Touching the second objection, that Bucer and Calvin deny original
sin, though not generally, as did Zuinglius, yet at least in the
children of the faithful. If he had said that these men affirm the
earth doth move, and the heavens stand still, he might have as soon
justified it against them, as this he now saith.

Very noticeable. A similar passage occurs even so late as in Sir Thomas
Brown, just at the dawn of the Newtonian system, and after Kepler. What
a lesson of diffidence! [8]


Ib. p. 148.

For we do not deny the distinction of venial and mortal sins; but do
think, that some sins are rightly said to be mortal and some venial;
not for that some are worthy of eternal punishment and therefore named
mortal, others of temporal only, and therefore judged venial as the
Papists imagine: but for that some exclude grace out of that man in
which they are found and so leave him in a state wherein he hath
nothing in himself that can or will procure him pardon: and other,
which though in themselves considered, and never remitted, they be
worthy of eternal punishment, yet do not so far prevail as to banish
grace, the fountain of remission of all misdoings.

Would not the necessary consequence of this be, that there are no
actions that can be pronounced mortal sins by mortals; and that what we
might fancy venial might in individual cases be mortal and 'vice
versa'.