Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

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

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A09106	A quiet and sober reckoning vvith M. Thomas Morton somewhat set in choler by his aduersary P.R. concerning certaine imputations of wilfull falsities obiected to the said T.M. in a treatise of P.R. intituled Of mitigation, some part wherof he hath lately attempted to answere in a large preamble to a more ample reioynder promised by him. But heere in the meane space the said imputations are iustified, and confirmed, & with much increase of new vntruthes on his part returned vpon him againe: so as finally the reconing being made, the verdict of the Angell, interpreted by Daniel, is verified of him. There is also adioyned a peece of a reckoning with Syr Edward Cooke, now L. Chief Iustice of the Co[m]mon Pleas, about a nihil dicit, & some other points vttered by him in two late preambles, to his sixt and seauenth partes of Reports.	Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610.	1609 (1609)	STC 19412; ESTC S114160	496,646	773

on leap As for example wheras the Pelagians did hold two principall heresies among other saith Bellarmine the one That euery sinne though neuer so little is mortall depriueth vs of Gods grace That there is no originall sinne in man especially in Infants of faithfull parents he auerreth that the Protestants of our dayes do concurre in both points In the first all generally that there is no sinne Veniall of his owne nature in the second with some distinction for that Zuinglius â—aith he denieth Originall sinne in all Caluin and Bucer in Christian Infants only This is Cardinall Bellarmines assertion his latin words be these 62. Zuinglius negat simpliciter peccatum originale in quolibet homine Bucerus autem Caluinus solÃ¹m in filijs â—idelium quos dicunt sanctos nasci saluari etiam sine baptismo Zuinglius doth absolutly deny originall sinne to be in any man but Bucer and Caluin do only deny the same in the children of the faithfull whome they say to be borne Saints and to be saued also without baptisme So as Bellarmine is guilfully abused by M. Morton in setting downe his opinion as though he had said that Caluin had denyed with the Pelagians that there is any originall synne at all in Infants though lesse in the children of the faithfull citing his latin wordes in the margent peruersely â—hus Pelagiani docebant non esse in hominibus peccatum oriâ—inale praecipuÃ¨ in filijs fidelium idem docent Caluinus Bucerus The Pelagians did teach that there was not originall synne in men and especially in the chilâ—ren of the faithfull the same do teach Caluin Buâ—er Thus he Whereas he saith differently as you â—aue heard that Caluin Bucer denyed it only in the â—hildren of the faithfull granting it in the rest and â—his could not M. MortoÌ„ but see know conseâ—uently is taken in a witting formall lye that knowâ—th one thing yet writeth the contary 63. And herupon wheras he willed me to aske of Cardinall Bellarmine in secret Confession with what conscience he had charged Caluin with the heresy of the Pelagians â—hat denyed originall synne in all men I must aske him in open confession with what conscience he could so â—alsify Bellarmine in making him to say that which he â—id not for that he doth not say also absolutly that Caluin denieth all originall sinne in all Infants but only in the childrin of the faithfull this doth not the L. Iesuite Valentia any way contradict as falsely heere is insinuated that he doth but rather to the contrary he expresly auouchâ—th the same this in the very place heere cited by M. Morton saying Zuinglio Caluino visum est filios â—idelium non contrahere peccatum originale It seemed to Zuinglius and Caluin that the children of the faithfull do not coÌ„tract originall synne and he quoteth the places where it is to be found in their workes and the same he doth in his 4. Tome vpon S. Thomas ciâ—ing other places of Caluiâ— where he houldeth the â—ame doctrine So as in this point Bellarmine and Valentia haue no more contradiction betweene them then it pleaseth M. Morton to deuise of his owne head and to publish in their names contrary to their owne apparent wordes meaning 64. But he citeth a place of Valentia that may seeme to make to the contrary where he saith Caluin and other Protestants are so farre oâ— from denying Originall sinne that they do monstrously extend the nature therof euen vnto persons regenerate and for this he quoteth certayne places oâ— Valenâ—ia as he might also haue done diuers of Bellarmineâ—or â—or he relateth of Caluin the very same and setteth downe the latin according to his owne English though not a litle differing from the wordes of the Author but