule, Hope is the sure anchor of the soule. Heb. 6. And againe: Hope maketh not ashamed. Rom. 5. In the which you shew your selfe vnlearned, huddlinge vp and confoundinge, faythe and hope as one thinge, the whiche S. Paule 1 Cor. 13 dothe affirme to be dis­tincte thinges. The Iesuites doctrine (if you vnderstoode it) is true, learned, [Page] and cléere, to wit:Luc. 10. that noe man, with out a speciall reuelation from God (as the Apostles had from Christ, when he sayde that their names were written in the booke of lyfe,) maye beléeue, that he in particuler shalbe saued, albeit he maye well hope it. Faythe grounded onlye vp­pon the word of God.And the reason of this is, for that the only obiect of faythe is the woorde of God reueled vnto vs, ether by writing, or by tradition: that is as much to saye, as noe man maye beléeue or haue faythe in anye thinge, excepte it be reuealed vnto him by the woorde of God. Wherof it foloweth, that whatsoeuer a man beléeueth, must be soe certayne, necessarie, and infal­lablye true, as it cannot possiblye be false. Which two reasons proue, that albeit a man maye hope his owne sal­uation, in particuler, yet he maye not make it of his beléefe. First, for that he hathe noe expresse woorde of God that he in particuler shalbe saued: for what Scripture saythe, (for examples sake) that Willyam Charke shalbe saued? none I thinke, but onlye in generall, [Page] and vppon conditions: as if he beléeue as he should doe, ioyning charitye with it. 1 Cor. 13. If he kepe the commaun­dementes. Math. 19. If he perseuer in honestie vnto the ende. Math. 10. If he leaue his lyeinge. Apocal. 21. & 22. and the lyke. The which thinges all, noe man can tel whether he obserue or whether he shall obserue them vnto the end or noe. Secondlye it is not soe cer­tayne that anye man in particuler shall be saued, but he maye be damned, at the leaste wise it is not vnpossible: for he maye denye his faythe, if he will he maye committ adulterie, murther, and the lyke enormityes, and soe damne him selfe. As we sée Iudas and diuers other haue done which séemed good for a time, and soe maye I toe, if I liste? and therfore my saluation in particu­ler, beinge not infalliblye certayne, can not be the obiecte of faythe and be­léefe, but onlye of hope.

Hope hathe doubte in it. Now this hope hath ioyned with it, bothe confidence and doubte, and that in respecte of two thinges. For in re­specte [Page] of the goodnes and mercy of God, it is full of confidence and assurance, and in this respecte S. Paule callethe hope, the anchore of the soule whiche maketh not ashamed,Heb. 6. Rom. 5. as you aleadge. But in respect of Gods iustice, and our sinfull frailtie, hope hath also doubt and feare annexed with it. For when I con­sider that God, as he is mercifull, soe is he iust, Psal. 10. nay, that he damneth more by his iustice then he saueth by his mercie, Math. 7. & 2. Luc. 13. also that he wil take a straite accounte of e­uerie little sinne at the daye of iudge­ment, Math. 12. and that there be ma­nie secrete sinnes which maye be in me without my remembraunce, Psal. 18. 1. Cor. 4. moreouer, that diuers shall come confidentlie at the laste daye ho­pinge to be saued and yet shalbe dam­ned, Math. 7. when I doe cōsider this (I say) adding to it, mine owne noghty in­clination vnto sinne, & my weaknes in perseuerāce of vertue I cānot chose but ioyne feare with my confidence, and soe the scripture teacheth me to do, saying. [Page] Doe you conuerse in feare duringe this time of your habitation:1. Pet. 1. And agayne: Worke your salutiō in feare and trem­bling. Phil. 2. The reason wherof, is put doune also in the scripture, to wit: Because a man knoweth not, whether he be wor­thye of hate or loue. Eccle. 9. So that we, M. Charke (as you sée) reconcile al scrip­tures together, and mayntayne both confidence and feare, in Christian hope, and you take one part onely, and leaue out the other, and yet you are offended with M. Campion, for saying that you confound and huddle vp matters.

