Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	mortal_a	nature_n	venial_a	6,243	5	12.3225	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A07805	The encounter against M. Parsons, by a revievv of his last sober reckoning, and his exceptions vrged in the treatise of his mitigation. Wherein moreouer is inserted: 1. A confession of some Romanists, both concerning the particular falsifications of principall Romanists, as namely, Bellarmine, Suarez, and others: as also concerning the generall fraude of that curch, in corrupting of authors. 2. A confutation of slaunders, which Bellarmine vrged against Protestants. 3. A performance of the challenge, which Mr. Parsons made, for the examining of sixtie Fathers, cited by Coccius for proofe of Purgatorie ... 4. A censure of a late pamphlet, intituled, The patterne of a Protestant, by one once termed the moderate answerer. 5. An handling of his question of mentall equiuocation (after his boldnesse with the L. Cooke) vpon occasion of the most memorable, and feyned Yorkeshire case of equiuocating; and of his raging against D. Kings sermon. Published by authoritie	Morton, Thomas, 1564-1659.	1610 (1610)	STC 18183; ESTC S112913	342,598	466

and veniall sinnes and holding that by euery least sinne we loose our iustice and consequently that all sinne is mortall Bellarmine cyting for the same the testimony of S. Hierome who ascribeth that for Heresie vnto the Pelagians And whereas in like manner he proueth the same heresie not onely to bee held by Luther and Melancthon but also by Caluine in diuers partes of his workes as 1. 2. Instit. c. 8. § 85. 1. 3. c. 4. § 28. c. M Morton taking vpon him to cleare Caluine in the former charge about originall sinne though so vnluckily as you haue heard saith neuer a word against this second about the distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes whereby it is euident in all probability that he admitted that for true and consequently yeelded secretly that Caluin sts doe agree with the Pelagians in this heresie though he storme sharpely against 〈◊〉 as you haue heard for charging Caluine with any point of Pelagianisme at all And this fraude or frailtie he committeth commonly in all the rest of the Heresies obiected denying the one weakely and by his silence granting the other as now by experience you shall finde The Reueiwe 10. Which by experience your selfe shall finde to haue beene both vnsoberly and vnluckily obiected by your selfe for in my last Booke of Catholicke Appeale both this and the rest of the Heresies obiected by Bellarmine haue bene proued to bee very slaunderous Concerning this particular The summe of my aunswere is this First There appeareth no such words in Saint Hierome nor doth Saint Augustine in his Catalogue of Heresies nor yet the Romish Authors Castro Prateolus Lindane or others in their discussing of Heresies obserue any such heresies in the Pelagians 11. Secondly sinnes are said to be Veniall in two respects either in their owne nature or else by Gods grace and indulgence In nature all sinnes are mortall albeit not all equal By Gods mercy who doth not deale with his regenerate according to his exact iustice many kind of infirmities may be called Veniall In which respect onely your Roffensis is noted to haue iudged of them accordingly calling them Veniall but not in their nature but onely through the mercy of God who doth not impute them vnto damnation And what the impossibilitie of contrary doctrine is hath beene likewise manifested at large Neither doth Gerson or Almain accord vnto your common opinion as Bellarmme himselfe doth confesse The cause of Caluine standing thus vpright the slaunder which is cast vpon him will proue no Veniall sinne SECT II. The second slaunder vsed by Card. Bellarmine The Charge concerning the Heresie of the Nouatians in denying Penance 12. BEllarmine Maketh Protestants guiltie of the Heresie of The Nouatians in taking from the Church all power of recōciling men vnto God but by Baptisme wherby he meaneth no Sacrament but Baptisme When as his own Authors note that The Heresie of the Nouatians was this viz. to denie any man who should sinne after Baptisme all hope of remission of sinnes although he should repent Yea and also Bellarmine himselfe in behalfe of Protestants confesseth els-where that They