Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	write_a	write_n	write_v	104	3	5.6687	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

peoples saluatiō of that tyme. For God supplied it otherwyse that is by woorde of mouthe vnwritten And this maketh for vs for in suche tymes the written woord was not sufficiēt without all other helpes as you affirme it is as for exāple when onelie S. Mathewes Gospell was written and nothing els of the new testament yet graunt I that this scripture was sufficiēt for that tyme. For that God supplied yt otherwyse by the woordes and speeches of his apostles So before Moyses wrote the lawe the patriarches had sufficient for theyr saluation thoughe they had ether nothinge or verie litle writen woorde And yet you can not saye that the written woorde of that tyme was sufficient of it selfe without all tradition by mouth VVerfore this answere is against your selfe as also that is whiche you frame to the secōd reason affirming that albeit dyuers partes of scripture be wanting now whiche was in S. Pauls tyme yet still it is sufficiēt whiche I denye not being ioyned to the other supplies that God vseth For God supplieth by tradition and woorde of mouthe But whether in all tymes the onelie written woord that is extant be sufficient of it selfe to the whole Churche without all other helpes deliuered by tradition that is our question And of times past when the law was not written no man without impudencie can affirme that the written woorde was then sufficient And of our tyme that is after the writinge of the new testament Epiphanius sayeth Non omnia a diuina scriptura accipt possunt quapropter aliqua in scripturis aliqua in traditione sancti Apostoli tradiderunt All things necessarie can not be had from the scripture And therfore the holie Apostles left vnto vs some thinges writtē and some thinges by tradition VVhich signisieth sufficientlie what Iudgement the primatiue Church had of this matter as more at large shalbe shewed in the article foloweing whiche is also of this same argument Of teaching traditions besides the scripture Art 5. THE CENSVRE 5. You reporte the Iesuites to saye That the want of holy Scriptures must be supplyed by peeci●ge it out by traditions Cens fol. 220. This is coyne of the former forge all false and noe one such vvorde to be found in all their booke But yet as though they had sayed soe you fight manfullye agaynst this your ovvne s●ntence sayinge in manner follovvinge Contrarye to this is the lawe in Moyses Thow shalte not adde to the woordes which I speake to thee nether shalte thou take frō thē But vvhy do you breake the lavv M. Charke in reportinge the lavv you haue heere added the singuler nūber in the Verbe and the plurall in the Noune and haue taken avvaye the numbers vvhich the lavv gyuer vsed chaūged the same at your ovvne pleasure and that for a purpose vvhich I could gesse at But let all thinges be lavvfull vnto you vvhat maketh this lavv for your pourpose By your meaning the Apostles and Euāgelistes did offend in adding any thing besides the lavve of Moyses vvhiche is absourd Nether did Moyses in this place forbiddinge to adde or take avvaye speake of his vvrytten lavve for he had not yet vvritten it but of those thinges vvhich he deliuered thē by vvorde of mouthe at that time the vvhich he vvilled them to keepe and obserue vvhollye and perfectly vvithout chaunginge it by addition or diminution or by their ovvne corrupte gloses as naughtie men are vvonte to doe And this is the true meaninge of that place and not as you vvould haue it that nothinge should be beleeued besides that vvhiche Moyses set dovvne for a litle after Moyses hym selfe commaundeth the l●vves to heare the Prophet vvhich God should rayse af●er hym as hym selfe meanynge therby Christ. THE DEFENCE Heere agayne M. Charke disburdeneth hym selfe vpon Gotuisus sayeing If the Censure of Colen hathe no suche vvordes Gotuisus fayled in vvriting their booke But gentle sir wiliam this matter is not so shyfted of You knew that Gotuisus tooke these woordes from kemnitius against whome they were proued false by Payuas before you wrote your booke as the most of his other reportes were How chaunceth it then you wolde vtter thē agayne without seeing the originall whether they were true or no Besyde this Gotuisus citeth Canisius for the same woordes where no one suche woorde is to be fownd whye looked you not in Canisius to see yt or whye had you not cited Canisius