that which most importeth is that he wittingly and deceiptfully abuseth the Reader with this citation as though Valentia did contradict both himselfe and Bellarmine and said That Caluin and Bucer were â—arre of from denying Originall sinne in the children of the faithfull Wheras he saith not so but that they do not absolutly deny all originall synne as the Pelagians did and as Zuinglius before is charged to haue done togeather with the Anabaptistes as Melancthon witnesseth and before them agayne the Armenians Albanenses and others but only denyed the same in the children of the faithfull as hath beene said and in the rest they graunted it and not this only but monstrously also do the said Caluin Luther and other Protestants extend the nature and guylt of originall synne eueÌ„ vnto such as are regenerate christened which is to be vndersâ—ood in that they hold that the very motions of concupiscence called foâ—es are synnes in themselues euen without the conâ—ent of our mindes which is an other extreme opâ—osition to Catholicke doctryne that teacheth these â—otioÌ„s not to be synnes at all without some coÌ„sent â—ealded vnto them but yet this assertion of Valentiaâ—s â—s not contrary nor contradictory to that which â—ardinall Bellarmine and himselfe affirmed before of â—aluin to wit that with the Pelagians he holdeth â—hat the InfaÌ„ts of faithfull people are deuoyd of oriâ—â—nall synne for that those motions of concupisceÌ„ce â—hich he calleth originall synnes in Christians aâ—â—lt are not in infants and therby he denyeth origiâ—all sinne in Christian Infants and granteth it in â—â—em that be of age in both which he is oppoâ—â—te to the Catholicke Church Let M. Mort. see how ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ can defend him from contradiction to himselfe ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ I haue defended Cardinall Bellarmine and Gregorius de â—alentia â—5 There remaineth then only to examine the â—eason alleaged by M. Morton why Bellarmines charge â—f Pelagianisme against Caluin could not be true thatâ—saith â—saith he this doctrine oâ— denying originall sinne was the proâ—er heresy of the Pelagians out of which confession of â—he L. Iesuite Valentia M. Morton would inferre that â—or so much as this was the proper heresy of the Peâ—â—gians therfore it could not be of the Protestants â—hich reason is so wise as it can serue to nothing â—ut to make the reader laugh For albâ—it the Pelaâ—â—ans were the peculiar Authors of this heresy yet â—ight the â—ame be made coÌ„mon by participation â—o doth Valentia expresly say that this heresy was â—aken vp afterward both by the Armâ—nians Albanenses Anabaptists citing Castro and Melancthon for the same So as to cite this reason or a proofe that Caluin did not deny orginaâ—l synne in Infants â—or that our owne L. Iesuite Valentia doth say that it was the proper errours of the Pelagians which yet are not his words but S. Augustines cited by him for the same is as ridiculous an inference as if a man should say it was the proper errour of Arius and his fellowes in old time to deny the equality of the Sonne of God with his Father ergo it cannot be that the moderne Arians of Transiluania

and other places do hould the same now and it was the peculier doctrine of Berengarius and his adherents to deny the Reall Presence ergo the Protestants of England at this day cannot be charged with that doctrine And doth not euery body see the vanity of this inference Wherfore his conclusion is to be noted I let passe saith he a dozeâ— such criminations cast by him vpon Protestants which by the testimonies of his owne Doctors may be proued to haue byn lewd and intollerable slaunders Wherto I answere that hitherto he hath not beene able to shew any one we shall see what he will say afterward But in the meane space I leaue it to the modest Reader to iudge where the lewdnesse doth remayne if any be 66. And to this consideration I add another that wheras Cardinall Bellarmine did charge Caluin and Caluinists with two principall errors of the Pelagians the one that which now hath bene handled of denying Originall sinne in children and Infants of the faithâ—ull and the second of denying the difference of Veniall and Mortall sinnes and holding that by euery least sinne we leese our iustice and consequently that all sinne is mortall Bellarmine citing for the same the testimony of S. Hierome who ascribeth that for heresy vnto the Pelagians and wheras in like manner he proueth the same heresy not only to be held by Luther and Melancthon but also by Caluin in diuers parts of his workes as lib. 2. Instit. cap. 8. Â§ 85. lib. 3. cap. 4. Â§ 28. c. M. Morton taking vpoÌ„ him to cleare Caluin in the former charge â—â—out originall sinne