require repentance and faith in Christians that they may be iustified and obtaine Remission of sinnes Neither doth hee note any difference betweene vs and the Romanists about repentance as it is a conuersion vnto God with detestation of sinne or as it consisteth in outward signes of sorrow weeping confession and outward chastisements yea and almost all of them allow an outward rite of absolution But the only controuersie between vs is Whether Penance be properly a Sacrament Heere I am called to a seuere account the briefe whereof followeth The summe of Mr PARSONS his Reckoning HEere he will make a difference betweene Card. Bellarmine and other Authors about the Heresie of the Nouatians but all is full of fraud His drift is to argue Bellarmine of falsitie for affirming that Protestants of our dayes doe ioyne with the old Heretickes the Nouatians in taking from the Church All power of reconciling men vnto God for these are Bellarmines words and to contradict Bellarmine hee citeth the words of Alphonsus de Castro saying that the heresie c. But these are not contrary for the Nouatians taught both points principally that ther was no power in the Church to reconcile them who fell after baptisme especially into grieuous sinnes as testifieth Cyprian Saint Ambrose and others and this first part was against the keyes of the Church and power to remit sinnes and herein all Authors doe agree But the second part of this error went further as some doe gather out of the auncient Fathers as testifieth Suarez although others be of a contrary opinion which was to denie furthermore besides the Sacrament all vertue of Penance whatsoeuer whether priuate or Sacramentall Bellarmine doth not ascribe vnto Protestants the deniall of priuate repentance either inward or outward by sorrow and teares but their deniall of Penance as it is a Sacrament And for M. Morton to inferre that forasmuch as Alphonsus de Castro saith that the Nauatians did denie all power of Penance therefore Bellarmine said not truly that they denied the Sacramentall vse thereof is a most absurd manner of reasoning called à disparatis for both may be true the one excludeth not the other The Reueiwe 13. If I shall giue you leaue to make my Reasonings it is not vnlikely but I may haue them absurd you must therefore suffer me to make mine own account which I will bring into the true forme of reasoning thus Whosoeuer doth hold the heresie of the Nouatians in the deniall of remission of sinnes doth according to the iudgement of Alphonsus de Castro denie That there is any hope in any man sinning after Baptisme to obtaine remission of sinne although he shall repent But Protestants as Card. Bellarmine consesleth do not denie all hope of remission of sinnes committed after Baptisme if sinners repent Ergo the Protestants holde not the Doctrine of Nouatians 14. Is not this conclusion established in the Maior by Castro and in the Minor by Bellarmine which in the conclusion is fully contradictory vnto his former assertion where he said Protestants hold the Heresie of the Nouatians Neither is the argument taken à disparat is but à contradicentibus and standeth thus Nouatians denie all hope of remission of sinnes committed after Baptisme and Protestants confesse some hope of remission of sinnes committed after Baptisme This reasoning I hope cannot be called absurd 15. Neuerthelesse passing ouer this priuate Penance as it is a vertue which euery man must vse for the obtaining of Remission of sinnes let vs proceede vnto a second consideration of it as it is a power of reconciliation by vertue of the Keyes of the Church Concerning this Protestants are confessed to admit a power of absolution in the Church after Baptisme and Almost all of them saith Bellarmine doe allow an outward rite thereof for