in your Margent as well as the Censure of Colen which you well knew was not to be had whye dyd you conceale Canisius I saye can you be excused from willfull dishonest dealyng in this matter No no your desperate resolution is to-too euident But saye you we holde the doctrine thoughe the Iesuites haue not the woordes VVhat doctrine M. Chark that the want of holie scripture must be peeced owt by traditiōs It is false VVe speake not so vnreuerētlie of the scripture as shall better appeare by the article foloweyng VVe doe not teach that the scriptures are wanting or neede to be peeced It is your hereticall malice which deuiseth these woordes Though bothe partes of gods woord that is both written vnwrittē be necessarie vnto gods Church yet both of thē do stād in their full perfection assigned them by God nether is the one a mayme or impeachement to the other no more than is S. Lukes Gospell to that of S. Mathew or S. Pauls epistles to any of them bothe For as you may not saye that S. Mathewes Cospell is maymed for that S. Lukes is also admitted or that S. Pauls epistles are a peecing vp of the former Gospells no more can we saye that gods woorde left vs by mouthe in tradition is a ●ayme or detraction to that whiche he hath left vs in writing or that in writing to be a disanullyng of that whiche we had by tradition for that bothe are partes of gods woord of equall authoritie as shalbe shewed more largelie in the twelueth article together with certaine meanes how to knovv and discerne the same VVherfore these odious speeches against the dignitie of holie scripture doe procede onelie from the malice of you our aduersaries and of no cause or matter ministred by vs. After certaine tryflyng speeche to litle purpose M. Charke concludeth peremptorilie this article in these vvoordes To conclude it is a great iniquitie to adde traditions or your vnvvritten verities to the vvrytten vvoord of God vvherunto no man may adde because nothing is vvantynge and to hym that addeth shall the curses vvritten in the booke be added for euer cityng in the Margēt the place of the Apocalips vvhiche sayeth that vvho soeuer addeth or taketh avvaye from that booke of prophecie shall incurre the plagues vvritten in that booke But good Lorde when vvill these men leaue to abuse the scriptures learne to speake to the purpose yf vvee beleeue all that is vvritten in that booke of reuelations and other things besides reuealed vnto

so But as well heere as commonlie in all other places you lay downe some inuention or addition of your owne malice● against thē As for example In this place it is moste false that you affirme of thē that they take a peculiar vowe to whippe and torment them selues There was neuer any such vowe eyther taken or talked of muche lesse is it true that they take that vovve to doe it as you saye after the example of a sect called by the name of vvhippers condemned long agoe You are a greate enemye to whippers M. Charke and you think yt good sleepinge in a whole skynne I doe not blame you for it Nether are you a greater mislyker of all whippers in generall then I am in particular of those whome you heere name for they were heretiks as you may reade in prateolus and Gerson teaching that the baptisme of water had nowe ceased the baptisme of voluntarie bloode by whipping was ordeined in place therof without which none coulde be saued and therfore they whipped themselues opēlie teaching also many other heresies beside for whiche they were cōdemned And what doeth this make against the sober moderate chastisemēt which good men vse in secret vpon their owne bodies at such time as they esteeme them selues for mortification to neede the same was there euer honest man but your selfe wolde haue obiected so impertiment a thing in print but you make me laugh when you say a sect condēned long agoe How long agoe I praye you M. Charke or by whome were they condēned the storye is euidēt they beganne in Italie about the yere of our Lorde 1273. vnder pope Gregorie the tenthe and were condemned bothe by hym and his successors And is this condemnation authentical with you yf it be you know Luther Caluin were condemned by lyke authoritie And thus for lack of matter you lay holde on any thing though it make neuer so muche against your selfe The last point is about the name of Iesuits against whiche for that you quarelled muche the Censure did shew that the name was not taken to them selues of arrogancie as you obiected but