Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	action_n	sin_n	will_n	1,909	5	6.8826	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A09100	A defence of the censure, gyuen vpon tvvo bookes of william Charke and Meredith Hanmer mynysters, whiche they wrote against M. Edmond Campian preest, of the Societie of Iesus, and against his offer of disputation Taken in hand since the deathe of the sayd M. Campian, and broken of agayne before it could be ended, vpon the causes sett downe in an epistle to M. Charke in the begyninge.	Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610.; Charke, William, d. 1617. Replie to a censure written against the two answers to a Jesuites seditious pamphlet.	1582 (1582)	STC 19401; ESTC S114152	168,574	222

condemned for omitting to sounde the trompette whiche notwitstanding was no action saye you This is a common obiection borowed of our owne schoolemen and answered by the same Euery omission that is a sinne M. Charke implyeth some action that is cause ether directlie or indirectlie of that omission and so is principall part of the sinne as S. Chrisostome Ambrose and Basil doe proue I saye directlie or indirectlie and I wyll gyue examples of bothe First then I saye that I beynge bounde for example sake to goe to churche at a certaine hower I maye make a resolution with my selfe that I will not goe and then this acte of resolution in my mynd called no litio is the direct cause of this omission and the ground of the sinne And this was the sinne of Hely and of the watchemen before mentioned whereof the one determined not to punishe his childeren and the other not to sounde the trompet though they sawe the enemie comming as the text sheweth Secondlie I may omitt this goeing to the churche at the hower appointed not vpon any resolution made to the contrarie but for that I doe sett my selfe to doe some other action at that time as to write or the lyke whereby I doe occupie vp the time wherein I should goe to churche and so doe committ that omission without any particular resolution that I will not goe and in this case the action of writing cōmitted in the tyme when I should haue gone to churche is the indirect cause of this omission and the grounde of the same being done wittinglie at suche time as it should not And so we see that euery omission includeth an act ether directly or indirectly goeing before and causing the sayd omission As also appeareth playnlye by the definition of synne so often repeated owt of S. Austen l. 22. contra Faustum cap 27. and owt of S. Ambrose li. de Paradiso capi 8. And that whiche M. Charke addeth for ouer throw of my instances sayeing that not deuills but the euill in deuills not euill men but the euill in men doeth repugne against the lavve of god ys too too chyldysh and absurd to come from hym that professe the Learnyng For I am sure there is no yong scholler whiche hathe studyed Logik in Cambrige but knoweth that actio tribuitur toti concreto non ac●identi inhaerenti that action is attributed to the whole cōcret and not to the accident inherēt Althoughe the accident inherent be ratio formalis of the action As for example the phisitian is sayd to cure his patient and not the Phisick in the phisitian though he doe it by his phisick The vniust iudge synneth in gyuing wronge sentence and not the iniustice in the iudge for proofe wherof the iudge shalbe damned and suffer tormentes for it and not the qualitie of iniustice in hym The lyke is in deuills and in all euyll men whoe doe properlie repugne against gods lawes and doe sinne properlie and not the euill within them And the contrarie thereof is olde heresie as may appeare by S. Augustin writing against some that sayd not we but the darkenesse within vs haue offended Nether is it contrarie to this as M. Charke imagineth that all things were created good by God For God created not lucifer a deuyll but a good Angell nether Herod an euill man but a good Theyre owne lewdnesse made them euyll Therfore albeit wicked men and deuylls be euill and doe repugne the lawe of God yet the creatures of God are not euill at leastwise as they are creatures of God for that God as I haue sayde created them not euill Secondlie you reprehend that I call sinne an humane or reasonable action and you wolde rather call yt as you saye an vnreasonable action whiche argueth in you some lack of reason For what doeth not all electiō bothe good and badde procede of reason doeth it not procede ab intellectu practico whiche is the seate of discourse and reason as the