Inuocation of Saintes.10 You reporte the Iesuites to saye: The scripture in deede neuer teachethe inuocation of Sayntes: yet we must be­leeue, [...]eceaue, and hold it. fol. 230. This is falslye reported too, for they doe not saye: The Scripture neuer teachethe inuocation of Saintes. But Monhemi­us against whom they wrote, sayed so, and thereof inferred, that therefore it was not to be beléeued. Which conse­quence of argument, the Iesuites deny to be good, and geue examples in many [Page] thinges which are not expreslye sett doune in the scriptures, and yet are to be beléeued as I haue shewed before in your fowrthe reporte. And touchinge this doctrine of Inuocation of Saintes to pray for vs and with vs to our Sa­uiour: the Catholique Churche foun­deth it in the woorde of God, and dedu­ceth it by necessarie consequence, out of manye and euident places of Scrip­ture, adioyning therunto the explicati­on and determination of the auncient general Councels, and the testimonies of the holye Fathers, with the vniuer­sall practise of all Christendome from the beginning, as it maye appéere to them that will reade the Catholique bookes writen of this matter. And now you Sir, to ouerthrow all this, bringe in onlye, besides your lye, a metaphori­call place of the prophet Esaye: Thou art our Father, and Abraham hath not knowen vs, and Israel hath bene igno­rant of vs. Esa. 63. Are these your playne, cléere, and euidente Scriptures, whiche you bragge of soe muche? I will answers [Page] your place to shew your weknes. First if the prophet had spoken of inuocation of Saintes in this place, and of their in­tercessiō for vs, yet were not thes wor­des against vs: for we graunt that the Fathers of the ould Testament, vntill Christes ascension, were not in heauē, as our Saintes are now, but in Limbo patrum, expecting Christ his coming, & therfore could not here vs, or vnderstād our necessities as they can now in hea­uen, & therfore in this sence the wordes may be true: Abraham hath not knowē vs &c. Secondly the prophet talketh of no such matter in this place, but onlye bringing in Christ, all bloodye after his passion, resoneth with him in the name of the whole people of Israel, cōfessing their great sinnes, frō the which, Abra­ham & Israel were not able to deliuer them, but rather had reiected & cast thē of for the same sinnes, & so knew them no longer. Wherfore they were cōstrai­ned to come vnto Christ, as to their fa­ther and only redéemer, & therfore they say to him: Thou art our father and A­braham hath not knowen vs &c. The [Page] which kind of spéeche S. Ierome pro­ueth out of the Gospel,Ieron. in ca. 63. Esa. Math. 25. wher Christ sai­ed vnto the foolish virgins that came to late: I know you not: that is, I know you not for my seruantes, I refuse & re­iect 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 wel inough: but yet would not reléeue them.

11. You report y^e Iesuites to say: Christ neuer sayd to lay men, do this in remē ­brāce of me: fol. 302. The which (as you say) S. Paul doth plainly cōfute 1. Co. 11 You wil neuer vnderstand y^e Iesuites a right. Hoc facite.They proue in y^t place, y^t Christ in his last supper, hauing cōsecrated his o­wne body & blood, & cōmāding his Apos­tles (which were preists) to do the very same by y^e words: Hoc facite: do this, or the fāe that I haue dōe: they proue (I sai) y^t this authoritie of consecrating Christ his body, was cōmitted only to priestes & not to lay men, nether doth S. Paul any way impugne this. For we deny not to lay men the cōmunion of Christe his body but the consecration of the same, [Page] the which consecration to be geuen by those woords of Christ. Hoc facite, Doe this, all holye Fathers of the Churche from time to time haue vnderstoode: namely, Clemens Romanus Li. 5. cōst cap. 20. Ambros. Li. 4. de sacram. ca. 6. Cyprian. Li. 2. Ep. 3. Chrisostome. Ho. 14. in ep. 1. ad cor. Isodorus. Li. diu. of­fic. cap. 18. Damascenus. Li. de ortho. fid. cap. 14. with others. Nether importeth it anie thinge, though the woorde facere dothe not signifie to consecrate of his owne nature: for the facte of Christe, going before, draweth it to that signi­fication: as if a man should singe, and afterwarde say to the standers by, Hoc facite, Doe the same: héere facere should signifie to singe, though not of his owne nature.

Traditions.12. You reporte the Iesuites to say: Traditions are of equal authority with the woorde of God, we must beleue thē though they be manifestlye against the Scripture. Cens. fol. 230. You drawe to­wards an end M. Chark, & therfore you wil make a soūd lie, for a parting blow. You haue here added of your owne. [Page] We must beleue them, thoughe they be manifestlye against the Scripture. The Iesuites say no such woord, but they af­firme the former parte of your wordes, although not soe generally, & confused­ly, as you report. For they say not that all traditions are of equal authoritye with the woord of God, but only such as are certaynlye descended from Christ & his Apostles, and were deliuered by thē to be obserued as parte of the woorde of God. Two kinde of traditions.For there are two kinds of tradi­tions, or doctrines receaued onlye by woord of mouthe: the one called Eccle­siastical, because they were begone and left vs only by the Church: and thes ar of no greater authoritie then the wri­tinges and other decrées of the Churche are. The other are called, Apostolicall or deuine, left vnto vs by Christ & the Apostles: and thes are of no lesse autho­rity, then if they had ben writen by thē, or then are the other things which they wrot. For if a maister should leaue vnto his seruantes, one thing in writing, and an other thing by woord of mouthe, they are of equal authoritie as all [Page] men wil graūt. Thes traditions therfor if they be certainly knowen to come frō Christ & his Apostles, the Iesuites say, they are of equal authority with y^e written word, & not al traditiōs as you ma­litiously reporte. And now that Christ & his Apostles left vnto the Church di­uers doctrines by word of mouth only, & not writen, it is proued by inuincible argumētes: as by the testimonies of the Councels, Fathers, & stories of the Primatiue church, by many places of scrip­ture, as namly by that S. Paule saithe to the Thessalonians:2. Thes. 2. Brethern stande fast and hould the traditions which you haue lerned ether by word of mouth or by our epistle. Also it is proued, by doc­trines which we haue and hould, & the Church hath so done frō the beginning: which doctrines notwithstanding are not writen, but receaued by worde of mouth from Christ and the Apostles: as baptisme of infantes, celebration of the sondaye, the nomber of the bookes of Scripture, the fast of lent, and the like, wherof I haue geuen more examples before in your fourth reporte.