geuen them by common speeche for breuities sake where as theyr true name in deede by foundatiō of theyr order was societas nominis Iesu a societie dedicated to the name of Iesus Now against this you replie that I doe call them Iesuits in my booke But what is this to the purpose is it not lawfull for me to folow the common phrase of speeche or because I call them soo doeth that proue that they chalenge that name to them selues Secondlie you say that Turrian a Iesuit calleth them soo and what yf he dyd foloweing the common maner of speeche doeth that conuince that they appoint that name vnto them selues but yet you are too too impudent to attribut this to Turrian especiallie with suche vehement asseueration as you doe For I haue reade the two chapiters by you alleaged tvvise and that vvith as greate diligēce as I coulde and albeit he doeth call them by the name of the societie of Iesus fyftie times in the same yet doeth he not once name them Iesuits VVherfore this shevveth vvith vvhat conscience you vvrite And this beinge so let the reader iudge what cause you had to crie out in these vvoordes VVhat blasphemie is this to abuse the most blessed name of Iesus for a coulour to their blasphemous practises Euerie thing is blasphemie vvith this angrie gentleman though it be but the mouinge of a stravve but heare his reason They dravv to th●m selues alone sayeth he the confortable name of Iesus vvhich is cōmon to all No Syr vvilliam you may haue your parte yf you exclude not your selfe For vvhen any men leaueth all other cares and businesse to serue the Quene onelie for examples sake and professeth the same by some speciall name of her Maiesties deuoute seruant doeth he iniurye other subiects hereby or doth he take from them theyr interest in her Maiestie But the truthe is that malice wold haue you say somevvhat against Iesuits mary theyr good lyfe and vertue excludeth you from matter you might haue done vvell to haue consulted with Eldertons ryme vvhoe proueth that they can not be called Iesuits for that they can not rayse the deade cure the lame restore the blynde nor vvalke vppon the vvater as Iesus dyd VVhiche proueth also that they can not be called Christianes for that Christ dyd the same things and they can not Nor yet old Elderton I thinke hym selfe OF religious men and their vocation THE CENSVRE Secondlie you seeke to deface the Societie by cōtemptuouse deprauing of all 1. religiouse men calling them Base beggerlie monkes fryars popish orders and the like vvherein you folovv the 2. olde heretiques of the primatiue Churche vvhose propertie hath bene from time to time to hate and depraue those kynde of men aboue all others as S. Austen testifieth of the Manachies and Rufinus of the Arians And petilian the donatist folovving the same spirit scoffed at S. Austen for being a fryar as S. Austen hym selfe vvriteth in these vvordes After this Petilian proceded on with his slaūderouse mouth to speake euill of monasteries and of monkes blaming me also for that I had set foorth this kynde of lyfe the which lyfe ether he knoweth not what it meaneth or else feigneth him selfe not to know it though it be notorious to all the world S. Austen saythe this kynde of lyfe of monkes and fryers and other religiouse men vvas notoriouse and knovvne to the vvorlde in his time both in respect of the famous men that had liued in the same as Anthonie Paule hilarion Basill Nazianzen Martin Austen hym selfe and others as also of the infinit bookes and treatises vvhich holie fathers of the primatiue Churche had vvritten in defence and commēdation of that kinde of lyfe as Athanasius in the lyfe of S. Anthonie the Abbote beside a peculiar treatise intituled An exhortatiō to mōkes or to Monasticall life S. Basill also vvrote a great volume intituled Cōstitutions or lawes for monkes beside diuers other treatises of that argument vvritten both by hym selfe and by Gregorie Nazianzen S Chrisostom hathe fouer homilies extant in commendation of the lyfe of monkes and tvvo vvhole bookes of the comparison betwene the Mounke the king vvherin he preferreth the lyfe of the monke before that of the king Also he vvrote a booke against you M. Charke intituled Against the blamers of Monkes and Monasticall lyfe Iohannes Cassianus a litle after vvrote 12. bookes intituled Of the lawes and ordinances of Monkes Seuerus Sulpitius vvrote a dialogue contaynyng the notable conuersation of the Esterlie monkes vvith S. Martin Abbot of eyghtie monkes And finallie S. Austen for I vvill come no lovver hath vvritten manie treatises of Monkes commending highly that excellent kinde of lyfe and defending it against the detractions of heretiques of his tyme. Let any