philosopher proueth is M. Charke so vnlearned in all foundation of philosophie Doeth not S. Augustin proue of purpose that peccatum fit ab anima rationali that sinne procedeth frō the minde endewed with reason againe that consentio ad peccatum fit in ratione that consent to sinne is made in reasō what saye you by the good morall woorkes of the gentils as their iustice theyr temperance and the like whiche you though falsely doe Iudge to be sinnes for that they proceded not of faith were they all vnreasonable actions But you obiect against this owt of S. Paul vvhat so euer is not of faithe is sinne therfore saye you vvhether it be reasonable or vnreasonable it is sinne Iumpe by this a horse might be a sinner for that his actions proceede not of faithe But I answere to S. Paul with S. Ambrose that he meaneth who soeuer doeth a thing against that whiche faith prescribeth that is against a mans owne conscience and iudgement he sinneth But yet that all morall good woorkes of infideles as iustice liberalitie the like were not sinnes S. Augustin proueth at large against M. Charke lib. de spir lit ca. 26.27 and 28. And S. Ierom. in cap. 29. Ezechielis Finallie to returne and conclude our purpose S. Aug. proueth against the Manaches that peccatum est defectus voluntarius animae rationalis Synne is a voluntarie defect of a reasonable mynde and therfore is it a resonable action But what doe I talke of voluntarie M. Charke denyeth synne to be voluntarie VVhat shall I saye It were infinit to stand and proue euery principle of diuinitie against so peruerse and obstinate a man And thē prouerbe is common a long eared creature maye denie more in an hower than the best learned in the worlde can proue in a yere But he that will see long and large proofes of this with infinite scriptures and reasons for the same lett hym reade but S. Augustin in anie of these places li. de duabus nat c. 11. de spiritu lit ca. 31. Et li. 3. de lib. arb c. 18. and li. de vera relig c. 14. lib. 1. retract c. 13. 15. li. 4. confes c. 3. and in diuerse other places where he repeateth often these woordes Sinne is an euill so voluntarie as it can be by no meanes sinne except it be voluntarie And Christ hym selfe proueth the matter euidentlie when he sayeth that those thinges vvhiche doe defile a man doe come from the hart Matth. 15. v. 18. But yet heere M. Charke hath two obiections First originall sinne is not voluntarie sayth he ergo all sinne is not voluntarie This albeit it be not to the purpose the Cēsure talking onelie of actuall sinne as it professeth yet is it moste false and neuer diuine sayde so before VVilliam Charke but onelie the pelagians whoe therby wolde haue taken awaye originall sinne from infants as hauing no will as S. Augustin testifieth

he placeth concupiscence of the fleshe wherof we talke in the reasonable parte of the mynde and not in the sensityue parte which is as much as yf a man should appoint seeyng to be in the nose smellyng to be in the eyes For the motiōs of cōcupiscēce are nothing els but the rebelliōs of our sēsitiue partes against the parte wherein reason is and how then are not they in the parte sensityue are they not called the concupiscence of the fleshe Dothe not S. Paul saye the fleshe coueteth or hathe concupiscence agaynst the spirit Dothe not he saye playnlie I feele an other lavve in my members repugnyng to the lavve of my mynde Is not heere concupiscence placed in the members and reason in the mynde what intollerable ignorāce is this in a preacher yea in a conquerour of learned M. Campian eauen vnto Tyborne But his second absurditie is yet greater than this in affirmyng that the sensuall parte of man is not so muche corrupted by originall synne as is the reasonable part whiche is cleane false and the contradictorie therof is true For albeit all partes be corrupted yet the s●●sible parte more by reason of the rebellyon of the sensityue parte against the reasonable whiche I haue named before and euerie man by experience dothe fynde more temptation in his sensitiue partes to witt in his senses imagination and other like partes and members of his bodie than he dothe in his reasonable partes to wytt in his iudgement and wyll especiallie good men who fynde greate rebellyon often tymes in their sensuall partes thoughe their iudgement be ryght and their wyll most holye and firme S. Paul felt this when he sayd O vnhappie man that I am vvho shall delyuer me from the bodie of this deathe And agayne I my selfe doe serue the lavve of God in my mynde but in my