sinne the second that There is no originall sinne in the children of faithfull Parents doth make both to be the heresie of the Pelagians Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning I Aske T. M. with what conscience could he falsifie Bellarmine in making him say that which he did not for that he saith not absolutely that Caluine denied all originall sinne in all Infants but onely in the children of the faithfull The Reuiew 3. Why doth P. R. obiect this where haue I said that Bellarmine affirmed absolutely that Calume denyed all originall sinne in all Infants but I haue alleaged him pertinently as I haue shown and do now further auerre in the behalf of Caluine that Bellarmine by affirming that Caluine did denie originall sinne in any kind of Infants whether they be the children of Infidels or Christians doth slanderously traduce Caluine to draw him violently into the errour of Pelagianisme which heresie Caluine abhorred and detested as gracelesse and damnable which M. Parsons himselfe might haue seene if he had not looked vpon him onely with his left eye as will now perfectly appeare Euident proofes that Caluine hath beene slandered by Bellarmine and Protestants are generally freed from Pelagianisme in this point by their owne Vega and that according to the iudgement of the Councell of Trent 4. Bellarmine hath deliuered his iudgement vpon Caluine saying that Caluine denyed originall sinne in the children of the faithfull which I take to be an vnconscionable Slaunder 5. For first Caluine spendeth foure Sections in confutation of this doctrine proouing that euery childe of Adam is borne in orginall sinne from the example of Dauid saying that he was borne in iniquity and conceiued in sinne and as if he had sought to stoppe the mouth of all Slanderers hee expresly confuteth the Pelagians doctrine euen in this very point Quod autem c. That is But that the cauelling Pelagians do say saith he that it is not likely that children should draw any corruption from godly Parents from whom they doe rather receuse purity it is easily confuted for they that is the children doe not descend from their spirituall but from their carnall generation Wherefore as Saint Augustine saith whether the Parents be guilty and in the state of Infidelity or being in the faith be absolued both of them beget no free children but guilty Furthermore in that they partake of the parents sanctitie it is the speciall blessing of God which doth not hinder but that the vniuersall course of mankinde goeth before for guilt is from nature but sanctification proceedeth from spirituall grace Wherein we see that there is as much difference betweene the Pelagians and Caluine as there is betweene nature and Grace 6. Secondly to consult with his Accusers although that Bellarmine and Valentia but not In the very same place by me alleaged as M. Parsons pretendeth but about three leaues after doe obiect the former heresie Denying originall sinne in the children of faithfull Parents yet doe they not alleage any such wordes out of all his workes The onely reason which Bellarmine hath is Because he saith that the children of faithfull parents are sanctified and saued without baptisme but Bellarmine else-where reckoning vp the opinion of some of his owne Doctors concerning some children vnbaptized saith thus Caietane Gabriel Gerson Catharine and some other Catholikes say that it is contrary to the mercie of God that all children which die without Baptisme should perish Among others who were of the same opinion are reckoned Tilmannus Sigebergensis Tho Elisius and Cassander all affirming that although Infants want Baptismo aquae that is the out ward baptisine by water yet through the mercy of God they are baptized Baptismo flaminis that is with the baptisme of the spirit of sanctification and consequently with Caluine doe confesse that the children of the faithfull dying before baptisme are sanctified and saued Notwithstanding all this Bellarmine noteth Caluine for a Pelagian Hereticke and tearmeth his owne Doctors Catholickes which is a direct argument of a distorted and corrupt affection 7. The second Accuser Valentia commeth nearer to the point when speaking of Protestants Kemnitius Melancthon Caluine and all others he saith Qui omnes c. Who all euery where although they differ in word yet they agree with a ioynt consent affirming that originall sinne is an hereditary corruption and prauity of nature which maketh vs. guilty of the eternall warth of God and is the fountaine of all wickednesse in men Which manner of speech may be applied to the iudgement of Illyricus onely differing from him in that he teacheth the hereditary corruption to be forme substantiall but these others do teach that originall sinne is conteyned onely in the defect of absolute perfection and iustice which ought to be in man And