though so vnluckely as you â—â—ue heard saith neuer a word against this second â—â—out the distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes â—herby is â—uident in all probability that he admitâ—â—ed that for true and consequently yealded secretly â—â—at Caluinists do agree with the Pelagians in this heâ—â—sy though he storme sharply as you haue heard aâ—â—inst Bellarmine for charging Caluin with any point ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ Pelagianisme at all And this fraud or frailty he coÌ„â—itteth commonly in all the rest of the heresies â—â—iected denying the one weakly and by his silence â—â—anting the other as now by experience you shall ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ THE SECOND INIVRIOVS â—â—iâ—ction against Cardinall Bellarmine for false imputation of the Nouatian-heresy Â§. VIII FROM the fourteenth heresy wherin Cardinall Bellarmine sheweth the Protestants to participate â—ith the Pelagians as you haue heard M. Morton starâ—â—th backe to the sixt of participation with the Noâ—â—tians in these words He that is Bellarmine maketh â—rotestaÌ„ts guilty saith he of the heresy of the Nouatiâ—â—s in taking froÌ„ the Church all power of reconciliating men vnâ—â— God when as his owne Authors do note that the â—eresy of the Nouatians was this videlicet to deny â—ny man that should sinne after Baptisme all hope of remission ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ sinnes although he should repent Yea and also Bellarâ—ine himselfe in behalfe of Protestants confesseth â—lse where that they require repentance and faith in Chriâ—tians that they may be iustified and obtaine remission of sinnes Nor this only but there is no difference betweene vs saith he and Protestants about repentance as it is a conuersion vnto God wiâ—h detestation of sinne or as it consisteth in outward signes of sorrow weeping confâ—ssâ—on and outward chasticementsâ— yea and almost all oâ— them allow an outward rite of absolution But the only coÌ„trouersy betweene vs is whether Pennance be properly a Sacrament â—he contradiction is this to impute vnto Protestants an heresy which taketh away all maÌ„ner oâ— repentance hope of remissioÌ„ for sin past yet to acknowledge in theÌ„ a contrary orthodoxall truth which is to proâ—esâ—e a necessity of repentance reconciliation remisâ—ioÌ„ of â—â—nnes Thus far he 68. And if we stand attent in this place we shall see no lesse fraudulent dealing then in the former if not more to make apperance of contrariety difference betwene Cardinall Bellarmine other Catholick Authors about the heresy of the Nouatians which though it could be proued yet doth it not inferre as euery man may see the principall conclusion oâ— the question that there were willfull malice But all is full of fraud as you will perceaue and the reason is not so much I suppose for that he delighteth himselfe in lying wilfully as before hath byn touched as the necessity of his cause which driueth him to vse the helpe of these shifts or els to say nothing And this am I forced often to note to the Reader for that it is lightly a perpetuall obseruation in him 69. His driâ—t then is if you marke it well to argue Cardinall Bellamine of falsity in that he affirmeth the Protestants of our dayes to ioyne with the old heretickes the Nouatians in taking from the Church all power of reconciling men vnto God for those are Bellarmines words though curtally recâ—ted by M. Morton out of his latin text as presently you shall see and to conâ—radict the Cardinall in this he cyteth the wordes of Alphonsus de Castro that saith that the heresy of the â—â—uatiaÌ„s was to deny any man who should sinne aftâ—r Baptisme ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ hope of remission of synnes although he should repent But â—ow these two are neyther contradictory nor conâ—â—ary if they be well considered For that the Nouaâ—â—â—ns are held to teach both these poynts first prinâ—â—pally that there was no power left in the Church â—â—to Priests to reconcile and remit sinnes to such as â—â—ll after Baptisme especially into grieuous sinnes ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ testifieth S. Cyprian in a speciall Epistle against Noâ—â—tianus and S. Ambrose in his booke de Poenitentia and â—thers And this first part of their errour was contraâ—â—ues Ecclesiae against the keys of the Church or power â—â— Priests to remit sinnes and heerin all authors do â—â—ree But the second part of their errour went furâ—â—er as some do gather out of the ancient Fathers ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ testifyeth Suarez though others be of differeÌ„t â—â—inions which was to deny furthermore besydes â—â—e SacrameÌ„t all vertue of PeÌ„nance whatsoeuer wheâ—â—er