Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	die_v	sin_n	sin_v	13,883	5	9.2456	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A07868	The Iesuits antepast conteining, a repy against a pretensed aunswere to the Downe-fall of poperie, lately published by a masked Iesuite Robert Parsons by name, though he hide himselfe couertly vnder the letters of S.R. which may fitly be interpreted (a sawcy rebell.)	Bell, Thomas, fl. 1593-1610.	1608 (1608)	STC 1824; ESTC S101472	156,665	240

for Christs sake and behold our Iesuite at a great Non plus I haue prooued both by the Scripture out of Saint Iohn and by the testimony of the holy Fathers and famous Popish Writers that the very Essence Nature and formality of sin is the transgression of Gods Lawe That Gods law is nothing else but his eternall reason or will decreeing what ought to be done or not to be done and consequently that euery sin is mortall as beeing against Gods reason Will and Law Now our Fryer being indeede at his wits end knoweth not what aunswere to make but saith at Randon that the Fathers onely define mortall sin He neither hath Rime nor Reason thus to say but we must if ye will admit his bare word for he is an honest man I warrant you his word is as good as no Obligation The Fathers define sin generally they make no exception at all yet our Iesuite will needs haue them to define onely mortall What a thing is this Who euer hath heard the like The Question is whether euery sin be mortall or no. I affirme euery sin to bee mortall and I prooue it because the holy Scripture the Auncient Fathers and the Doctors doe define sin to bee so yet our Iesuite thinketh it enough barely to aunswere that they all speak of mortall sin not of veniall O sweet Iesus Our Iesuite is either too too foolish or els too too malicious His fond answer is tearmed in Schooles Petitio principij the begging of the Question He will needes haue the Fathers to except veniall sins and to acknowledge such sins although they take no notice of such sins neither once name such sins but contrariwise affirme all sinnes without exception to bee mortall These Fathers saith our fatherly Iesuite define mortall sin not veniall Euen so sorsooth for why should they define that which is not The Fathers were wise they knew that euery sin in it owne nature deserued death and therefore defined sin accordingly They knew that Saint Paule saith The reward of sinne is death They knew what God saith by his Prophet Ezechiell The Soule that sinneth shall dye the death They knew what God saith by his Prophet Dauid Thou art not a GOD that loueth wickednesse neither shall euill dwell with thee They knew what Christ will say at the day of dome Depart from me ye cursed into euerlasting fire But our Iesuite saith that veniall sinnes breake not friendshippe with God Well let him stand in iudgment against God for his venials I will say with the humble Prophet Enter not into iudgement with thy Seruant O Lord for no flesh can be iustified in thy sight S. R. I admit that by sin Saint Iohn vnderstood all kinde of Actuall sin and deny that Anomia Iniquity is taken for wickednesse and perfect transgression of the Lawe but generally as it is common to perfect transgression only swaruing from the Law T. B. I answere First that Anomia is the transgression of the Law according to the nature and proper signification of the word as their most famous Linguist Arias Montanus graunteth Secondly that iniquity is perfect sin and wickednesse as the Prophet telleth vs Discedite à me omnes qui operamini iniquitate Depart from me all ye that worke iniquity So the Latin Vulgata editio readeth which the papists must approoue perforce because the Pope hath so inioyned them Heere iniquity must needes bee taken for mortall sin for as our Iesuite saith Veniall sinnes do not breake friendship with God and I may presume to affirme of holy Dauid that hee commaunded not them to depart from him who were in fauour with God No no God loueth not those that worke iniquity Thirdly that Saint Iohn speaketh of mortall sinne by our Iesuites owne confession Fourthly that Saint Bede Lyranus and Carthusianus do all three with vniforme assent expound it of mortall sin Fiftly that our Iesuite vnawares graunteth no lesse These are his wordes For iniquity requireth onely want of equitie and conformitie to Gods Lawe Loe hee graunteth iniquity to want conformity to Gods Law and so say I vnawares he granteth iniquity to be against Gods law seeing it is here confessed of our Iesuite that it wants cōformity thereunto for