much more to this effect as to confesse that Caluine placed Originall sinne principally in the Defect of perfect righteousnesse in our first conception which defect is properly a sinne and the Sinner to be damned which sinne hee holdeth to be Remitted in baptisme not that it is not but that it is not imputed So that in the children of the faithfull Parents in respect of their naturall originall wherein there is a Defect of perfect righteousnesse they are sinfull and cursed yet through the couenant of Grace they are the children of Adoption If this be not sufficient our next witnesse will make all cleare 8. Vega a Doctor greatly commended by the Iesuite Canisius and a principall Actor in the Councell of Trent doth in expounding the meaning of that Councell yeeld vnto vs this his ingenuous and iudicious confession The Protestants speaking of all that hee had read and his reading of Caluine he sheweth almost in euery Chapter do teach in their Confessions Apologies and other bookes the doctrine of originall sinne constantly and consonantly with vs but they who were condemned at the Councel of Trent were Pelagians Armenians Albanenses who denied originall sinne Doe you heare this M. Parsons Caluine and Bucer are accused by Bellarmine for dissenting from your Church by denying originall sinne in the children of faithfull Parents Heere your Vega telleth you in effect that it is a meere slaunder for speaking of Protestants without exception he saith that They do consonantly agree with your Church in this question of originall sinne and that euen according to the meaning of the Councell of Trent How then may your Cardinall bee thought to haue dealt honestly or conscionably with Caluine But they haue decreed to draw Caluine within the compasse of 〈◊〉 and to this purpose they proceed to another Question Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning concealing Veniall Sinnes WHereas Card. Bellarmine did charge Caluine and Oaluinists with two principall errours of the Pelagians the one that which now hath been handled Of denying Originall Sin in children and Infants of the faithfull and the second Of the denying of the difference of mortall

these 400. yeares but onely by Consequence For what can be more expresly assumed than was this where you said Seeing it hath beene admitted say you so long time in Christendome as our aduersaries doe confesse and that it hath beene receiued so vniuersally and generally both by Prelates and people and if it haue beene so publikely taught by all learned men and contradicted by none This was an Antecedent and not a consequence for that followeth in the next words it ought to be a great argument to discreete men that it hath some ground of truth Neyther is it sufficient to inferre a matter by Consequence for the diuell made a consequence when hee said If thou be the Sonne of God cast thy selfe downe but this was a lying consequence And what froath rather then force M. Parsons consequence hath I haue already shewed In the next place we are to discusse the Authours who seeme to except against M. Parsons his arte of Aequiuocating SECT II. The first Instance of the charge from their Doctor Sepulueda against their Mentall Equiuocation 2. GEnesius Sepulueda made against you what say you to him Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning Mr. Morton findeth out but one Authour that contradicteth the same Equiuocation in all the time by him appointed euen Genesius Sepulueda and that onely in some particular cases though graunting and defending it in others The Reuiew 3. Here are but two things you wil haue vs to obserue one is that Sepulueda alloweth The same your mentall Equiuocation in some cases the other is that this Authour was found to be but one in both which I spie a litter of manisest falsities For first what is the Mentall Equiuocation which you defend tell vs It is a mixt proposition say you partly vttered with my mouth as I am no Priest and partly reserued in my minde as in this clause To tell it vnto you But what if this clause be such for this is the chiefest point of this whole dispute as that it will not agree with the outward wordes in the common interpretation and vse of speech as thus I am no Priest reseruing in your minde as bound to driue a Cart The first part vttered with the mouth I