Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	body_n	part_n	sin_n	5,392	5	4.9129	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A09111	A treatise tending to mitigation tovvardes Catholike-subiectes in England VVherin is declared, that it is not impossible for subiects of different religion, (especially Catholikes and Protestantes) to liue togeather in dutifull obedience and subiection, vnder the gouernment of his Maiesty of Great Britany. Against the seditions wrytings of Thomas Morton minister, & some others to the contrary. Whose two false and slaunderous groundes, pretended to be dravvne from Catholike doctrine & practice, concerning rebellion and equiuocation, are ouerthrowne, and cast vpon himselfe. Dedicated to the learned schoole-deuines, cyuill and canon lavvyers of the tvvo vniuersities of England. By P.R.	Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610.	1607 (1607)	STC 19417; ESTC S114220	385,613	600

some other Christ himselfe without explicating his owne meaning in one parte of the sentence meant of the one sorte of death and in the other parte of the other For where he saith Your Fathers in the desert did eate Manna and are dead he meaneth there of the temporall death of the body and in the other clause of the Antithesis But he that shall eate of this bread shall not dye he meant of the eternall death of the soule though others also referre it to the eternall lyfe of the body after resurrection 48. In like manner that sentence of our Sauiour to the yonge man in S. Matthwes Ghospell Dimitte mortuos sepelire mortuos Suffer the dead to bury the dead hath a playne equiuocation Christ vnderstanding in the former those that were dead in spirite and in the second dead in body and yet was this no Cosenage nor deceipt in our Sauiour nor had it beene sacrilegious impiety to sweare it All which being so we hauing tantam nubem testium as S. Paul saith so great a cloud of witnesses and these omni exceptione maiores without exception for their credit and the absurdity and folly of this second proposition appearing so manifest in it selfe as it doth what should we stand to examine the arguments and reasons that may be brought for it by so fond a disputer as now Tho. Morton is proued to be For so much as no reason can serue for vpholding a paradox so ridiculous as this is euen to common sense And yet for that he putteth downe foure arguments or reasons for the same as before hath byn sayd let vs see breifly what they are 49. His first argument for this conclusion is drawne from the forme of an oath set downe by vs before and heere againe alleadged by him out of Tolet and other Authors of ours for of his owne he seemeth to haue 〈◊〉 That an oath is a religious inuocation of God eyther expresly or by impluation for witnes of our speach and the wordes 〈◊〉 or implicitè are added for that when we sweare by creatures we sweare by them in respect of the truth of God that is in them and so by God himselfe implicitè 50. Now then out of this principle T. M. taketh vpon him to proue this proposition That whensoeuer or to whom 〈◊〉 we sweare we are bound in conscience to answere directly that is to say to sweare to his intention to whome we sweare which we haue proued before by generall consent of Deuines lawyers to be false and Cicero himselfe hath so determined the case in like manner as yow haue heard when a man should be compelled to sweare to theeues but yet let vs heare how Tho. Morton will proue this his new and strange Deuinity His syllogisme is this in his owne wordes The competency of God saith he by whome we sweare maketh euery one competent Iudges and hearers to whome we sweare But by swearing by God wheme we cannot deceaue we Religiously protest that in swearing we intend not to deceaue Ergo Our deceipfull Equiuocating is a prophanation of the Religious worshippe of God 51. This syllogisme I leaue to be discussed by Cambridge Logitians where I heare say the man learned his logicke if he haue any for heere he sheweth very little or none at all no boy being among vs of foure monethes standing in Logicke or Sophistry which will not hisse at this argument both for forme and matter For as for forme it is toto ridiculous the syllogisme hauing no medium terminum at all nor the cōclusion any coherence with the premisses nor with his chiefest purpose that he would proue nay which is most absurde wheras according to Aristotle whome as yow haue heard T. M. tearmeth the Oracle of Logitians a good Syllogisme hath only three terminos wherof the one is called