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

the church some we haue opened to vs by writinge and some agayne we haue receyued delyuered vs by tradition of the Apostles in secret bothe whiche doctrines are of equall force to pietie nether doeth any man gaynsaye this whiche hathe anye litle knowleige in the lawes of t●● Churche Heere now are S. Basil and VV. Charke at an open combate abowt traditions The one sayeth it is iniquitie to admitt them The other sayeth it is ignorance to reiect them The one sayeth they are of no authoritie or credit at all The other sayeth they are of equall force and authoritie vvith the vvritten vvoord of Christ and his Apostles VVhome will you rather beleeue in this case VVith S. Basil taketh parte Eusebius sayeinge Christi discipuli ad magistri sui nutum illius praecepta partim literis partim sine literis quasi iure quodam non scripto seruanda commendarunt The disciples of Christ at theyr Maisters beck dyd commend his precepts to posteritie partlie in writing partlie without writing as it were by a certaine vnwriten lawe Marke heere that traditiō is called an vnvvritē lavve the things delyuered therby are the precepts of Christ and that they were left vnwryten by the becke or appointment of Christ hym selfe Epiphanius is yet more earnest than Eusebius For writing against certaine heretiques named Apostolici whiche denyed traditions as our protestants doe he proueth it thus Oportet autem traditione vti Non enim omnia a diuina scriptura accipi possunt Quapropter aliqua in scripturis aliqua in traditione sancti Apostoli tradiderunt quemadmodum dicit Sanctus Paulus Sicut tradidi ●obis alibi sic doceo sic tradidi in ecclesiis we muste vse traditiō also For that all thyngs can not be had owt of Scripture For which cause the holye Apostles haue delyuered some things to vs in scriptures and some thyngs by traditions according as S. Paul sayeth euen as I haue left vnto you by tradition And in an other place This doe I teache this haue I left by traditiō in Churches Heere you see Epiphanius doeth not onelye affirme so much as we holde but also proueth it out of Scripture VVith Epiphanius ioyneth fully and earnestlye S. Chrisostome writyng vpon these woordes of S. Paul to the purpose State tenete traditiones Stand fast and holde traditions Out of which cleere woordes S. Chrisostome maketh this illation Hinc patet quod non omniae per epistolam tradiderint sed multa etiam sine literis Eadem verò fide digna sunt tam illa quám ista Itaque traditionem quoque ecclesiae fide dignam putamus Traditio est nihil quaeras amplius By these woordes of S. Paul it is euident that the Apostles delyuered not all by epistle or writing vnto vs but many things also whiche are not wrytten And yet those are as woorthie fayth as the other For whiche cause we esteeme the tradition of the Church woorthie of faythe It is a tradition seeke no more abowt it VVhat can be spoken more effectualie against VV. Charke than this Is it now greate iniquitie to receyue traditiōs or no how will he auoyde this vniforme cōsent of antiquitie against his fond malepeartnes condemning all traditions for iniquitie Heere you see are the verie woordes auowed as also in S. Basil alleaged before which these new maisters doe so odiouslye exaggerate to the people dailie that we matche traditiōs with the written woord of God These woordes I saye are heere maintained bothe in Chrisostome and Basil affirming the vnwrytten traditions of Christ and his Apostles to be of equall force and authoritie with the written woorde of the same And yet I trowe were they not blasphemous for sayeing so as these yonge gentlemen are accustomed to call vs. And this now in generall that traditions are that is that diuers things belonging to faythe are left vs vnwriten by Christ and his Apostles Also that this sort of traditions are of equall authoritie with the wrytten woord because they are the vnwritē or deliuered woorde But now yf any man wolde aske me what or which are these Apostolicall traditions in particular I could alleage hym testimonies owt of the auncient fathers for a great number wherof some examples haue bene gyuen in the former article But lett any man reade S. Cyprian Serm de ablut pedum Tertullian de coron miiltis and S. Ierom. Dialog cont luciferianos and he shall finde store And albeit some thing hathe bene sayd of S. Austen before yet will I adde these few examples owt of hym for endinge of this article He proueth the baptisme of infants by tradition of the Churche lib. 10● de gen cap. 23. He proueth by the same tradition that we must not rebaptize those whiche are baptized of heretiques li. 2. de bapt c. 7. lib. 1. cap. 23. li. 4. cap. 6. He proueth by tradition the celebration of the pentecost commonlie called whit-sondaye epist. 