am no Priest cannot possibly in the common apprehension of man signifie or imply this clause which followeth As bound to driue a Cart. Doe you thinke then that such a clause for I shall neede to aske no more which is not comprehensible by the outward wordes doth therfore make the outward speech true because it is true in the minde of the speaker Yes say you for that I truely meane that I am no Priest in the sense which I speake it which may be what pleaseth me This being the very Besis and foundation of your doctrine of Mentall Equiuo cation I now make bold to auerre that euery such speech in the iudgment of Sepulueda is a lie 4. For so he censureth euery such kinde of reserued clause where the obiection is made concerning one who is called in question by a Iudge to bewray another mans secrecie which he ought not to reueale and shall answer thus I know nothing of it keeping this reseruation in minde As bound to tell it vnto you Here we finde a mixt proposition part in word and part in minde secondly here the Iudge is incompetent demanding that which the party is not bound to reueale thirdly here your Clause of Reseruation is the same wherein you principally insist so that if this be not lawfull you must necessarily faile in your former defence Come we now to our Authour Sepulueda Vnto this obiection of Philetus and louer of himselfe he opposeth his owne iudgement in the name of Theophilus that is A louer of God saying If you Philet us be prepared to answere so then you tell me in briefe that you are prepared to periure your selfe Hercunto Philet us replyeth I doe not lie seeing that the reserued Clause viz. That I ought to tell it vnto you agreeth with my minde Then Theophilus returneth vpon him saying Who taught you to trisle so finely Who did first shew you such a lurking hole for periurie And in the end concludeth concerning the former Aequiuocation That the speech is a lie because the signification therof doth dissent from that which lieth secret in the minde for thou sayest saith he that thou knowest nothing at all thereof and euery one that heareth thee doth so vnderstand thee notwithstan ding thou art guilty to thy selfe that thou doost know it although with purpose not to reueale it 5. All this you saw M. Parsons and therin could not but perceiue that Sepulueda hath flatly contradicted your Mentall Equiuocation notwithstanding haue you dared to say that he doth defend the same in some cases What shal any man thinke of you when you talke of rectitude of conscience Certainely this pretence is nothing but a Pharisaicall cleansing as it were of the outside of the cuppe for when we looke within it there is nothing but foule cob-webs of falshoods and follie 6. Although the examination of the former obseruation doth argue a distorted minde in you yet in the second you do excell your selfe where you say that I finde but One Author Sepulueda contradicting your Acquiuocation especially knowing that if this Sepulueda then I do not bring him in alone seeing that he goeth accompanied with all those Authours vpon whom the same Sepulueda doth ground his former conclusion which I signified vnto you in my Full Satisfaction out of the wordes of Sepulueda saying But that you may know saith he how long it is since that Comment of Diuines did preuaile for the excuse of a lie in bearing false witnes in another mans case I thinke you can finde none before Gabriel who durst publiquely defend it That is the trick of Reseruation for he speaketh of it He telleth vs furthermore concerning the same Equiuocation that he found it Defended by some publique Readers in Spaine albeit saith he it is condemned by the most auncient and principall Diuines Amongst whom I reckon Aquinas As for Scotus he acknowledgeth this denyal of Secrecie namely Equiuocatingly to be a sinne onely he made doubt whether it be mortall or veniall And Henricus de Gandauo a most learned man saith that in such a case it is lawfull for the Examinate not to answere the Iudge at all but to denie the secrecy to answere falsly and by art of wordes to lye calling Equiuocation a lye he houldeth it unlawfull Gabriel himselfe denieth that he can escape the guilt of at least an officious lye and therefore a sinne who vseth that artificiall manner of denying with the minde his reason is because his wordes are taken according to the common vnderstanding in the which sense they are not true Which sentence of Gabriel being true in such a speech without an oath how much more true is it if it be