[Page] Now this being soe, how vainly doe you bring in (M. Charke) against this, the sayng of Christ touching the super­stitious scribes and Pharases:Marc. 7. In vaine doe they worshipe me teaching doc­trines that are but the traditions of men. In your owne conscience, I aske you, is this anything pertaining to our pur­pose, or contrarie to the Catholiques doctrine which I haue set doūe? & if it be not, why doe you soe shamlesly deceaue the people with such impertinēt stuffe? But this is your onlye refuge, and herein lyethe the whole mayntenance of your cause, to reporte vs still amisse, and to refute vs with that whiche no­thing pertayneth to the matter. As in this place whiche you haue héere brought in, let the reader marke how manye differences there be, betwixt it and our purpose. First Christ in this place reprehendeth the teaching of doc­trins that are but of men: and we talke of doctrines, deliuered vs by Christ and his Apostles. Secondly Christe repre­hendeth not al obseruation of traditiōs [Page] of men, but the noughtie obseruation of them, by estéeming them more then the worde of God, and by breaking the worde of God for the obseruinge of them, which we also doe condemne. Thirdlye those traditions of the Pha­rases which Christ reprehendeth, were certayne idle and foolishe external cere­monies: as the washing of cuppes, and the lyke, and dyuers of them were di­recte contrarye to the worde of God, as certaine corrupt expositiōs of the law, as Christ noteth there: Three kyndes of Rabbinical expositions of the Law.And these were of thrée kindes: The one left by Rabbi Akiuam, the other by Rabbi Iuda, the thyrde by the sonnes of Asomoneus, which interpretations all, were called Deuteroseis, that is, secondarye expo­sitions after Moyses, of which peruerse expositions, came al their errours of the Talmud. But now what is this, to the holye Traditions of Christ and his A­postles, or of the Primatiue Church?

Worshippe of Creatures.13. Lastly you report the Iesuites to say: We must worshippe the image of Christ with lyke honour that we doe the holy bookes of the Ghospel. fol. 66. [Page] Agaynst which, you bring in S. Paul, askinge, What agreemente is there be­tweene the temple of God and Idoles. 2. Cor. 6. I answere, much more agréement, then there is betwéene the matter we talke of, and this place of S. Paule. For he talketh of drawinge the yoke with infi­dels, and our question is, whether the worshippe done to the image of Christ, and to the Byble, be al one or no?Act. 5. & 7. But you by callinge the image of our Saui­our, an Idole, shew your selfe impious, and you are accursed for it by the seuēth general Councel. And by putting such great difference betwéene the worship of Christes Image and his books of the Ghospel, you proue your vnderstanding to be very litle: For if you graunt any kinde of worshippe to the one, how can you deny the same to the other? séeinge that both are creatures, and as the I­mage was made by the Karuer, so the letter of the Byble, by the Printer, and the hononr done to the one and the o­ther, is not to them selues, but onely to God whose Image and word, they are. But if you denye al kinde of honour to [Page] them both, in that they are creatures, (for we assigne no diuyne honour vnto them:) Exod. 25. Num. 21. Ioh. 3. Psal. 45. Phil. 2.Thē first your place of S. Paul of difference, is nothing to the purpose: Secondlye, what wil you saye to the worshipppe done vnto the Arke, vnto the Cherubins, vnto the serpent of brasse? Why doth Dauid say, Doe you adore the stoole of his feete? Why are we commaunded to bowe our knée at the sounde of the name of Iesus, which is but a creature representing Christ to the eare, as his image doth to the eye? S. Austen geueth this reason for it.Aug. li. 3. de Trin. cap. 9 & 10. Be­cause the honour done to these thinges, doth redounde vnto him, who is signi­fied by them. But you are so wilful M. Chark, as you wil not vnderstād y^e diffe­rence betwéene an image and an idole, nor betwéene the honours done vnto a creature and to the creator: but maliti­ously you wil stil confound the same in our names, whether we wil or noe, and that only to blind the poore people with­al, and to maintayne matter of rayling agaynst your mother the Catholique Church, God forgeue you for it.