priuate or Sacramentall especially in great sinâ—es as by the words of Alphonsus de Castro heere recited â—ay seeme to appeare â—0 Of these two errors then the first and not â—â—e second is ascribed by Bellarmine to the ProtestaÌ„ts â—o witt that they deny the power of Pennance as ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ is a Sacrament that is to say as it conteineth not â—nly a priuate detestation of sinne in the synner but â—â—so the absolution or remission therof by the Priest ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ the publicke Minister of the Church The other â—â—rour of denying all vse of priuate repentance eyâ—â—er inwardly or outwardly by sorâ—ow sighes tears â—nd the like is not ascribed to Protâ—stâ—nts by Bellarâ—ine so as for M. MortoÌ„ to bring in the one as contraâ—ictory to the other that for as much as Alphonsus de Castro saith that the Nouatians did deny all power of â—eÌ„nance therfore Bellarmine saith

from plaine auerring the same as he doth not so much as once affirme it of himselfe but only relateth it as passionate wordes of cerâ—â—ine Schismaticall Priests of Liege that were censured and appointed to be punished by Pope Paschalis the second as more largely we haue shewed before out of the second tome of Councells where their whole speach is set downe vnder this title Cleri Leodiensis ad Paschalem secundum Querimonia And is this simplicity in writing Is this sincerity Is this tollerable in a Minister of simple truth who vaunteth to his Maiesty of the constant assurance of his vpright conscience 8. Wheras Franciscus Costerus in his Enchiridion of Controuersies handling this argumeÌ„t for the authority of the B. of Rome that for so much as the old Popes before Constantines tyme after did take vpon them as heades of the Vniuersall Christian world to decide Cases of all Countreyes concerning Religion and affirmed the same to pertayne vnto them it is very lyke saith he or rather certaine that if that had beene by vsurpation or false meanes some Catholick Prince Prelate or writer would haue reproued the sâ—me And then he addeth Atqui verÃ² nemo hactenus fuit Catholicus vâ—l Princeps vel Presul vel Scriptor qui mendacij vel malae fidei Romanos arguerit And yet neuerthelesse hitherto there hath beene no Catholicke eyther Prince Prelate or Writer that euer argued these Roman Bishops of lying or false dealing therin Which wordes M. Morton peruerteth egregiously as though Costerus had affirmed that no writers Prince or Prelate had euer accused Romanistes or Roman writers of any falshood in writing which is so notable a cosenage as a man of any good conscience would neuer deuise For that Costerus was not so simple or ignorant to affirme that no man â—uer accused Roman writers of falshood seing and hearing dayly so many clamours and calumniations of Protestants against them but his assertion is that no such exceptions were euer taken against these ancient Roman Bishops that gaue their â—iues for Christ and his Religion and consequently it is a notable imposture in M. Morton to obtrude to his Reader moderne Roman wryters for ancient Roman Bishops of which fraud see more before Cap. 3. num 13.14 c. 9. Furthermore pag. 25. of this his preamble he goeth about to proue Gratian the Compiler of Popes Decrees to haue falsified a Canon of the Councell of Mileuet wherin S. Augustine was and for this cause as though he had now prooued the same he writeth in the margent this note Gratian a falsificator for that he had added to the same Canon a certayne exception which Cardinall Bellarmine doth not allow but now vpon better search it is found that M. Morton himselfe is the falsificator and not Gratian both for that he cutteth of fraudulently the beginning and first wordes of that Canon and peruerteth the last For whereas the question was in Africa whether Priests Deacons or inferiour Clergy men might appeale froÌ„ their Bishops of that CouÌ„trey vnto others abroad for of Bishops there was no question but they might the said Councell of Mileuet decreeth thus in the forsayd Canon which is in order the 22. Placuit vt Presbyteri Diaconi vel caeteri inâ—eriores Clerici in causis quas habuerint qui de iudicijs Episcoporum suorum questi fuerint vicini Episcopi eos audiant c. QuÃ²d si ab eis prouocandum putauerint non prouocent nisâ—ad Africana Concilia vel ad Primates ProuinciaruÌ„ suarum We de decree that Priests Deacons and other inferiour clergy men in the causes which they shall haue if they complayne of the iudgemâ—nts of their owne Bishops let the next neighbour Bishops heare them c. And if any thinke good to appeale it shall not be but to the Councells of Africa or to the Primateâ— of their owne Prouinces c. So saith the CanoÌ„ But M. Mort. to make