fleshe I serue the lav●e of synne signifyinge therby the violent rebellion of the fleshe In whiche sense also it is sayd by the wyse man the bodye that is corrupted aggreueth the mynde And S. Paul sayethe I doe not that uuhiche I vvolde but that vvhiche I hate By all which is shewed that the inferiour parte of man called the sensatyue parte is more corrupted by the fall of Adam than the reasonable for that by the force of concupiscence placed principallie in it it maketh warre and offerreth violence to the other So that heerin also M. Charke was fowlie ouerseene His third absurditie is ioyned with flatt pelagianisme where he sayeth that the necessarie actions of lyfe and sense remayne novv in man as they vvere before hys fall Heerof S. Austen shalbe witnesse whose woordes are these Yf any man shall affirme that by the offence of preuarication in Adam the vuhole man that is man bothe in bodie and sovvle is not chaunged into vvorse c he is deceyued vvith the errour of pelagians and is contrarie to the scriptures The lyke teacheth Prosper lib. 1. de vocat gent. ca. 7. Into these errours and heresies falleth M. Charke whiles leauing the sure doctrine of the Catholique Churche he deuiseth owt newe wayes after the fashion of all heretiques wherby to excuse naturall actions from sinne VVe excuse them from sinne and doe saye the cause to be for that they are not voluntarie whiche is one principall point required aswell in sinne as in vertue as hathe beene shewed M. Charke deuiseth he can not tell what him selfe in this pointe but onelie that he wolde not saye willinglie as we doe thoughe he haue nothing to saye besides But yet against this poynte of voluntarie he obiecteth once more originall sinne whiche as he sayeth is not voluntarie But it hathe bene answered before shewed how it is voluntarie not onelie in men of discretion but also in infantes Secōdlie he alleageth owt of Genesis that the cogitation of mans hart is euill euer more To whiche I answere that it inclineth to euill by reason of concupiscence left in vs but yet is not that inclination synne without consent as hathe bene proued before Thirdlie he obiecteth the commaundemēt thovv shalt loue thy God vvith all thy hart vvith all thy sovvle and vvith all thy strength By whiche commaundement he imagineth the first motions of concupiscence to be also forbydden and consequentlie to be sinnes whiche is false For as S. Austen well writeth in dyuers places thoughe we be sturred by this commaundement to all perfection that we can in this lyfe yet no more is inioyned vs therby vnder payne of synne and damnation but onlie that we doe not yeeld consent to sinne as hathe bene shewed before in the Censure and is now presentlie to be examined more at large in explication of the tenthe commaundement whiche contayneth the verye same meaninge that this commaundement dothe Vpon all this that goeth before VV. Chark maketh this conclusion agaynst vs. Therfore to saye vve must not or can not pull in the raynes of our first lustes c is in deede to teache a beastlie libertie and to laye open the vvaye to all vncleannesse vvithout controllement Heere now is shewed the ordinarie practise of all lyeing heretikes and speciallie of protestantes whose fashion is to charge the Catholique Church with odious conclusions deduced of false principles deuised by them selues For which parte doeth enlarge or pull in the raynes of our lustes the protestant or the Catholique doctrine surelie yf to pull in or enlarge the raynes of our lustes be to gyue them scope or to represse the motions as all men I thinke will confesse then consider I pray you who● doe this ether VV. Chark and hys felowes or we They teache that these first motions of lust are naturall and doe present them selues vnto vs without our wyll and when they doe so come we can not lett their effect but that they woorke sinne in vs whether we consent or not consent So that by this doctrine protestantes doe not onelie lett owt the raynes but doe qwyte take awaye bothe raynes and brydle owt of our handes For yf lustes come without our will and woorke sinne in vs without our consent what raynes are there left in our handes to pull in Yf they be sinne in me whether I consent or not consent shall I stryue agaynst a thyng that is impossible whoe will not rather execute his lustes with pleasure than resist them with payne yf whether he consent or not they are sinne So that in deede this is that libertine doctrine of protestantes which looseth the raynes and layeth open the waye to all vncleannesse as bothe by experience nowe appeareth in the worlde and by reason is euident And our contrarie doctrine is that whiche pulleth in the raynes of lust and layeth the foundation of all vertue among Christians yf it be executed accordinglie To witt the doctrine vvherby vve teache that albeit these first motions be naturall and doe present them selues vnto vs many tymes without all