[Page] And thus M. Charke, I haue answe­red bréefely your slaunderous false re­portes, of the Iesuites doctrine. Now let modest men iudge, what cause you had to breake into those vnséemelye words, sayinge:M. Charke his lacke of mo­destye. These and many other blasphemies, do the Iesuites maintayne. There is not a spider, nor a spiders web in anye corner of the Popes breste, but these doctors wil hould it no lesse holy, thē that which commeth out of Christs brest. But doe not euen the Papists, that know these thinges, easely see, how thes Iesuites in these doctrines, bewraye the spirit of Antichrist. What néedeth all this, M. Charke? If a lying spirit be the spirite of Antichrist: then he is bewray­ed, ether in them, or in you. If an igno­rant rayling spirite, be it: we can geue a good gesse, where he dwelleth. M. Charke his zeale.Surely me thinke your zeale ouerran your wit in this place, as it did also not longe a­gone when you hauinge the bewe of a Masse booke, and finding the blessed vir­gin named, Mother of God in the same, you cryed out Blasphemye, [Page] vntil your felow, blushinge at your ig­norance, brought you in minde of the antiquitie of that name. You are too ouergréedie of our discredit, and it hur­teth your owne cause. You séeme to haue made a compacte betwéene you, e­uerye man to lye his parte, and so by force to ouerbeare vs. Lyinge for the game.You haue plaied yours: and M. Hanmer followeth pre­tilie after you, whoe is not ashamed to­auouch (without citing the place) that S. Thomas of Aquyne holdethe The wearinge of Frauncis and Dominickes cowle, to haue power to remoue sinne, as wel as the Sacrament of Baptisme. Which is as true as that which you affirme, to wit: That Cardinal Poole blushed at dyuers enormities in Popery: And, That the Catholickes in England at this daye, doe confesse Images, Par­dones, Prayinge to Sayntes, and Seruice in the Latine tong to be wicked things. Newes from Rome printed by 10. Charle­woode & Ed. Whyte.All which is as true as your newes from Rome, caused amongst you to be printed of late, with your ordinarie ap­probatiō, of Seene and allowed. Wher­in [Page] for the defacinge of that citye, you shew the heauie hand of God towards it in signes and tokens the 23. 24. and 25. dayes of Ianuarie last past, 1580: at what time, you report 2. sonnes, and 3. rainbows to haue appeared, with most terrible earthquakes, wherewith fell doune the gate of S. Peters, killinge 14. persons, besids 8. soldiers. Also two stéeples of S. Peters Church, crushing the Church, and killing 38. preistes, be­sides Quiristers and other people: Also the Churches of the Franciscans, of S. Iames, of S. Bartholomew, of our Lady, the whole Abbaie of Marie Mag­dalene, the braue artillerie house of Rome, with a hospital wherein were 150. persons, besides other infinite buil­dinges which the reuenew of a Kinge­dome wil not repayre: and al this (as you interpret) in token of Gods wrath towardes the Pope. Of which, no one sillable being true, (as many both here and in England can testifie:) your reso­lutiō appeareth, which you haue made, to auouch any thing be it neuer so false [Page] so blush at nothing be it neuer so sham­ful, and to inuente what so euer maye séeme for the purpose, to entertayne or de lude the simple people.

Towching the Man.

The 2. parte. Concerning the man whom you an­swere: To let passe all your euill speach towardes him, as pardonable in you, which knowe litle ciuilitie: you séeme to deale otherwise verye hardlye with him: for what so euer he sayeth or doeth, you wil haue it to be taken in euil parte. If he speake humblye, he dis­sembleth: If he yéelde commendation, he flattereth: If he she we confidence in his cause, he vaunteth: If he offer trial, he meanethe not performance: If he proteste his meaninge, he must not be credited: If he desire audience, he must not be admitted: Finally, what so euer he can imagine to vtter for iustifiinge of him selfe or his cause, it must auayle nothinge: William Charke will haue him condemned for vnlearned, proude, [Page] wicked and trayterous to the state: and he makethe this generall conclusion: M. Charke his conclusion. That no man can teache or maintayne the Catholicke fayth in England, but he must be thereby, an enimie to God, and a traytor to the state. The firste parte whereof touchinge God, I let passe, as an ordinarie reproche, of his vncleane mouth: whereby he condemneth al the noble Princes of Englande, and other our vertuous auncestors, from the first conuersion of that land, vnto our age. But towchinge the second parte of his conclusion, concerninge the state, I must say a worde or two.

Religion standeth with temporall obedi­ence. Doe you hould, M. Charke, that noe man in Englande, can be of an other religion, then yours, but that of necessi­tie he must also be a traytor? This is hote doctrine. Héere agayne your zeale ouerrunneth your wit, or rather your malice ouerlashethe all reason. Must euerye man be an enymie to the state, which lykethe not that religion whiche is fauoured bye the State?

[Page] what saye you to the Apostles whiche were of an other religion, then the sta­tes & Princes wher they came: and they taught, maintayned and furthered their owne religion within the same states: and will you for this fact of theirs con­demne them of treason against the said states; & of teaching rebellion against those Princes? If you dare affirme it, their owne woordes shall reproue you,Rom. 13. Tit. 3. 1. Pet. 2. which declare vnto vs, how they (not­withstanding their contrarie religion) taught all dutiful obedience in tempo­ral matters towardes those Princes, being but infidels and otherwise wic­ked men: the which notwithstandinge the Apostels did commaund al Christi­ans to obey in conscience, as substitu­tes of God, and soe they did, as appea­reth by their Apologies,Vide Apo­lo. duas Ius­ [...]ni. mart. written in de­fence of their innocencie in these poyn­tes, at such times, as they were char­ged with the contrarie as we are now. I might make the like demaunde of A­thanasius, Hillarius, Eusebius versellensis and others, which ceased not to mayn­taine, [Page] teach, and defend, their religion, in the hottest persecution of the Ari­ans, and yet were noe traytours to the states which fauoured the contrarie re­ligion. Morouer in Quéene Maryes time wil you saye that al For his mar­tirs, were traytours to the state? or that all of your opinion in these and o­ther countries, where the states fauour not your religion, are traytours and rebels? nether maketh it anye thing to the purpose for you to saye, that our re­ligion is false, and yours true: for the question is generall, whether euerye man of a contrary relygion must nedes be an enemie to the state, which you af­firme, and we deny.