any one taxation against me either in his former booke of Mitigation or in this his new Reckoning with more variety and virulency of wordes then he hath done this his Trifling rash and lying slander euery word peircing to the very soule saying Where is his conscience where is his simplicity in Christ Iesus where his innocencie here is his guiltinesse and here his trechery yet now shameth not to say as though he had not greatly vrged that point against me that he passed ouer the matter in a word or two Much like as one who after he had peirced a man into his braines and stabbed him at the very hart with many a mortall wound should excuse himselfe saying I gaue him but a Trifling blow or two SECT XI The eleauenth Charge 60. COncerning the doctrine of Doleman houlding it a damnable sinne for any Romanist to admit a Protestant Prince vnto the Crowne Which I haue answered and as I hope satified but yet M. Parsons hath found out some other odde endes to be reckoned for Mr. PAROSNS his Reckoning I Deny that either the true wordes or sense of Doleman was related by him and consequently he cannot be excused from a witting falsehood The Reuiew 61. Who is this that accuseth me M. Parsons in whose behalfe in the behalfe of Doleman alias M. Parsons for what for accusing Mr. Parsons to haue held it a damnable sinne for any of his Catholiques to admit any Protestant vnto the Crowne of England which notwithstanding was prooued by the force of a Syllogisme concluding thus Ergo Dolman aliàs M. Parsons held it a damnable sinne for any Romish Professour to admit a Protestant to the Crowne But since that M. Parsons tooke a surfeit of his owne foolish Syllogisme the consequence of Syllogismes could not wel relish in his mouth Secondly this sense is so euident that their owne Priests haue called that booke intituled Dolman a Trayterous Seditious and most infamous booke against the English State which is so euident that whosoeuer shall but reade that booke may see that if M Parsons his own conscience could be heard speake we should neede neyther the confession of their own Priests nor the consequence of M. Parsons to make vp the conclusion SECT XII The twelfth Charge Mr. PARSONS his Reckoning THis imputation was about false dealing on M. Mortons behalfe in setting downe in generall that All Popish Priests doe abolish the succession of all Protestant Princes vpon the pretence of prerogatiue in Pope and people Wherein he is conuinced of diuers falshoods handled before by vs in the first Chapter The Reuiewe 62. I answere that if I haue beene iustly conuicted nay if I haue not beene iniuriously traduced by M. Parsons in this matter then shal I subiect my selfe vnto him as worthy to be condemned in all We both remit our selues vnto our former Reckoning about this point SECT XIII The thirteenth Charge 63. IT concerneth the testimony of Otto Frisingensis against Gregory the seuenth M. PARSONS his Reckoning WHich was alleaged quite contrary to the wordes and meaning of the Authour Frisingensis so that he was enforced to lay the fault partly vpon Doctor Tolossanus partly to abuse the testimony of Claudius Espencaeus and to make him say and auerre that which he doth not but relateth out of others And in no one imputation hitherto was he more grauelled then in this as the Reader may see by turning vnto the place it selfe The Reuicwe 64. I haue much cause to thanke M. Parsons for this so plaine dealing in saying that I haue not beene grauelled hitherto in any one imputation more then in this because hereby our Reader may more easily conceiue of Mr. Parsons his former Imputations and thereby coniecture of them that follow how sicke and feeble they are by my answere vnto this wherein I shall shew what kinde of Grauell Mr. Parsons vseth to cast in my way for if in this point I stand not cleare then let our Reader holde me guilty of all the other Imputations wherewith M. Parsons hath besmeered me 65. The summe of the Answere which I haue deliuered at large is this First that I cyted truely the testimony of Tolossanus whom onely I pointed out in the marginall note to be the Authour of that