commaundement against grauen Idoles where as they leaue it not owt but doe include it in the first commaundement and that for the same reasons whiche moued S. Austen to doe the same as hath bene sayde These earnest odious slaunderous accusations whiche our aduersaries in theyr owne cōsciences doe know to be meere false doe argue nothing for them but onelie great malice in theyr hartes singular lacke of modestie and great shame in theyr behauyour and extreeme pouertie and necessitie in theyr cause M. Charkes second charge that I make the seuerall breaches of tvvo diuers commaundementes but one synne is also false For I make them two distinct synnes though they haue one generall name gyuen them by Christ that is I make the breache of the nyenth commaundement after our account whiche is thou shalt not couer thy neyghbours vvyfe to be mentall adulterie yf it goe no further but onelie to cōsent of mynde And the breache of the sixt cōmaundemēt thou shalt not commit adulterie I make to be the sinne of actuall adulterie when it breaketh owt to the woorke it selfe which two sinnes thoughe they agree in the name of aldulterie yet are they distinct sinnes often tymes and one seperated from the other and cōsequentely may be prohibited by distinst commaundementes● And so in lyke wyse I make actuall theft to belong to the seuenth commaundement and mentall theft vnto the tenth This is my meanyng M. Charke whiche you myght haue vnderstoode yf you wolde and consequentlie haue forborne so malitiouse falshode in misreporting the same There remayneth onelie to be examined abowt this article the reason touched by the Censure and fownded on the scripture for the cōfirmation of S. Austens Catholique exposition of the commaundement thou shalt not couet VVhiche lawe sayeth the Censure forbyddeth onelye consent of hart to the motions of lust and not the verye first motions them selues which are not in our power consequentlie not comprehended vnder that prohibition of the lawe as the scripture signifieth when it sayeth this commaundement vvhiche I gyue thee this daye is not aboue thee To this M. Charke answereth first that our first motions are not altogether ovvt of our povver For that the guyft of continēcie dothe more and more subdue them VVhiche is true if wee vnderstand of yeelding consent vnto them But yf we vnderstand of vtter suppressing and extinguishinge of all first motions of lust and concupiscence as M. Charke must needes meane our question beinge onelie therof then must we know that albeit good mē doe cutt of by mortification infinite occasions and causes of motions and temptations whiche wicked men haue yet can they neuer during this lyfe so subdue all motions them selues of theyr concupiscence but that they will ryse often against theyr willes as S. Paul complayneth of hym selfe in many places and all other Saints after hym haue experienced in their fleshe whoe notwithstanding had the gyft diligence of mortifieing theyr fleshe asmuche I weene as our ministers of England haue whoe talke of continencie mortification eche one hauinge hys yoke mate redye for hys turne as those good felowes doe of fastynge whiche sitt at a full table according to the prouerbe To the place of Moyses he hathe no other shyft but to saye that the translation is false and corrupt for that Moyses meant onelye the lavve is not hydden from vs and not that it is not aboue our povver as yt is euidentlye declared saythe he by the playne text by explication therof in the Epistle to the Romans This sayeth M. Charke mary he proueth yt nether by the woordes of the text nor by S. Pauls application But yf I be not deceyued S. Ierome whose trāslatiō this is esteemed to be or els before him● corrected by him knew as well what the Hebrew woords of Moyses imported in the text also how S. Paul applyed thē as williā Chark dothe S. Pauls application of that parte of this sentēce which he towcheth maketh wholie for vs as after shalbe shewed The Hebrew woord of the text is NIPHLET cōming of the verb PHALA which as I denie not but it signifieth to be hidden so signifieth it also to be maruailous to be hard difficult As appeareth psa 139. 