A bad argu­ment. Nether is that argument to be respected wherwith some of your chéefe prelates vse to presse Catholikes some times, saying: that they in Quene Ma­ryes time wished al euil to the Prince and estate, and therfore we must nedes doe the same now. This argument, I saye, houldeth not, for that there is dif­ference of spirites in men. We know [Page] your doctrine bothe in Iohn Wicklife,Wiclif. li. 4. Trial. ca. 3. Concil Cō. sessi. 8. Luther,Luther in Bulla Leō. 10. and Caluine,Caluin. li. 3. inst. cap. 19. &. li. 4. cap. 10. to be daungerous to al Princes whom you mislyke: tea­ching, that subiectes are not bound to o­bey their Princes for cōscience sake, but that if the Prince rule amisse they are frée, to restraine him and punish him at their pleasure: which doctrines we con­demne. The commotions also of those of your religion in al countries where they can make their parties good, are knowne to the worlde. And I doubte whether you would liue soe quietlye in England as Catholiques do, if the state pressed you as it dothe them: but we teache it to be of conscience and dutie. And it is but the cruel and bloody spirite of your ministers, which by your books and sermons, séeke to sturre vp bothe Prince and Maiestrate to aflict Catho­liques more and more in England, and to accounte them as disloyal subiectes: wherby you will one daye proue, that you hinder your cause more thē by anye one thing. For it commeth not of that [Page] spirit, which you would séeme to haue, nether is it the waye to gayne men to your religion. As the late racking and tormenting of those vertuous priestes for their consciences in the Tower, wherof, al Christendome at this daye talketh, what hathe it gotten to your religion? nothing, but the casting of mens hartes into a horrour of suche straunge and vnwonted dealinges, and if you should driue men by such means to desperation, what gayneth your re­ligion or the state therby?

But to retourne to M. Campion a­gaine, whose comming into Englande you wil néedes enforce (as a politique man that sée the far into common weal­thes) that it is for practise against the state, & in hope of a golden day. For the first, he hathe aunswered you, that he commethe with a quite contrarie pur­pose, and with contrarie commaunde­ment from his Superiors, whoe deale in no country with matters of estate as the world can witnes, & as the Indies [Page] Iapon, can geue example, where they haue dealt so many yeares for the brin­ging of men to the Christian religion, disalowed by the states of those coun­tries, and yet are noe medlers against those estates, nor euer caused subiectes to leaue their obedience to those infidel Princes. And to the second, touching the golden daye, which you talke of, I know not in what sence you may speak it to that man, whom al the goulde in England (as I thinke) wil not gilte: for that he contemnethe gould as much as you desire it, and flatter for the mea­nes wherby to gayne it. And to tel you more plainly M. Charke in few words, if M. Campion and you should mete in equal balances, I thinke you would ap­peare to be to lyghte in those poyntes, wherin you would séeme to your pary­shoners to haue your ful waight.

Touching the matter.

The third part. TOuching the petition, or matter de­manded, to wit, disputation for tri­al [Page] of the truthe: M. Charke in no wise likethe it, saying more ouer: That he would wonder if anye which pr ofesse the gospel, should now looke for dispu­tation: wherof he geueth diuers reasōs. First, for that They haue had truthe now established soe many yeares. But this séemeth a verie weake reason, for the controuersy is, whether it be truthe or noe, and we vndertake to proue the negatiue parte. And for his nomber of yeares (they being but two and twen­tie) they suffice not for a prescription, by the common lawes of England, and muche lesse to exclude vs, whiche can proue our continuance for a thowsand peares without interruption. An other reason is, for that (as he saythe) They shal gayne noe great victorie in ouercō ­ming two or three, of the last and the least in the quarel. But this is not soe: for they shal gayne al the Catholiques in England to their side, and vs that are abrode also, if they can shew the truthe to be with them. And albeit two or thrée doe speake for the reste in this [Page] demaund: yet shal there be more so dis­pute, euen as manie as they wil admit with safetie for their comming.