118. c. 1. He proueth by tradition that the Apostles were baptized ep 108. He proueth by tradition the ceremonies of baptisme as delyuered by the Apostles Li. de fide oper cap. 9. He proueth by tradition of Christ his Apostles that we should receyue the blessed sacrament fasting ep 1●8 cap. 6. He proueth by lyke tradition the exorcisme of suche as should be baptized li. 1. de nupt concup cap. 20. li. 6. contra Iulian. ca. 2. He proueth by the same tradition that we must offer vpp the sacrifice of the masse for the deade li. de cura pro mort agēda ca. 1. 4. Serm. 32. de verbis Apostoli I omitt many other suche thinges whiche aswell this learned doctor as other most holye fathers of the primatiue Churche doe auouche by onelye tradition of Christ and his Apostles without writing whiche to beleeue or credit if it be such great iniquitie and blasphemie as VV. Charke will haue vs to esteeme then were these auncient fathers in a miserable case and this new minister in a fortunate lot But yf the countenance of this new Sir doe not surpasse the credit of those olde Saints I weene it will not be hard to iudge how fond and foolishe hys raylinge speeche ys against a doctrine so vniformlie receyued in Christ his Churche as the doctrine of traditions hath bene from the beginning VVhether the Iesuites speake euill of Scripture Art 6. THE CENSVRE You reporte the Iesuites to saye The holy Scripture is a nose of waxe Cens. 117 God forgyue you for abusing so muche these learned men Marie you take the vvaye to ouermatch both learning and trueth too yf you may haue your desire He that vvill reade the place by you quoted shall finde the Iesuites vpon occasion geuen them to saye in effect thus that before the rude and ignorante people it is easie for a noughtie man to vvreste the scripture to vvhat interpretation pleaseth hym beste for the flatteringe ether of

miserie as it alwayes appeareth when it cōmethe to examination And this shall suffice for this sixt article HEERE the Authour vvas interrupted by a VVritte de remouendo so as he could not for this present passe on any further as more at large is shewed at the beginning in an epistle to M. Charke A BREEFE TABLE OF THE PRINCIPALL matters contayned in the defence of the Censure THe foly and badd dealyng of Hanmer pag. 3.4.5.6 How to discerne a cleane spirit from an vncleane page 11 12.13● The ordinarie fashion of heretiques in raylyng as appeareth by Fulke Chark Hanmer page 11.13.14.15 33.34.35.36.38.158.159 And as appeareth by Caluin page 15. And by Luthers raylyng speache against kyng Henry the eight page 15.16 17. And against Caluinistes page 17.18 VVhat a secte and sectarie is and hovv it may differe or agree with heresie page 19.21.22.26 The Iesuites are no sect page 19. The pharises a secte page ●4 Charkes absurde ouersyght in definynge a secte page 25. Religious men odius to heretiques pag. 30.31.32.33 The religious vocation consisteth in three vowes pa. 38 The monkes of olde tyme made vowes page 36. The religious state of these tymes and of the primatiue churche all one insubstance page 38. Elias Helizeus and S. Iohn Baptist paternes of religious men page 19.20.21 S. Augustin a religious man page 38. Austeritie of life and voluntarie pouertie practized by auncient fathers and by Christ hym selfe page 27.39 Mariage of votaries is worse than adulterie page 37. 43 44●50 Luther for feare entered into Religion page 49. His horrible doctrine and impietie page 45. 