Maior extremus the other Minor extremus and the third Medius terminus this syllogisme of his hath six terminos and wheras the Medius terminus should be repeated in the Maior and Minor propositions the conclusion should consist only of the extremes as if a man should say Euery man is a liuing Creature Peter is a man Ergo Peter is a liuing Creature Heere the word man is medius terminus and so repeated in the Maior and Minor proposition Peter and lyuing creature are the two extremes wherof is framed the third proposition or conclusion by connexion of the said extreemes by vertue of the medius terminus that hath part in them both 52. But now Thomas Mortons syllogisme hath no such medius terminus nor any such connexion of his propositions togeather but euery one of them hath his extremes to wit his 〈◊〉 and praedicatum separatly not one depending of the other and consequently it is no syllogisme or argument at all concluding any thing in forme no more then this syllogisme Euery man is a liuing Creature Euery oxe is a four-footed beast Ergo Euery Asse hath two long eares Where yow see that there be six termini as in Tho. Mortons sillogisme without connexion or dependance one of the other And as much concludeth this as that And now compare this his skill I pray yow with that bragg of his in the beginning of this his Treatise against Equiuocation when he said to his aduersary Dare yow appeale to Logicke This is the art of artes and the high tribunall of reason and truth it selfe which no man in any matter whether it be case of humanity or Deuinity can iustly refuse who would not thinke but that the man were very skilfull in that art wherin he presumeth to giue such a Censure 53. But now let vs helpe him out to make his foresaid syllogisme in forme It should haue gone thus if he would haue said any thing in true forme The competency of God by whome we sweare maketh euery one competent Iudges to whom we sweare But in euery oath we sweare by God either exprefly or implicatiuely Ergo in euery Oath they are competent Iudges to whom we sweare And then by an other inference againe he might haue argued that vnto euery competent and lawfull Iudge we haue confessed before that a man is bound to answere directly and to sweare to his intention and not only to his owne Ergo in no oath to whomsoeuer may a man Equiuocate which is his principall proposition And thus had his forme of reasoning byn good according to the rules of Logicke though in matter it had ●yn false as now also it is For that his first Maior proposition can neuer be proued to wit That the competency of God by whom we sweare maketh euery one competent Iudges to whom we sweare that is to say for so much as God by whom we sweare is competent Iudge of all this maketh euery one to whome we sweare by God to be our competent and lawfull Iudge which is most absurd euen in common sense For that a man

by a certaine excellency doth only belōg vnto him as Caluin is accused to say which in all sensible construction must import that the Sonne is inferiour vnto him in substance of Godhead which is a cheif point of Arrianisine wheron the old Arrians did principally stand in all their disputes against Catholickes 102. And wheras T. M. for his last defense of Caluin saith that he was so farre of from Arrianisme that our owne Bellarmine doth acknowledge that Caluin did impugne the doctrine of the Arrians in this also as in all the rest he vseth great fraud For first Bellarmine hath not this affirmatiue proposition as heere is set downe Caluin did impugne the doctrine of the Arrians but only he confesseth that Caluin and other Sectaries who out of their wicked doctrine cōsenting with the old Arrians haue giuen occasion to the ofspring of new Arrians in our dayes doe notwithstanding write bookes against them as 〈◊〉 did which thing may arise vpon diuers occasions concerning either their persons or sect Bellarmins wordes are these Albeit Luther Melanchthon Caluin and their 〈◊〉 doe 〈◊〉 Arrius for an Heretick yet can they not deny but that themselues in their writinges did sow the seedes of this errour from whence afterwardes sprong vp these new Arrians which they themselues impugne So as Bellarmine doth not speake in this place particularly of Caluins impugning all the doctrine of Arrians as heere this man would seeme to impose vpon him citing falsly this sentence out of him Arrianos Caluinus impugnauit and no more but that he and other Sectaries of our dayes would seeme in some thinges to impugne thē wheras in other thinges they held with them