2. Sam. 1. where the same woord is vsed The same signifieth the Chaldie woorde M●PHARESA cōming of the verbe PHARAS that besides the significations signifieth also to seperate The greke woord HYPERONGOS signifieth as all men knowe exceeding immesurable greate passing all meane c Howe then doe not these three woordes vsed in the three aunciēt tongues hauinge a negation putt before them as they haue in the text expresse so muche as S. Ierom hathe expressed by sayeing the lavve is not aboue thee Doe not all these woordes putt together importe that the lawe is not more hard or difficult than thy abilitie may reache to perfourme or that it is not seperated from our power that it is not exceedinge our strengthe wolde any horse but bayard haue beene so bolde with S. Ierō and withe all the primatiue churche whiche vsed this our common latine translation to deface them all I saye vppon so lyght occasion VVolde any impudencie haue durst it besides the pryde of an heretique If S. Ierom will not satisfie you take S. Austen who hādleth bothe the woordes alleaged of Moyses and also the application vsed by S. Paul of parte of the sentence and proueth owt of bothe the verie same conclusion that we doe to wytt that the lawe is not aboue our abilitie to kepe it and for confirmation therof he addeth many other textes of scripture as my yoke is svvete and my burden is lyght also his commaundementes are not heauye and the lyke concluding in these woordes vve must beleeue moste firmelye that God being iust and good could not commaunde impossible things vnto man And in an other place VVe doe detest the blasphemie of those men vvhiche affirme God to haue commaunded any impossible thing vnto mā The verie same woords of detestation vseth S. Ierome in the explication of the creede vnto Damasus byshope of Rome And the same proueth S. Chrisostome at large in hys first booke of impunction of the hart and S. Basil his breefe rules the 176. interrogation Of defacing of scripture Artic. 4. THE CENSVRE You report the Iesuites to saye The holie scripture is a doctrine vnperfect maymed lame not cōtaynyng all things necessarie to saith and saluatiō Cen. fol. 220. you are too shameles M. Charke in setting forth these for the Iesuites vvoordes Lett anye man reade the place and he shall finde noe such thing but rather in contrarie maner the holie scripture vvith reuerent vvordes most highlye commended Notvvithstanding they reprehend in that place Monhemius for sayeing that nothing is to be receyued or beleued but that vvhiche is expreslie found in the Scripture For reproofe of vvhich heresie they gyue

no minister could be graūted them thogh the queenes letters of England vvere gotten in their behalfe * So vvere buried amōg other the foresaid Secretarie of the companie also the deputie named Cloughe vvhich dyed● there At vvhat time the preachers of Hamborough inueighed moste eagerlie against all English men for their religion Of the lyfe of Iohn Caluine The vvriter of Caluins lyfe This booke is intituled A Storie of the Life Manners Doctrine and Deathe of Io. Caluin Iohn Caluins birth Caluin burnt vvith a hoote li●ly for Sodomie * M. vvhitaker thinketh it no shame but rather glorie for thus he ansvvereth it If Caluine vvere brāded S. Paul also vvas brāded c●̄paring Caluins brandes for Sodomie vv●th S. Pauls brandes for Christ. pag. 62. against M. Campian * Caluins firste assistants in Geneua Caluin banished frō Geneua Caluins behauiour tovvards● his aduersaries Caluins brood haue not forgotten this tricke Caluins crueltie in reuenge This Ioh. Caluin him selfe confesseth in his letters to vire●ꝰ An. 1546 the Ides of Februarie The deathe of Seruetus and cause therof * This letter vvas vvriten the 12. of Februarye 1546 and vvas found in the studie of viretus by the magistrates of lausanna after he vvas rūneavvay from thense as after shalbe mentioned Heretiks doe holde one doctrine no longer then it seruethe theyr turnes Caluins ambition and vayne glorye A holye ansvvere Chap. 13. Caluins raysing of a deade man Intollerable hypocrisie Ioh. 11. 