it seeme that this restraint was of the Appeales of Bishops to the Roman Sea doth cut of cunningly the first words of Priests Deacoâ—s and other inferiour Clergie men set downe in the Canon And was not this a cunning cut 10. And then againe wheras Gratian did by way of Commentary as hath byn sayd adde this exception Nisi â—ortÃ¨ Romanam Sedem appellauerint except perchance any should appeale to the RomaÌ„ Sea which exception Câ—rdinall Bellarmine vpon good reason doth in this thing impugne as not agreeing with the matter in hand M. Morton doth accuse Gratian as if by falsiâ—ication he had added this clause as a part of the Canon and therfore noteth him for a falsificatour in his margent but the falsiâ—ication in both points is proued to haue byn on M. MortoÌ„s part as yow may read before more largely cap. 3. num 18.19.20 c. So as heere he is conuinced of a double falsity 11. Againe Cardinall Bellarmine taking vpon him in his Treatise of the Notes oâ— the Church to proue that it is one euident note of heresie and hereticks to hold any one condemned errour that was held by any ancient hereticke and that the Protestants of our tyme do hold many he giueth two examples out of the heresyes of the Pelagians shewing how Caluin and diuers other Protestants did simbolize with them in two principall heads of doctrine wherof the first was about Originall sinne in Infantes which the Pelagians denyed and especially in the children of the faythfull the other about the distinctioÌ„ of veniall mortall synns which they also denied and that Caluin Zuinglius Bucer and other Protestants did hold the same but with some distinction concerning Originall sinne for that Zuinglius denied originall sinne in all men Caluin and Bucer in Christian infants only and coÌ„sequently that it was Pelagianisme Bellarmines words are these Zuinglius negat simpliciter peccatum originale in quolibet homine Bucerus auteÌ„ Caluinus â—olÃ¹m in filijs fideliuÌ„ quos dicunt sanctos nasci saluari etiam sine Baptismo that is Zuinglius doth absolutely deny Originall sinnâ— to be in any man but Bucer Caluin do onely deny the same in the children of the faithfull whom they say to be borne Saints and to be saued also without baptisme for which Bellarmine cyteth the places of the Authors themselues as Zuinglius lib. de baptis Bucer iâ— cap. 3. Matth. Calu. lib. 4. Institut cap. 15. Â§ 20. 12. Out of which discourse M. Morton seeking to find some obiections against Bellarmine pretermitteth first the one of the two heresies obiected to witt about the distinction of veniall mortall sinne and speaketh only of the poynt of Originall synne saying Let P. R. for a while take Cardinall Bellarmine into secret Conâ—ession and first aske him with what conscience he hath charged Caluin with the heresie of the Pelagians who denyed that there was any originall sinne in Infants especially in the children of faithfull Christians

to vse any Equiuocation when we are iustly demauÌ„ded by our lawfull Superiour and when no iniury or violence is vsed vnto vs is a greiuous mortall synne in our Catholicke doctrine and consequently she being lawfully dâ—maunded by S. Peter in a lawfull cause touching her owne vow promise no clause of reseruation could saue her speach from lying as our Minister doth foolishly imagine 26 Wherfore S. Peter as most lawfull Iudge and gouernour of the Vniuersall Church vnder Christ and the holy ghost in him did worthily punish that dissimulation and lying boâ—h in her and her huâ—baÌ„d for example of others in that beginning and for manifesting the great and speciall assistance of the holy ghost that assisted him should be in his successors to the worlds end in that their gouernment to the terrour of wicked men that should impugne it or otherwise deserue by their demerits to be punished by the same And thus much of his examples out of Scriptures which is but one as you see that much against himselfe his owne cause if I be not deceaued for that it proueth all Equiuocation is not lawâ—ull as he will needs suppose vs to hold 27. This was my discourse then Now let vs sâ—e how M. Morton doth ouerthrow my whole Treatise of Equiuocation out of this speach of myne and that with such euidency as no wit of man can possibly excuse me He beginneth his impugnation thus The supposed Equiuocation of the woman Saphyra saith he was this I haue sold it but for so much reseruing in her mynd for ought that you shall know which is agreable to their owne example of Equiuocation I am no Priest meaning to tell it you This later P. R. hath defended throughout his whole booke and now of the other he is inforced by the word of truth to say that it is a lye and that no clause of reseruation could saue it from a lye from whence it shall inuincibly follow