A third reason he geueth: for that These Iesuites will make the trial with false weyghtes and measures which are abomination to the Lorde: while af­ter their custome, they dispute with vn­learned and peeuish distinctiōs, false ar­gumentes, and absurde interpretations. But this shal appeare (M. Charke) in the trial, and your victorie shalbe the more easie. You haue vsed bothe lying argumentes, and absurde interpreta­tions, in this little booke of yours, as hathe bene shewed: but what the Iesu­ites wil doe, you cannot yet tell: per­happes they are not of your spirite. And in calling them vnlearned and peuishe, you runne further then your felowes wil allowe, for they haue proued & con­fessed the contrary. And these termes, maye easily be retourned vppon your selfe, not in wordes but in déedes, by the wekest of thowsands of their schollers. [Page] Distinctions.But in déed their distinctiōs offend you much, which according to the saying of the Apostle,Epi. Iudae. you condemne and reuile because you vnderstand them not. For you must knowe, that distinguishinge in al sciences (according to the Philo­sopher)Arist. in Elench. appertaineth to the learned and not to the peuishe: but especially in de­uinitie, wher al heresies spring by con­founding and huddling vp matters: and al truthe is displayed, by distinguishing of thinges into their proper natures. As also in the cōtrouersies of our time, when we haue distinguished and put the cléere difference betwixt the things that you confound, as betwene Idols & Images: bloody and vnbloody sacrifices: Iustice by faythe and merite of good works: mediation of Christ, and inter­cession of Saintes: faith and hope: tra­dition of men and of the Apostles: and manye other the lyke: when I say, we haue distinguished these thinges into their proper natures, and shewed eche parte consonant to the worde of God: then you haue no more to saye, for that [Page] your ignorance is bewrayed, and the truth made to euerye mans eyes, ma­nifest.

Libertye of pen. Fourthly you saye M. Charke, that disputation is not necessarie, for that we haue had and may haue the libertie of our pen. The which is as true, as the rest of your assertions before. No, no: the worlde knoweth what search you make after euerye pamphlet, that com­meth from vs, and how you persecute them that bring in, or receaue the same within the realme. And is this geuinge vs libertie of our penne? Doe you M. Charke, and your felow ministers, for the credit of your cause, and for the a­uoiding the danger of this disputation, procure vs but the libertye of one of your printes, and we wil aske no fur­ther tryal.

Proofes in disputation. Lastlye you forstraule your opinion of the proofes to be admitted in disputa­tion, if the matter, agaynst your wil, should come so farre fourth. That is, that onely scripture were to be admit­ted in such disputation, and with one [Page] breath you reiecte by name, all Coun­cels, Fathers, Stories, naturall and morall Philosophie. And of Councels and stories you saye: They are witnes­ses of contrarietie one to an other. Of Fathers: Some of them are condemned of bastardie, and other not guiltie of that crime: yet were they but men, how great so euer they were. Of natural and moral Philosophie you say: That they are enemies of true religion, and two great nourses of Atheisme and heresie. To which I answere, that albeit we grounde our beléefe onelye vppon the worde of God, and make that onely the obiecte of fayth more then you doe, as I haue shewed before in your ninth re­porte: yet doe we mislike this audaci­tie of yours, in reiectinge these verye notable helpes, lefte vs by God for the better vnderstanding of his word. Councels, Fathers, and sto­ries.For by Councelles, Fathers, and stories, we come to knowe not onlie which is the worde of God, and whiche is not: but also, which is the righte meaning of the same, among soe infinite wrong [Page] interpretations, which so manye here­ticks from time to time haue inuented vpon the same: with whom I might ea­sely erre, if I had not this certaine way to knowe what the true Catholique Church (which can not erre) hath al­wayes holden. And this can not I tel, but onelye by the testimonie of Coun­cels, Fathers, and stories: by the which onely, Theodoret wryteth,Theod. li. 1. hist. ca. 8. that the fa­mous hereticke Arrius was conuicted, and not by the bare letter of Scripture, which he and al other hereticks, would interpret as they list.Syno. Con­stan. Damas. here. 99. The seuenth ge­neral Councel also conuicted the Mo­nothelites, and proued two distincte wills, to be in Christ, by the helpe of natural Philosophie: Philosophie.by which they she­wed it, to be a most sure and necessarie consequence, that If Christ had two natures, he must needes haue also two distinct willes. For that there could not be a nature indewed with reason, with­out a wil. And as for moral Philoso­phie, who séeeth not the necessitie of it, [Page] for the vnderstandinge the natures of vertue and vice, and al other actions belonginge to man? And albeit these thinges may be abused, as also Scrip­ture may: yet is it grosse ignorance, for an abuse that may be, to condemne the thinges which are excellent giftes of God, and sparkes of his most high and infinite wisdome. To depriue vs ther­fore of al these helpes, and to turne vs ouer onely to a bare letter of scripture, the which eche man may ether deny to be scripture, or wrangle at his pleasure vppon the sense, it is as much to saye, as that controuersies in religion, shall neuer be ended: as both reason tea­cheth vs, and experiēce, not only of al a­ges past, but also of our times, sheweth. Note this rea­son. For séeinge there are at this daye, the Hussites in Boemeland, the Trinita­ries in Transiluania, the Anabapti­stes in Pooleland, the Adamites in dy­uers partes of Germanie, the Luthe­rans in Saxonie, the Caluinistes in France, the Puritanes and family of [Page] Loue in England, and other the lyke sectes in the worlde abrode: which all with one voyce agrée agaynst the Ca­tholicke Church in this poynte, that Scripture only is to be receaued, and al other testimonies to be reiected: How comethe it to passe, that these sectes groundinge their seueral religions vp­on the méere word of God, as they say, can not yet end their controuersies? If the scripture be so playne, cleare, easie, euident, and sufficient to ende al con­trouersies, as they say: why doe they so long disagrée? Howe can they vppon so manifest and cléere a thing as they say the scripture is, build so manye contra­ry opinions and defend them out of the same Scripture? But it is but a shifte of the [...]ommon enemie, to depryue men first of their euidences and witnesses, and afterward to set them by the eares for the tytle. Flying onely to Scripture condemned as heretical.And I find this poynte of flying onely to scripture, to haue bene an old tricke of al hereticks of the Pri­matiue Church for the maintenance of their owne deuices, and therefore con­demned [Page] in them as hereticall, by the same Church. Namely in the Valenti­niās, as testifieth Ireneus li. 3. con. He. And Tertulian li. 8. de prescript. Also in the Marcionistes, as the same au­thors witnes. Also in the Arrians, as Epiphanius wryteth 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 wryteth lib. de spirit. sanct. ca. 27. And finallie in the Aerians, as Epiphanius writeth Her. 75. And S. Augustine Her. 53. Wherefore M. Charke affirminge the same, draweth in on line with thes progenitors of his.