that is to be against Gods Law S. R. Durand and Angles I confesse did thinke veniall sins to bee against the Lawe but neyther is this a matter of Fayth neyther do they intend to fauour Bell any thing T. B. Here our Iesuite graunteth me the victory confessing that his owne deare friendes Durand and Angles defend mine opinion But he addeth two things for his defence as hee thinketh yet I deny them and so I thinke will the indifferent Reader to be very ridiculous and altogether childish First he saith it is no matter of faith What then good Sir Is nothing to be regarded but matters of Fayth Is it a matter of faith that your Pope cannot erre That he is aboue a general Councel That he can depose kings Nay that either he or your selfe be an honest man And what is a matter of fayth Forsooth whatsoeuer the Pope will haue a matter of fayth Secondly he saith Durand and Angles intend not to fauour mee This is brother-folly to the former How farre to London a pokefull of Plumbes S. R. All formall sin is formall iniquity but not contrarywise As Adultery or murther committed by a foole or madde man is iniquity but no more sinne then it is in Beasts T. B. First Iniquity is wickednesse and consequently sin as is already prooued Secondly Iniquity is formally against equity as our Iesuite hath graunted Thirdly it is formally transgression of Gods Law as I haue many wayes confirmed Ergo it is formally sin Fourthly If Adultery or murther doone by a foole or mad man be iniquity it is also sin for all iniquity is sin as is already prooued Fiftly to say that Adultery done by a foole or madde man is no more sinne then it is in beastes seemeth to me a beastly affirmation Our Iesuite barely sayth it hee prooueth it not I know his supposed ground because forsooth it is not voluntary But I would haue him to tell mee how it is not as well sinne in Fooles and mad men as Adams fault is sinne in Infants against their will Because saith he they cannot auoyde it The same say I of Infantes I adde that Beastes neuer hadde it in their power to auoyde sinne and sinnefull actes but Fooles madde men and Infantes were all at once enabled to haue kept the Lawe when they were in Lumbis Adae which is enough for their iust condemnation And it is confirmed because they may as well bee freed from Originall sin as from murther and Adultery It is a common saying that if a drunken man kill a man when hee is drunke hee must bee hanged when hee is sober Yea the Ethnicke Philosopher can tell vs that a murtherer

for a constant position and sound Doctrine that euery sin is mortall of it owne nature our Doctrine therefore is the same which great learned Papists do defend And I must needs heere put the Reader in minde of the newnesse of late Romish religion viz that Venial Sinnes were neuer known to the Church vntil the late dayes of Pius the fift and Gregory the 13. that is to say about forty yeares ago O Popery thou art but a childe thou must neuer from this day be called the old Religion for heere our Iesuite confesseth thine Nonage and proclaimeth thee to bee the Nevv religion I must likewise insinuate to the Reader another point of great importāce viz that the popes act is reputed the decree of the Church and that no part of Romish religion is a matter of faith vntill it please the Pope so to apoint it Now for Fisher and Gerson the one is a cannonized Popish Saint the other a Popish Byshop But these are not matters to stand vpon though they help our Iesuite to passe ouer the time and to dazle the eyes of the Reader S. R. He concludeth this Article with this goodly reason One stealeth iust so many Egges as are necessary to make a Mortall sinne another stealeth one lesse But there can be no reason why God may iustly condemne the one to hell and not the other Therefore they both sinne Mortally alike To this I aunswere by demaunding a reason why the Iudge may condemne him to death that stealeth thirteene pence halfe peny and not him that stealeth one peny lesse If he answer because the law condemneth one and not the other I aske againe what reason was there that the Law was made against the one and no● against the other And if Bell can find a reason in this he wil find one in his owne Question The reason of both is because such a quantity is a notable iniury to our neighbour and consequently it is against charity and so breaketh the Law and a lesse quantity is not T. B. The destinction betweene Mortall and Veniall Sinnes lately inuented by the Pope doth so trouble our Iesuite after his consultation with his best learned