testimony neyther hath M. Parsons excepted against it Secondly that M. Parsons with fine fraude concealed my Allegation that thereby his imputation of falshood might carry the better pretence and now since the discouerie of his craft and malignancy therein he findeth no better euasion then to say that my marginall cytation was not in English as though that would be any excuse for Mr. Parsons who vnderstandeth Latine Thirdly that Cl. Espensaeus dooth expresly approue the Epistle of the Priests of Liege wherein Pope Gregory the seuenth aliâs Hildebrand is noted and reproued as being the first Pope who perturbed the Emperiall States of Christendome by presumption of deposing the Emperour from his dignity Lastly that M. Parsons in this his new Reckoning in saying that Espensaeus did not approue that Epistle hath committed an irrecouerable vntruth which will be vnto his conscience as grauell would be to his mouth vntill he spit it out by true repentance SECT XIIII The fourteenth Charge 65. THe crimination which Mr. Parsons vrged against me was this His wordes saith he are these Pope Hildebrand saith our Chronographer was excommunicate of the Bishops of Italy for that he had defamed the Apostolique Sea with Simony and other capitall crimes and then cyteth for proofe hereof Lambertus Schaffnaburg Anno 1077. As if this our Chronographer had related this as a thing of truth and not rather as slanderous obiection cast out by his Aduersaries that followed the part of Henry the Emperour The discharge 66. My discharge was taken from the wordes of Shaffnaburgensis Which are these After that the fame had gone thorowut Italy that K. Henry had set foote within the coasts All the Bishops of Italy did flocke vnto him congratulating his comming because he came with a resolute courage to depose the Pope to wit Gregory 7. Afterward he sheweth their reasons That they feared not the Popes excommunication whom all the Bishops of Italy for iust cause had excommunicated who had by violence obteyned the Sea Apostolike by Symoniac all heresie had defiled the same by murthers and adulteries and other capitall crimes 67. Thus the Bishops of Italy by the testimony of Shaffnaburgensis behaued themselues against Hildebrand and this was the onely matter which I proposed as worthy of proofe for as I then said The point now in question is whether this Author Lambertus Schaffnaburg did thinke that those Bishops of Italy had condemned this Pope Gregory for whether they did it iustly or vniustly is the second question for such crimes or no I haue affirmed that Schaffnaburg was of this opinion but P. R. denyeth it calling my assertion impudent impiety Let vs be iudged by

Vasquez quo suprà p. 241. Two notable vntruths Reckon p. 148. Tom. 4. Ano. 392 fine M. Parsons froward Calumniation q Vasq Ies. l 2. de Adorat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M. Parsons vniust Calumniation * Preamb. p. 63. (1) Pelagiani c. Bellar l a. de Eccles. Misit c. 9. §. Pelagiani (2) Hic proprius c. Valet Ies de mig pecc c. 2. (3) Caluinus c. Idem ib. in princ c. 8. in Tom. 2. disp 6 q. 11. punct 1. Reckon ca. 3. §. 7. pa. 155. a Bellar. loco suprà citato A Calumnious Taxation Reckon ib. b Jnstit l 2. c 1. §. 4. 5. Caluins iudgement c Ibid. §. 7. d Reckon p. 155 e Bellar. l. 1. de bap c. 4. §. quintum Caluines iudgement iustified by Romanists f See Cassander himselfe de baptismo Infantum g Valent. lib. de pecc orig c. 7. in princip vnto the end of the Chapter Tom. 2 de pecc orig disp 6. q. 12. punct 1. §. 4. h Praef. in libros Vegae i Vega. l. 2. de Iustif. c. 6. § Et probauit Protestants iudgement concerning original sinne iustified by their aduersaries Reck. c. 3. §. 7. pag. 158. Hierom. 2. l. cont Pelag. k Catholique Appeale 1. 5. cap. 22. § 3. Sinnes how veniall and mortall l Apud Vasquem Tom. 1. in 1. Tho. 2 disp 42 c. 1. n. 4. p. 929. m Cath. Appeale quo supra §. 4. n Bellar. l. 1. de Amiss grat c. 4. §. His erroribꝰ * Preamb. p. 63. 4 Nouatianorum c. Bellar. l. 4. de notis Eccl. c. 9. §. Nouatianorū 5 Nouatianorum c. Castro l. 12. Haer. 3. Tit. Paenitentia Vega li. 13. de Iustif. c. 2. p. 486. Moldon Ies. in Ioh. 5. 4. 6 Non Negant c. Bellar. l. 3. de Iustif. c. 6. saepe alias 7 Non de c. Bellar. l 1 de 〈◊〉 c 8. §. vt 〈◊〉 Reckon cap 3. §. 