51. and so forthe to the 66. page Hys bodilie conference with the deuill page 68.69 Hys dronken deathe page 66.70.71 The dissention of protestantes 74.75.76.77.92.93 Iohn Caluin his falling into heresie pag. 78. His burning in the shoulder for Sodomye page 78. His ambition and vainglorie page 81.82 His maner in raysing of the deade page 82. His casting owt of a deuyll page 83. His lasciuious lyfe and dayntynes page 84. Hys horrible siknes and deathe page 89. Beza his wicked disposition Simonie and lasciuiousnes pag 86●87 88.89 The six reformers of religion what kynde of men they were page 90.91.92 Bucer his inconstancie and deathe 92.93 M. Chark cā not be certaine of his good estate pag. 112. Luthers absurd doctrine that a woman is as necessarye for man as meate drynke and sleepe page 63. The definition of synne pag 101. c. to 109. page Not onelie incredulitie is sinne against Luthers doctrine pag 51. Synne is a reasonable action pag. 104. Synne is voluntarie page 105. Madde men and vnreasonable creatures can not sinne pag 108. Concupiscence is not properlie a sinne in the regenerate pag 116.117 c. M. Charks maruailous impudencie in translating S. Austen page 121. It is the opinion not of Catholiques but of Caluin that God is the author of euill page 124. The first motions how they are no synne pag. 125. 126. The true diuision of the tenne commaundementes pag. 132.133 Traditions of equall force with the written woord pag. 159 160. Tradition is called an vnwritten law page 160. Fulks impudencie in discrediting 8. auncient fathers and all antiquitie page 158. 159. The sufficiencie of scripture page 149. M. Charks three fond reasons concerning the sufficiencie of scripture page 151.152 How hereticall wrestinge of scripture is compared to a Nose of waxe page 66. The faultes correcte thus Pag. 10. lin 25. for embreued Reade imbrued Pag. 11. lin 9. for oder Reade order Pag. 12. in the margent for Act. 6. Reade Act. 8. Pag. 16. in the margent for Fol. 442. Reade Fol. 342. Pag. 17. lin 13. for Angelicam Reade Anglicam Pag. 18. lin 16. for Caluinistes vvhoe say theyr maisters doe call Reade Caluinist● vvho are theyr maisters doe call Pag. 29. lin 26. for your Reade you Pag. 29. lin vlt. for men Reade man Pag. 32. lin 15. for Nounes Reade Nonnes Pag. 33. in the margent Reade Pag. 96. 98. Pag. 40. lin 36. for Loyalas Reade Loyolas Pag. 47. lin 19. for Praeolus Reade Prateolus Pag. 61. in the margent for ingenius Reade ingenuus Pag. 64. in the margent Reade concil const act 4. can 2. conci Nic. 2. act 1. can 2. Pag. 69. lin vlt. for actibus Reade ictibus Pag. 74. in the margēt for pag. 17. 19. Reade 17. 18. Pag. 9● lin 6. for Burtin Reade Bursin Pag. 102. in the margent for cap. 14. Reade lib. 14. Pag. 103. in the margent for de vnct Reade de virt Pag. 138. lin 2. for Niphlet Reade Niphleth Pag. 143. lin 38. for yeares Reade dayes See this handled at large aftervvard in the defence pag. 56. 57. See of this after pag. 120. Vide postea Ar● ● See aftervvarde in the defence pag. 2. 1. Iohn 4. VVhiche parte more desirethe triall of spirites VVho doe offer best meanes of tryall Onely scripture Li. 2. de nu concup ca. 31. li. 3. cont don cap. 15. Three causes of appealinge onelie to scripture De captiui Babilon in initio Cap. de Sacram In aeditio vlt. loc cō In institut Com. in Amos. Vide Ench. Eck. Luth cont latom de incendiariis D. Fulk against Bris. mot pa. 98 Artic. 28. cont louā tō 2. vvittēb ●o 503. Agaīst Br. mot pa. 82. In his defence of his ansvvere to the admoninition The advātage that heretiques haue by onely scrip●ure 1. Iohn 4. 1. Iohn 4. Diuersit●e of inte●pretations Tom. 7. vvittemb Fol. 414. M. Charks grace ī interpretinge scriptures Theyr mysteries are the ouerthrovv of all gouernors as M. VVhi●g proueth against M. Cartv● Tovv●h●ng the masse Heb. 7. 9. Dan. 12. Malac. 1. In declar● Anath 11. Au● 20. cō faust c. 21. Naz. ora● 1. in Iuliā Hom. 17. In ca 8 ep ad Hebr. Ep. 23. ad Bonif. The aduersarie admitteth no triall Math. 19. 1. Cor. 7. Lib. de votis Monast. in initio Of S. Iohn Baptist. Lu. 1. 3. Math. 3. Marc. 1. Cent. 5 c. 6. pag. 711. a Sarcer in ca. 1. Lu. mag Cent. 1 li. 1. ca. 20. (b) Mariorat in ca. 3. Math. Cytraeits in ca. 3. Math. COSMIOS EVPORISTOS c Ma. C●̄ 1. l. 1. c. 4. et 6 In cap. 1. Math. In cap. 1. Marc. Mat. 26. Marc. 14. Luc. 22. 1. Cor. 11. a Lib. 4. de sacram c. 5 b Catach 4 c Li. 4. in Io. cap. 13. In Ancorano Ho. 83. in Math. 60. ad pop Antioch Hom. 24. in epist. ad Cor. In confess breui tom 2. germ fol. 257. Claud de San. l. 1. rep 1. de Euch. The letter beginneth thus Charissimis in Christo ami cis Christianis Argentinae This vvas an honest man in the meane space vvhiche laboured to peruert this sacrament thereby to hurt the pope Luthers latin vvoords are ex capi ●e vertiginoso confictis Epis. a. I0 har●agium Tipographum Argentinensē cuius etiam mentionem vide apud Biblioth Gesneri fo 501. * Mat. 26. *