friendes that hee can shape mee no aunswere touching a few Egges Gladly he would seeme to say something yet after hee hath wearied himselfe with strugling against the truth he is where he first began Not knowing how to answere he demaundeth two Questions and that done hee telleth me I must answere my selfe This notwithstanding after better aduisement and consideration had of the matter he pretends to shew a reason of both his owne questions But howsoeuer that be which is indeed a meere mockery he leaueth my argument vntouched Let vs suppose for explication sake that Egges worth thirteene pence halfe peny makes a Mortal sinne and that God may iustly condemne him that stole them as also a Mortall Iudge amōg Mortall men Let vs likewise suppose for example sake that neyther the Ciuill Iudge nor God himselfe can iustly condemne him that hath stollen but so many Egges as are woorth twelue pence halfe penny Nowe this is my Question Nay this is mine assertion that there can no good reason be yeelded why God may iustly condemne the one to Hell and not the other To answere as the Iesuite doeth after hee hath deepely pondered the matter that one is a notable iniury to our neighbor not so the other is too teo childish and friuolous For if thirteene pence halfe peny be a notable iniurie so is also twelue pence One penny doubtlesse cannot make Mortall and Veniall difference neyther is it to the purpose to say as our Iesuite doth viz. that the ciuil Iudge cannot condemne the theefe that stealeth one peny lesse The reason is euident because the ciuil Iudge is vnder the law and subiect to it but God Omnipotent is aboue his Law and may dispense with it at his good pleasure So did Christ aunswere the Pharisees on the behalfe of his disciple The sabboath sayth Christ was made for man and not man for the sabboth Therefore is the sonne of Man Lorde of the sabboth also The Iesuites reason thus reiected as friuolous and nothing to the purpose let vs examine the matter to the bottome for it is a point of great consequence First then this is an vndoubted truth that the supreme ciuill Magistrate may as lawfully appoint death for stealing of twelue pence as for 13. pence halfe peny for the penalty of death is wholly arbitrary to the iudge He must frame his laws as serue best for the peaceable gouernment of his people Whereupon it commeth that in diuers countryes diuers punishments are designed for the same faults and all agreeable to Gods law This is likewise an vndoubted truth in Popery viz that some Sinnes are Veniall of their owne nature other some mortall Against this false ground of Popery doe I now contend We haue seene already that a theefe may as wel be condemned to dye for twelue pence as for more euen so then God à fortiori may as iustly condemne one for a Popish Veniall sinne as for a Mortall for euery sinne deserueth death of it owne nature bee it more be it lesse Yea if any sinne should of it owne nature be Veniall thē should Originall sinne in an infant be Veniall most of all because the Infant neyther can auoyd it neyther hath any will to do it I therefore conclude that it is against all sence and reason to say that God may iustly condeme a man for stealing so many Egges as in Popery make a Mortall Si●n● let them name what number they will and that he cannot likewise condemne him that stealeth but one Egge lesse And it is absurd to say or thinke that the least sinne that can be named doth not breake off amity and friendship with God if wee respect the sin in it owne Nature I proue it because the least sinne that can be named doth auert and turne the doer from the face of God Ergo from the amity and fauour of God I proue the Antecedent for the consequence is good and cannot bee denyed No sinne whatsoeuer more or lesse can be referred vnto God who detesteth all sinne Ergo euery sinne bee it neuer so small turneth vs away from the fauour of God Truely therefore wrote Byshop Fisher and Maister Gerson that euery sin is mortall of it owne nature And so is that proued which I defend The seuenth Article of Vnwritten Traditions THe Iesuite vseth many impertinent digressions and needlesse Ta●tologies in this Article I standing to bee breefe will onely aunswere to such allegations as shall seeme necessary for the contentation of the Reader referring him for the rest to the Downfal where he may find all necessary pointes virtually confuted though not in expresse termes S. R. All such points of Christian fayth as are necessary to be actually beleeued of euery one that hath vse of reason though hee