For so presently in the very next wordes doth Bellarmine expresly declare himself where hauing reduced the Heresies of Arrius to two heades saith that the former sort are held publickly by the new Arrians of our dayes wherof the seedes were sowne by Caluin and others but the second sort are held expressely by Caluin and other moderne Sectaries Alterum 〈◊〉 Arrianorum docent omnes huius temporis Haeretici saith he So as in this also there is notable fraudulent dealing of T. M. as yow see yea nothing almost commeth from him without fraude 103. But as for this bragge of his his fellows that Caluin did write diuers books against the new Arrians and Trinitarians of our time as namely against Seruetus Gentilis Alciatus Blandrata and others Doctor Hunnius that hath read their workes his can best make answere decide the matter who saith Pridem hoc inclaruit in orbe Christiano quibus ex Scholis Ecclesiis ipsa illa 〈◊〉 portenta prodierint It is now well knowne in the Christian world out of what schooles and Churches those foule monsters the new Arrians Trinitarians haue proceeded that is to say from the Caluinistes c. And wheras saith he it is vaunted that Caluin did write against these Heretickes wee deny not but that therin he did well albeit in truth he gaue occasion to the diuell by his manner of dealing to raise vp no small number of enemies against the blessed Trinity and consequently he did no otherwise then if one hauing holpen some to set fire on a house should after the flame therof waxeth boysterous help other men also for extinguishing or restrayning the same So Hunnius who finally concludeth with this prayer Dominus Iesus Satanam sub pedes nostros conterat citò a lue Caluinistica clementer liberet Ecclesiam suam Amen Our Lord Iesus crush Satan quickly vnder our feet and of his clemency deliuer his Church from the infection of Caluinistes Thus he and with this praier he endeth his booke 104. And now if this man had byn a Papist great exceptions no doubt would be taken against him but being a brother of the same Ghospell one of those oath promise or other band of conscience As if an vniust Iudge or Magistrate should aske vs things that are without his iurisdiction to the preiudice of our selues or of others as by enquiring after secretes that doe not appertaine to him Or if a iealous husband should aske his wife whether she had euer comitted falshood against him proposing the present paine of death except she answered directly therunto and many other such like cases which I purposely pretermit And it seemeth that Thomas Morton hath not studied them but Catholicke writers both Deuines Scholasticall and Positiue as also Lawyers both Canon and ciuill among vs doe discusse how men may beare themselues therin without sin or offence to God when they fall out and this with more seuerity against lying then any Protestant Author is seene to doe as in the sequent Consideration will appeare 24. And heere I aske Thomas Morton further what he will say to all the stratagems in warre for so much as there may be aswell lying in factes as in wordes according as our S. Thomas and other Deuines doe hold how will T. M. excuse these stratagems that is to say pollicies deceiptes and dissimulations of enemies in warres from lies Will he condemne all such stratagems as sinfull as heathenish as hellish as impious Why then doe his Protestāt Captaines Leaders vse them why doe his Protestāt Ministers that liue with them allow therof Nay that which is much more why doth S. Augustine approue the same whose sentēce is Cùm iustum bellum quis susceperit vtrum aperta pugna vel insidiis vincat nihil ad iustitiam interest When a man taketh vpon him a iust war it importeth nothing to the iustice of the cause whether he ouercome by open war or sleights which sentence is so well liked by our Popes lawyers and Deuines as it is put into the corps of the Canon law And what will T. M. then say to all this yea to many expresse examples in Scripture it self 25. And namely what will he say to the fact of Iosue that going about to take the Citty of Hai gaue order to his Captaines Ponite insidias post Ciuitatem nos terga vertemus c. Lay an ambush behinde the Citty by night and we shall follow with an army in the norning and when those of Hai shal come forth to assaile vs we will seeme to flee simulantes metum feigning to be afraid What will he say to this stratageme will he deny it to be a dissimulation and consequently also an Equiuocation in fact The matter is euident to the contrary by the text it self will he call it a scarre of infirmity of the old Testament to vse his owne Ministeriall or rather Manichean phrase and thinke to escape therby But against this is the expresse order and commandment of God himself Pone insidias vrbi post eam lay an ambush behinde the Citty ergo stratagems in warre though they conteine deceiptes dissimulations and Equiuocations may be vsed in some cases and that lawfully without the sinne of