Touching the Apostata.

The 4. Parte. M. Charke in the ende of his booke bringeth in for the defacinge of Ie­suites and al Catholique religion, a di­alogue writen by one Christian Fran­ken a Germā, brought vp (as he saithe) amongest the Iesuites, as one of that Societie: but afterward being made a Protestāt, reuileth in that booke, bothe [Page] Iesuites and al Catholicke religion, as frier Luther, frier Bale, and manye o­ther Apostatas before him haue done. Touchinge whom, first, (if it be true and not coyned by them selues as the newes of Rome before was) I must answere as S. Austen did to the lyke thing, whose wordes are these.Aug. ep. 137 ad ple. Hip. Simplye I doe confesse before our Lord, whoe is witnes vppon my soule, that since I be­gan first to serue God, as I haue hardely found better men then thos which haue profited in monasteries: soe I neuer founde worse then such as fel in mona­steries. And agayne in the very same e­pistle, handling the place of the psalme, where Christ sayeth: They insulted a­gaynst me which sate in the gate, and songe in my reproche which droonke wine:Psal. 68. He applyeth the whole, to such as you are M. Charke, which insulte a­gainst Christ and his religion, for the faule of some on religious man. Wher­fore doe these men sitt (sayeth S. Austē of hereticks scoffing at religious men) and for what doe they watch, but onely if any bishoppe, or clarke, or monke, or [Page] nonne should chance a faule, that they may make it to be thought, that al are such, though in al it be not manifest? And yet notwithstandinge, these fe­lowes do not cast out their owne wiues, or accuse their owne mothers, for that some one maried woman, is founde to haue committed adulterie. But when any fault or falsehode, doth ether sound or appeare, in any of them that professe the holy name of religious lyfe: these fe­lowes labour, enforce, and striue by all meanes possible, that this faulte may be thought to be in all. These men there­fore which seeke the pleasure of their tonges, by our greefes and sorowes, may be compared to the doggs which licked and tooke pleasure in the sores and woondes of good Lazarus. Luc. 16.

Secondly, I answere that this ray­ling treatise of this Apostata, translated and intituled by you, A discouery of Ie­suites: hath noe foundation at al in it, but only a lewd foolish applying of eue­ry good thing in that religion, to some euil absurd and wicked meaning, fra­med by his owne imagination without [Page] geuing any reason or profe of the same. By which kinde of argument, it is ea­sye to depraue not only al religion but also al other ordinances, al common welthes, all actions bothe of God and man, and al creatures in the world, by likning them to some dishonest or ridi­culous thing or other, whiche a lewde mans inuētion may find out, as this a­postata hath done. But dothe he charge anye one of the Iesuites (in soe manye yeares, as he saythe, he liued in diuers places with them) with any one acte of dishonestie or disorder of lyfe, which he might haue done manye, if he had liued amongest your ministers soe long? The Iesuites lyfe by the e­nemies con­fession.Or dothe he improue by learning, anie one poynte of their doctrine? noe not one: but rather vttereth that, of their good discipline and orderly life, in continual meditation of heauenly thinges, with subduing the appetites of their fleshe, as maye shame you and your loose mi­nisterie. I will put downe his owne wordes translated by you, which God enforced him to let faule, to his owne [Page] confusion, and to the iustrifiinge of their honestie. The Iesuites (sayeth he) doe adde vnto their earnest meditations, Great labour.the great toyle of studie also: &c. Deuine medi­tations.And from the time that a man geueth him selfe to such meditations, he departeth farre a­way from al seruice and cherishinge of the body:Chastising the fleshe.He abandonethe the societye of the fleshe to whippinges, and other voluntarye punishmentes of the body: He pressethe and beatethe doune plea­sure as a blot of shame:Perfect cha­ritye.and (as our 18. rule doth command) he acknowledgeth the image of Christ, in euery one of his spiritual brethren. Contempte of riches and honour.As for riches, honor, and al thinges which he worlde estee­meth most excellent, they contemne them and make none accompt of them. These are his wordes M. Charke, tran­slated by your selfe, the which, me thinke, contayne prayse ynough especi­ally cominge out of the mouth of a pro­fessed enemie, which would not report their lyfe to the best: yet I doubte lest your enemies shall neuer be able to charge you iustiy with the lyke things. [Page] Thirdly and lastely I answere to this matter, that in this kinde of argument we could easely represse you, with ma­ny for one of these examples, in learned and profounde men of your religion, which by the grace of God returne day­ly to the Catholicke fayth agayne: and that not vpon a fancie, as this Aposta­ta left it, but vppon great reasons and inuincible proofes which after long stu­dye and toyle they haue founde to stand with the same. But for examples sake, I wil here recounte onely two, both of them later then the running out of this Apostata, and both which are exstant in print: of men, that were many yeares ministers and preachers of your religi­on. Causae mo­tiuae N. Xi­landri īpres sae Ingolsta dij 1579.The first was called Nicolaus Xy­lander Borussus who yéeldeth these cau­ses folowinge of his conuersion, which I haue onelye touched in general, but the Reader may sée them more at large set doune and proued by him selfe in his booke for this purpose.