8 pag. 160. Bellarmines slaunder Recko quo supra M. Parsons fraudulent dissembling Reckon p. 163. M. Parsons precipitate and rash in diuination a Ctholicke Appeal l. 4. c. 〈◊〉 And to proue that such like Denials doe not make an Hereticke see the Audiani in the same booke Reckon pag. 162. 163. M. Parsons his childish rash obiection of craft b Catho Appeale quo supr Reckon pag. 162. His fond and false coniecture Reckon p. 163. His loose and vniust reprehension * Pream pa. 64. 8 Manicheotum c. Bellar. l. 4. de notis Eccles c. 9. §. Manichaeorum 9 Iohannes Caluinus c. Bellar. l. 1 ae Grat. primi 〈◊〉 c. 1. §. In codem Reckon ca. 3. § 9. pa. 167. Bellarmines flaunder Reckon p. 167. * Reckon ibid. pag. 168. Two Fathers notably abused by M. Parsens and Bellarm. c Aug. Tom 6. de Haeres c. 46. d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dagian e Hier. in Jsaiam Reckon pag. 168. f Maldon Ies. Comment in Luc. 15. ver 13. g See aboue The fathers iudgement concerning free-will h Epist. dedicat ante libros Hilary Reck. pag. 169. His heady taxation i Cath. Appeale l 5 c. 19. k Caluin Instruct aduers. Libert c. 3. l Pererius Jes. in Gen. 11. l. 16. Disp. 17. n. 255 c. * Pream pa. 64. 10 Henr. Bullingerum c. Bellar. praef in contr de Christo. §. Henricē Greg. Valent Ics. lib. devnit Triait c. 9. 12 Tertullianus c. Bellar. l. 1. de Cluisto c. 10 §. Respondeo 2. Recko pag. 172. M. Parsons maketh Bellarmine to betray the Catholique cause Reckon p 171. M. Parsons lauish wrangling m As is plaine in the first part of my Apolog. Cath. pag. 149. whence the sentence was transcribed n See in the beginning of Tertul. Basil. An. 1521. Admonitio ad Lectorem de quibusdam Tertulliani dogmatis Reck. p. 173. Three obseruable points M. Parsons ignorance of the iudgement of Tertullian * Preamb. p. 65. 13 Secundum errorem c Bellar. l. 1. de beat Sanct. c. 4. Paulō post initium 14 Octaus obiectio c. Bellar. l. 1. de Imag c. 8 §. 14. 13. Reckon pag. 164. 165. M. Parsons is ignorant of Beliarmines booke with which he saith he consulted a See his booke Devanit Scient cap. 6. ve sus finem where he calleth the Protestants Hereticks And as some note was commended by Pope Leo the tenth l 1. Ep. 38. See the booke of Pope loan pag. 104. M. Parsons his answere entangleth Bellarmine in an higher suspition of slander * Luc. 26. 2. Reckon pag. 175. b Caluin aduers. Libertin c. 22. c Bellar. l. 4. de Christo c. 9 §. Si quis d Caluine vpon the text of the penitent thiese e Instit. l. 3. c. 20. §. 20. f Bellar. l. 1 de Eccles. Triumph c. 1. §. Eundem habet Bellarmine depraueth the sentence of Caluine g Instis. que suprà h Bellar. l. 1. de beat sanct c. 5. §. 〈◊〉 Reckon quo suprà p. 174. i Bellar. l. 1. de Eccles. triump c. 1. §. Secundum errorem * See here after l. 1. c. 12. §. 13. M. Parsons partiality * Preamb. p. 65. 15 Bellar. l. 4. de notis Eccles. c. 9. ad finem 16 Quae sententia c. Bellar l. 1 de Euch. c. 1. initio 17 Docet Caluinus c. Bell 〈◊〉 §. Secundò docet 18 Docet Caluinus c. Valent. Ies. Tom. 4. disp 6. 〈◊〉 3. punct 1. §. Item k Reck. cap. 3. §. 12. pag. 181. k Reck. P. 182. lin vlt. Reckon p. 177. Recko pag. 179. M. Parsons silly wrangling l Bellar. l. 4. de notis Eccl. c. 9. l. 1. de Eucharist c. 1. §. edidit c. Reckon p. 179. His fond impertinency Reckon ibid. m Bellar. l. 1. de Eucharist c. 1. M. Parsons Ignorance of the obiected heresie Reckon ibid. His wilfull vntruth M. Parsons aime is eyther false or friuolous Reckon pag. 183. Mr. Parsons vnreasonable exaction * 1. Cor. 12. 17. n Apolog. Cathol part 1. Noto 6. * Preamb. p. 66. Recko c. 3. § 13. pa. 187. a Aug. de doct Christ. l. 2. c. 9. b Lib. 2. depeccat merit remiss ca. 36. c Contra Donatist l. 1. c. 7. Tom. 7. d Bellar. l. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 23. e Relect. 2. §. 2. num 8. Cusanus l. 3 de Concord c. 2. Reck. pag. 195. g Recko p. 193. h Pag. 194. Mr. Parsons crooked dissimulation i Bellar. lib. 1. de Pont c. 27. §. Secund rat Rome by iust consequence is not the Mother-church Mr. Parsons ignorance Reck. p. 192. Loose and absurd cauils Recko pag. 193. A Simile illustrating Mr. Parsons deceitful peeuishnes k Reckon 194. l Concord Cath. l. 3. c 2. His malignant lust of accusing his Aduesary Popes Epistles forged * Preamb. pa. 67 7 Extat apud c. Bellar. l. 4. de Pont. c. 13. § Extat 8 Being vrged c. 9 Tu Theologorum c. Platina