ly you may not aduise her according to S. Augustine before recited no not for the sauing of her owne life or of any other to destroy or disgrace herself by her owne cōfession when the cryme is secret nor any witnes or other proofes extant were hard to counsell her and against equity if then without making a ly she might escape and deliuer her self by vsing some equiuocation of words will you call it heathenish 〈◊〉 a monstrous hydra But I do hope by this time that yow are somwhat calmed in your former heates against this doctrine and therfore I will vrge no further your outragious tearmes against the same but nowe shall passe to set downe the particuler cases wherin our Doctors do hold that some equiuocation or amphibologie of words may be lawfully vsed without ly or other offence OF CERTAINE PARTICVLER CASES AND OCCASIONS VVherin it may be lawfull to vse the manner of Equiuocation or Amphybology before set downe either in speach or oath VVith the reasons therof CHAP. X. HYtherto haue we treated of Amphibologie and Equiuocation in generall to wit what their nature is how different from lying consequently that in some causes and occurrent occasions they may be lawfull and vsed by good men without sinne or offence and so haue byn by 〈◊〉 holy persons yea often by the holy Ghost himselfe as before largely hath byn declared Now then for more perspicuitie it remayneth that we lay forth breifely some particuler and principall cases wherin the said vse of Amphibologie or Equiuocation by learned Catholick Deuynes is admitted and allowed which we shall do with the greatest breuitie and perspicuity that we may considering the great variety of Authors matters and opinions that vpon such Cases doe arise the seueral explication wherof would require a great volume But it shall be sufficient for the iudicious Reader to vnderstand that as in all other humaine and morall matters there may be and is commonly difference of opinions how this or that ought to be done or practised though they agree in the Doctrine so heere also when and how and in what wordes and what forme os speach a man may iustlie vse Amphibologie or Equiuocation for couering of Secrets that are not conuenient to be vttered all doe not agree but haue their different iudgements though in the principall they doe all concurre that in some cases the said Amphibologie or equiuocation may be lawfully vsed without lying or other sinne of which Cases we shall heere recite some principall The first case about the secret of Confession §. 1. 2. THE first and most generall case wherein all Schole Doctors without exception do agree that such Equiuocation may be vsed is in matters appertayning to the seale of Sacramentall Confession to wit if a Cōfessour or Priest that hath heard an other mans confession should be demaunded whether such a one had confessed such a syn vnto him or not though no wayes nor vpon any consideration whatsoeuer he may tell a lie according to our former Doctrine yet may he not only say nescio I know nothing but answere directly that he hath not confessed any such thing vnto him albeit he had so done and that the said Confessour may not say but sweare also this answere of his vnderstanding reseruing in his mynd that the penitent hath not cōfessed the same vnto him so as he may vtter it The reason of which answer albeit diuers Authors do diuersly explicate as that this was confessed to him not as to man but vnto God or as to Gods substitute in the tribunall of Cōfession and the like wherin I remit the Reader to Dominicus Sotus a learned Deuine and to Doctor Nauar no lesse renowned lawyer who handle the matter at large in seueral Treatises yet both they and all other Deuines and lawyers as hath byn said do hold that in this case of Confession the obligation of secrecy is so great as for no respect whatsoeuer nor to what person soeuer though he be neuer so lawful a Iudge Prince Prelate or Superiour nor for sauing of a whole Kingdome or common wealth and much lesse the liues of any particuler men or women or of the confessour himselfe no nor of the whole world togeather if it were possible or to worke