• 1. His first reason is, because he hathe found that the Catholiques haue endured these 15. hundreth years in concorde [Page] of one doctrine, & he recounteth vp 16. distincte Sectes spronge of Luther within these 60. yeares.
• 2. For that the Catholiques can bring their succession of Bishopes one after another from Christ his time vn­to ours, which the Fathers say to be an inuincible demnostration of the true Churche.
  Irē. li. 3. ca. 3. Optat. li. 2. cōtr. Donat Aug. ep. 165.
  But the contrarye side bring none at al.
• 3. The infinite miracles which haue bene in the Catholyque Churche the which we must ether beleue or discredit al antiquitie which reporte them.
• 4. The authoritie of the vniuersal visible Catholique Churche, the which hath deliuered vnto vs the Scriptures them selues, and haue triumphed ouer soe manye enemies and heresies which from tyme to tyme haue assalted her. Whose authoritie was soe great with S. Austen that he would not haue bele­ued the Gospel but only vppon her au­thorytie.
• 5. The great holynes of infinite mē of that Church as S. Anthonie, Hilari­on, Basil, Austen, Benedict, Gregorie, [Page] Bernard, Dominic, Frauncis and the like, which al were monkes and fryers and professed men of that religion, and yet noe doubte are sainctes in heauen, which cannot be if they liued in error.
• 6. The reuerent spéeche of Catholi­que writers, and the rayling, balsphe­mous, and dishonest spéeche to be found in the writinges of the other side.
• 7. The ordinarye lyinge and frau­dulent dealing of Protestantes: neuer almost reportinge the opinions of Ca­tholiques trulye, but faininge them to say y^e which they neuer say nor thinke.
• 8. For that Protestantes estéeme al their Ancestors to be damned, and doe breake their wils and ordinaunces, by conuerting to propha [...] vses thos reue news and liuings which they assigned to the seruice of God.

Professio. Catholica M. Seb. Flas chij. impres Colo. 1580. THE Seconde, is called Sebastia­nus Flaschius, whoe besides the reasons which the other hath geuen (for I omit them which haue bene touched before) he yealdethe these reasons of his con­uersion.

• [Page]1. For that he hathe founde the Ca­tholiques to teache quite contrarye, to that which cōmonlye their aduersaryes doe reporte of them.
• 2. For that he hath found by Luthers bookes that he was moued onlye of en­uye to write first against the Catholy­que Churche.
  Li. de cap [...] Bab. eth. [...] Pap.
• 3. For that he hath found in Luthers writings so great dishonestie and scur­rilitye of spéeche, as might shame anye harlote to reade, which could not come frō a man inspired with the holy Ghost.
  Li. cōt. Pap. et in sermo. conuiualib.
• 4. For that the Protestantes doe reiect easily any booke or péece of Scrip­ture which maketh against them, and that which they cannot denye, he hathe proued that they corrupte it, and that they estéeme noe more of Councels and Fathers then of the Turkes Alcoran.
• 5. For that he hath found by reading of ancient histories and Fathers of the primatiue Church, that the most of all their newe opinions, are ould heresies condemned expressely and by name, in the heretikes of the primatiue Church.
  Vide Sand. de visib. mō cap. 57.
• [Page] 6. For that he hathe founde Luther to hould manye manifest contrarieties in his woorkes.
  Fabius de ā ­tilogijs. Lut
• 7. For that Luther séemeth to haue beleued in nothing, not being ashamed to saye that he had more confidence in his Katherin Bore, and in his Philipe, then in Christ.
  Serm. con­uiu. et tit. de prophet. et. tit. de oper. Dei.
• 8. For that he hath found them by experience, to be parshall and to exag­gerate euerye litle thing that they can find amisse in the liues of Catholiques, althoughe amongest them selues they liue most viciouslye, especiallye in the sinne of the fleshe. For albeit they haue wiues of their owne, yet doe they in Germanie (according to Luthers doctrine)
  Ser. de ma­trimo.
  vse their maydes at their plea­sure, and more then this, the ministers vse commutation of wiues amongest them selues, and a preacher of no smal account would nedes enforce this man to change wiues with him. And many other such thinges whiche he proued a­mongest them, he saythe, that verye shame letted him to reporte them.