that Priestes Equiuocation is a Satanicall lye these two speaches being so semblable in themselues as if he should say they differ then must the difference be eyther in respect of the speaâ—ers or in respect of the hearers This is his discourse â—alking much of the word of truth and the child of truth â—nd continuing still to promise what he will do what he will proue but as yet he proueth nothing He saith it will follow inuincibly that to answere I â—m no Priest to an incompetent Iudge if I be a Priest â—s a Satanicall lye for that such was the answere of â—aphyra vnto S. Peter I haue sold my possession for so much â—ith this reseruation of mind to tell you or to conferre â—n common But first how doth he proue that she had â—his meaning of reseruation in her mind It is but â— Mortons imagination to ascribe it vnto her for it â—ay more probably be thought that she had neuer â—ny such cogitation to make her speach lawfull by â—eseruation but absolutly to lye Which is most conâ—orme to the text it selfe of holy Scripture where it â—s said by S. Peter to Ananias Cur tentauit Satanas cor tuâ—m mentiri Spiritui Sancto Wherefore hath Sathan tempted thy hart to ly vnto the Holy ghost And againe Thou hast not lyed to men but to God Wherby it is euident that his and his wiues intention was to lye and to defraud the coÌ„munity of a part of their lands and that they had no cogitation at all of speaking a truth auoyding of lying by Equiuocation as the Priest hath and so haue all those that meane lawfully and with a good consciencâ— to couer a truth which they are not bound to vtter which properly we call equiuocation so as whosoeuer hath not this intentioÌ„ as it is to be supposed that Ananias Saphyra had not he doth not equiuocate but lye Which being so it is very great simplicity to abstaine froÌ„ a worse word for M. Morton to found his whole discourse vpon this matter and especially so vaine and vaunting a discourse as this is only vpon his owne supposall that the woman Saphyra had intention to equiuocate which if I deny as iustly I may all this glorious building falleth to the grouÌ„d But yet not to cut him of so short and put him to a non plus vpon the suddaine I am content to doe him this pleasure as to suppose with him that the poore woman might haue some such reseruation in her mind as M. Morton imagineth to wit that as the Priest saith truly I am no Priest with obligation to tell it you so shee might meane that I haue sold it for no more to acquaint you withall and then I say albeit we should admit this supposall it is denied by vs flatly that these two examples are alike as now I haue declared the one being vnlawfull the other not And what inuincible argumeÌ„t hath M. Morton thinke you now to proue that they are all one And that of the Priest to be as vnlawfull as the other of the woman You shall heare 28. If you say quoth he that they differ then must the difference be eyther in respect of the speakers or of the hearers We answere that of both for in the behalfe of the speaker there was obligation in Saphyra to answere the truth and in the hearer lawfull authority to demaund it for that he was lawfull Iudge but neither of these two things are in the Priest that is vnlawfully examined by the incoÌ„petent Iudge For that as the said Iudge is no Iudge consequently hath no authority to demaund matters preiudiciall to the party examined so hath the other no obligation to answere directly to his intention or interrogatory And what hath now M. Morton to reply to these so euident and important differences that make the one answere lawfull the other a lye 29. Surely it is a pittifull thing to see how he is puzled in this matter and would faine say somewhat and can find nothing wheron he may subsist or rest himselfe For first he beginneth with the person of the woman that is the speaker that did vnlawfully equiuocate vnto S. Peter comparing her to the person of the Priest that lawfully saith vnto â—n incompetent Iudge I am no Priest and findeth no â—reater difference betweene them but first that she ã€ˆâ—Šã€‰ a woman and he is a man and then that it is as possible â—r a Priest to lye as for a woman to tell truth But he dissemâ—leth the maine differeÌ„ce now mentioned that she â—ad obligatioÌ„ to tell the truth without equiuocatioÌ„ â— he not which is the substantiall differeÌ„ce indeed Heere theÌ„ is no plaine dealing to falter so manifestly â—n the very principall point that most imported â—0 Secondly he passeth to the person of the heaâ—er or Iudge and sayth there can be no difference â—etweene the two cases in that respect whether â—hey be competent or incompetent and this he pretendeth â—o proue out

Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Text snippets containing the quad