neuer so much good therby nor though the said Cōfessour were put in neuer so great torments imò si mille mortes 〈◊〉 essent if a thousand deathes saith Tolet were to be suffered by him yet might he not vtter the same And further if the Case should fall out that he could not confesse his owne sinnes without giuing some particuler and personall suspicion of the other vnto his confessour he were bound vnder sinne to pretermit his owne confession vntill he found another Confessour vnto whome without this perill he might be confessed 3. Which sacred and inuiolable seale of this Sacramentall secrecy being considered and that Amphibologicall and Equiuocall speach with a true reseruation of mynd is no lye at all as in the precedent Chapters hath byn largely proued it is inferred that a Confessour in this case is not only allowed to vse the same prudently when need is for couering of the said secrecy but is bound also in conscience thervnto vnder greiuous sinne when by no other meanes of silence diuersiō or euasion the said secrecy can be concealed 4. And in this al Schole-Deuines whatsoeuer do agree as hath byn said and namely all those whome before we haue mentioned in the precedent Chapter and first point therof and among other M. Mortons Genesius in like manner is with vs against him whom he hath picked out as singular and single among all Catholicke writers in this behalfe denying the lawfulnes of Equiuocation in sundry other Cases but in this granting and auouching the same with great asseueration in these wordes Deus Ecclesia ipsaque ratio naturalis arcanum sacrae confessionis quod multis scriptis legibus nominatim est sancitum tam sanctum esse voluerunt vt in nulla prudenti modò coacta sic cognitorum peccatorum inficiatione possit esse vel periurium vel mandacium propter Sacramenti huius maiestatem maximam publicamque Religionis Christianae perturbationem God and the 〈◊〉 and naturall reason it selfe would haue this secret of holy Confession to be so inuiolable which is established also by many written lawes of the Church as by no denyall of sinnes so knowne in confession so it be prudently done and vpon compulsion can there be either periury or lying both in regard of the Maiesty of this Sacrament of Confession and of the great and publicke perturbation of Christian Religion which would otherwise ensue if matters reuealed in confession might at any time vpon any occasion be vttered againe So he Holding as you see that no denyall of matters heard or knowne by confession in what sort soeuer can be a lye or periurie the

his former proposition For if it were lawfull for Saint Athanasius to vse this Equiuocation in speach and fact for deluding his persecutors then had it bene lawfull also to sweare the same without sacrilegious prophanation if they had vrged him vnto it For as all Deuines hold that which may lawfully be said may also lawfully be sworne what will T. M. answere tò this what will he answere to that euasion of S. Paul mentioned by vs before when for escaping the hands of the Iewes that pursued him in iudgement he vsed an apparent equiuocall speach saying That his trouble was about the hope and resurrection of the dead Paul knowing saith the text that one parte of them that pursued him were of the Saduces that denyed the resurrection of the dead and the other of Pharises that held the contrary he cryed out in the iudgement-place saying De spe resurrectione mortuorum ego iudicor I am called to iudgement about the hope and resurrection of the dead which was true in one sense but false in another wherby the Pharises being deceyued tooke his parte Et facta est contentio sayth the text inter Pharisaeos Saducaeos soluta est multitudo and vpon this equiuocall speach there arose a dissention betwene the Pharises and Saduces one interpreting it in one sense and another in another and so the people departing the iudgement brake vp And what will Thomas Morton now answere to this did S. Paul lye in this Equiuocation or was his dissimulation impious for that one part was deceaued or had he committed 〈◊〉 prophanation if he had sworne it I demaund him also of that equiuocall oath of the Patriarch Ioseph who in one conference with his brethren did twice sweare vnto them 〈◊〉 Equiuocation that is to say with a reserued sense different from that he vttered to them in wordes the Scripture saying VVhen his brethren had adored him he knowing them to be his brethren spake sharpely vnto them as to strangers saying yow are spyes sent to discouer the strength of this land I sweare by the