13. Caluins casting out of deuylls vide in vita Bezae pag. 12. FRED STA PHILVS counsailer to the E●perour beīg a yong mā and a protestāt also vvas vvith Luther in the vestrye of aparishe churche in vvittenberge vvhē he tooke vpon hym to coniure the deuyll out of a mayde sent thither from Misnia But this deuyll soe drest Luther as seeking to runne out againe at the doore he could not for that the deuyll had soe fastened yt bothe vvithin and vvithout as Luther vvas fayne to stay there in great torment and in daunger of a homelye chaunce vvhile tooles vvere in fetchinge to breake dovvne the doore Staph. apol● 2. Caluins lasciuiousnes Ex cap. 14. Monsieur Caluines day menes The Author vvas then ph●sitian at Berna Ex ca. 15. A notable pranke of Monsieur Caluine Caluins sicknesse and deathe An●iochꝰ and Herod and diuers other enemies of god dyed this deathe s●●ha lyfe of Theodore Beza Ierome her mes Bolsec in his book of the lyfe and manners of Theodore Beza He begāne as his mayster Caluine dyd Beza his dishonest Epigram The manner of Beza his vocation to the ghospel The conference at Poysie A notable deuise and presēt shift of Beza Beza killeth his ovvn childe and together hazardethe the lyfe of his harlote O impious abusing the maiestie of God The Duke of Gu●se murdered by Beza his appointement Seditious bookes sett foorthe by Beza Beza his tyrannye in Geneua The furniture of Geneua for the gospell A breefe consideration vppon the former lyues Six men the reformers of all our Englishe religion Lib. de mis. priua vnct sacer Artic. 28. cont Lo●a To 2. vvit fol. 503. COROLOSTADIVS An. 1525. OECOLAMPADIVS An. 1531 October 12 VLRICVS ZVINGLIVS in li. subsi de euchar An. 1531. Octob. 9. CALVIN Caluinistes differ from Zuinglians in religion BEZA Touching the deathe of Bucer Lindan de fug ido cap. 11. Pontacus Burdegalēsis in chron anni 1551. Luther ep ad Io. Har. typ arg This is testified of bucer by lauatherus a Zuinglian in hist. sacr And by functius a sectarie in chron also by the acts themselues of that Synod set furth in print Bucers inconstancie Badde dealing of vvilliam Charlke Moste ridiculous a●cusations The dealing of our aduersaries in dravveing all matters against the state In the preface to the reasons of refusall In his ansvvere to Hovvle● fol. 3. Tovvching Gotvisus Diuers vvayes vvherby M Charkes falshode appeareth Li. deprecipuis capitibus theologiae Iesu●tarum In orthodoxis explicationibus In opere catechistic● Dona●us Gotuisus de fide I su Iesu●arum The first Article A faultie definition of sinne Gene. 29. Aug. li. 3. de lib. arb cap. 19. The true definition of sinne False dealing● so●vved by an example Kem. pa. 16 Go●uis pa. 245. Arist. lib. peri herminias 2 VVhether sinne be an acte or no. The difference of vitium and peccatum in diuinitie Lib. cont Iul. pelag cap. 18. Cap. 14. de trin cap. 7. The sinne of omissiō Ezech. 33. 1. Re. 2. D. Tho. 22 q. 79. Chriso ho. 16. inep ad ●ph ho. 36. de vnc vitiis Ambros. ser. 18. Basil. com in illud Lu. 12. destruā horrea Euery omission includethe an acte * Peccatum est factum dictum vel concupitum contra aeter nam dei legem● Aug. ●om 8. fo 665. Genes 1. 3 VVhether sinne be a reasonable action Li. 3. aeth c. 3. li. 3. de anima text 46. 54. Tom. 6. de fide cont Manach c. 9. 10. li. 1. de ser. do in mōte Rom. 14. Amb. in ca 14. ad Ro. Cont. secūd Manach c. 15. 16. VVhether sinne be voluntarie Li. de vera reli ca. 14. li. 1. retrac c. 13. Li. 3. cont Iulian. c. 5. Hovv originall sinne is voluntarie Rom. 5. Numb 35. The causes of the cities of refuge Slaughter done vvith out consent of vvill is innocentie In Isaaco colligato Rab. Moys in Morech Neuo çh li. 3. ca. 40. Rab. Leui. ī ca. 20. Nu. Tvvo kyndes of ignorance Ep. 77. ad hugo de S. vict 1. Cor. 15. An example of īuincible ignorance Au. li. 3. de lib. arb ca. 22. Chriso ho. 26. in ep ad Rom. Gen. 20. Gen. 29. Iacob sinned not in lyeīg vvith Lia. Ca. 47.49 50.51.52 Lib. 16. de ciui c. 38. In cap. 29. Gen M. Charks positions about sinne Au. tom ● 5. fo 137. aedit paris Transposition in alledginge of scripture Ro. 1. v. 16 1. Cor. 1. v. 24. Io. 4. v. 24 In Latin vve saye Princeps est Pompeius vvhich vve can not interpret in Englishe vvorde for vvorde a PRINCE IS POMPEY But Pōpey is a prince For that oure tongue admi●●eth not the praedicatiō before the copula properlie as other tōgues doe 1. Io. 5. v. 7. * He fraudulentlie translateth transgression in this place the greekvvoorde beinge chaunged 1. Io. 3. v. 4. Aug. li. 5. cont Iul. c. 3. li. 6. c. 8.12 13. ANOMIA ADITIA Arist. in praedicam qualittias 1. Io. 5. Small game M. Charks knoulege of his seruing the lorde In disput lyps cum Eckio quae adhuc extat Buc●r ep ad Norim epist. ad Essingenses com in 3. 26. Math. Ioh. 6. The second article 1 2. Rom. 7. 3. Rom. 8. 4. Li. 1. de nu concup c. 23. 25. li. 1. cō● ep 2. pelag c. 13. li. 1 Retr c. 15. Math. 5. 1 Gotuisus pag. 264. 2 Li. 6. c. 11. cont Iuliā Charkes malepertenes vvith S. Austen Rom.