health of King Pharao yow shall not go hence c. And againe Per salutem Pharaonis c. I sweare by the health of Pharao that yow are spyes when notwithstanding he knew them not to be spyes so thought of them in his mynd And will T. M. say that this was a lye or at least a sacrilegious prophanation of an oath But I must go yet a little further in prosecution of this folly against the Minister 44. What then will he say to all those former examples of Equiuocall propositions which I haue alleaged out of holy Scripture out of the new Testamént and from the mouth of our Sauiour himselfe especially such as haue verball equiuocation in them As Dissolue this temple and I will build it vp againe in three dayes where the word temple hath euidently two significations and was taken in the one by Christ our Sauiour in the other by the Iewes And the other Our friend Lazarus sleepeth And againe The maid is not deed but sleepeth where the word sleepeth is equiuocall and hath two significations the one of death the other of naturall sleepe and Christ vnderstood it in the one and his hearers in the other And so the like where Christ said vnto the Iewes Abraham vidit diem meum gauisus est Abraham did see my day and did reioyce the word see is equiuocall and signifieth eyther seing in flesh or seing in spirite and the Iewes being deceyued with the equiuocation of the word vnderstood it in one sense and Christ in another wherupon they said vnto him Thou hast not yet fifty yeares of age and hast thou seene Abraham And therupon tooke stones to cast at him 45. And the very like example is of our Sauiours speach vnto the Samaritan at Iacobs well by the Citty of Sychar If thow knewest the gyfte of God and who it is that saith to thee Giue me water thou wouldest aske of him and he would giue thee liuing water where the word water being equiuocall signifieth both the element of water and heauenly grace which is the water of lyfe euerlasting which Equiuocation the woman not vnderstanding tooke it in the common sense of naturall water and asked him how he could giue her water for so much as he had no bucket to draw it vp in but Christ our Sauiour addeth an other equiuocall speach to her saying That he which shall drinke of the water which I will giue him shall neuer thirst more where not only the word water but the word thirst also is equiuocall hath two different senses wherby the woman deceaued said Giue me I pray of this water that I may thirst no more nor come hither to draw vnderstanding still of materiall water 46. Now I would demaund that for so much as all these speaches were manifestly equiuocall and had double senses and significations and that 〈◊〉 ech one of them the hearers were deceaued conceauing another sense then that which Christ mentally reserued to himselfe I would demaund I say whether notwithstanding this they were not true of themselues and whether Christ might not as well sweare them as speake them And if Thomas Morton will haue many examples togeather wherin Christ our Sauiour after his manner of swearing which is Amen amen dico vobis doth sweare or auouch by oath sundry equiuocall propositions let him looke vpon the later parte of the sixt Chapter of S. Iohn where Christ doth put the Antithesis betwene himselfe and Moyses and betwene the bread that Moyses gaue from heauen that which he was to giue being his owne flesh and betwene the lyfe that Manna gaue and that which his flesh was to giue and he shall fynd many equiuocall propositions both verball and mentall auouched by our Sauiour vnder this kind of oath repeated at least three or foure tymes in that matter One example of ech kynd shall suffice 47. When he saith Amen amen dico vobis qui credit in me babet vitam aeternam Truly truly I say vnto yow that he who beleeueth in me hath lyfe euerlasting this is a mentall reserued proposition as before hath byn shewed for that it is not true generally that euery one that beleeueth in Christ hath lyfe euerlasting but he that beleeueth accordingly which was reserued in Christs mynd and then the wordes immediatly following Ego sum panis vitae I am the bread of lyfe haue a verball equiuocation signifying of bread that gaue tēporall lyfe or spirituall lyfe as also the other words that ensue Your Fathers did eate manna in the deserte and are dead but he that shall eate of this bread shall not dye Dying heere signifyeth eyther the death of the body or the death of the soule and Christ meant of the later 〈◊〉 the Iewes of the first Nay which is more to be obserued as Euthymius noteth and