Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	eternal_a	sin_n	temporal_a	8,837	5	8.6794	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A04780	A suruey of the new religion detecting manie grosse absurdities which it implieth. Set forth by Matthevv Kellison doctor and Professour of Diuinitie. Diuided into eight bookes.	Kellison, Matthew.	1603 (1603)	STC 14912; ESTC S107995	369,507	806

giue him occasion by his motion of his body to declare his desire to follovve yet if hee commaūde him in deed to folovve hee is very vnreasonable Or if Caluin vvill saye that God vvill seeme only to cōmaund vs bicause hee vvould make vs to see our imbecillitie and to doe vvhat vve can at least to shevve our desire then follovveth it that there are noe cōmaundementes bicause God dothe not verilie commaund them but seemeth only to commaund to make vs see our ovvne infirmitie and to shevve our desire Or if Caluin vvill not bee so bold as to deny all commaundementes then must hee graūt that God is vnreasonable in commaunding vs more then vvee are able to performe As for example if the master vvould commaund his seruaunt not onlye to ronne but also to flye on his arraund and for a shorter cutte to leape ouer a riuer ouer vvhich he cā scarsely see vvould you not thinke him vnreasonable and quite beside him selfe The like dothe almightie God if vve beleeue Caluin for he commaundeth vs to loue him aboue all and our neighbour as our selues he biddes vs not to steale not to kill yea not to couet our neighbours vvife or goods vvhich is as if hee should commaund vs to flye or to moue mountaines or to leape ouer the sea bicause these thinges in Caluins opinion are noe more impossible then are the commaundamentes and therfore in these commaundementes God shevveth him selfe as vnreasōable as hee should doe in the other Yea if once vvee graunte that god maye cōmaund impossibilities then is ther noe reason vvhy brute bealles maye not bee commaunded not to kill one another not to liue of spoile to faste somes tymes and to honour yea loue their Creatour bicause God commaundeth mā to doe these thinges vvho yet is noe more able to do thē then beastes are And if beastes could speake vvould tell allmightie God that hee hathe noe reason to commaund them to do these thinges bicause they are not in their povver then maye men make the same exception and accuse their Creatour as a Prince most vnreasonable vvhoe commaundeth them to excute those lavves vvhich they noe more can fullfill then oxen and asses can doe And if god vvill condemne them as guiltie of offence for not obeying his commaundment they maye ansvvere vvith saincte Christostome Hom 16 in ep Heb. Si impotentes nos fecit deinde imperat culpa eius est If he hath made vs impotent as Caluin sayeth he hathe bicause by his decree and ordinaunce he hindreth vs or at least if vvee be allready by Adams sinne made impotent Supra l. 2. Instis c. 7. sect 5. And yet he commaundeth vs the faulte is his and not ours if vvee transgresse his commaundement The fourth Chapter shevveth hovv the former doctrine maketh God a most cruel tyraunt CErdon that infamous heretike Ex Ter. l. prasc c. 51. and diuers of his folovvers reading in the old testament vvhat seueritie in that lavve God had sometymes vsed and not considering that the enormitie of sinne is such that it deserueth not only temporall but also aeternal deathe and imagining that such seueritie could not proceed frō the good God vvhoe is goodnes it selfe as thoughe God vvere mercifull and not iuste also they affirmed that there vvere tvvoe gods the one good the other cruel the one the autour of the olde testamēt the other of the nevv the one Creatour only of superiour substaunces the other of this inferiour vvorlde Against these men saint Austine vvrote a booke entitled Against the aduersarie of the lavve and Prophetes in vv ch hee proueth that in the nevve lavve God hath shevved as great seueritie to vvit in the death of Ananias Act. 3. Mat. 2● 5. Saphita in and threatening aeternal danation vv ch passeth all temporall punishment against those that shall not giue almes and not only against those that shall kill but also against them that shal be angrie and shall call contumeliously their brother foole Vvhence it follovveth that one and the selfe same god is seuere and svveete iuste and mercifull And good reason for as the king must not only be gētle but iuste also and therfore the Aegiptians Hierogliffe of a kinge vvas a bee vvhose hony signifieth the svveetnesse vvhich ought to be in a Prince and his stinge importeth that hee must bee vvith all seuere and iuste also vvhere mercie and faire meanes vvill not serue so God the king of kinges offereth his grace moste frankelye bestovveth benefites on vs bountifully and many tymes vvinketh at our defaultes expecteth patiently amendement and repentaunce but if vvee contemne his benefittes and abuse his patiēce then dothe hee lay it on seuerely vppon vs bicause as hee is good so is hee iust must bee iust else vvere hee not God And althoughe some respecting only the shortenesse of the pleasure vvhich they haue takē in sinne thinke it harde to be punished eternally for a momētaire pleasure yet if they consider vvhat it is to offende so great a Maiestie and hovve vvhen vve sinne vve doe in affection desire eternally to perseuer in that sinne and pleasure or cōmoditie l. 4. dial c. 44. vve vvill thinke vvith sainct Gregoire that it is good reasō that the sinner vvhoe hath sinned in his eternitie should bee punished in gods aeternitie Yea if Princes for a momentarie transgression may iustly punishe their subiectes vvith perpetuall exile and death it selfe vvhich of it selfe is perpetuall bicause a resurrectiō is not naturall vvhy maye not God iustelie punishe vs vvith eternall paines for our tēporall faultes especially seing that they vv ch dye in mortall sinne neuer thinke of repētaunce but remaine perpetually obstinate in their mallice and so may iustely bee perpetually punished bicause sinne as longe as it remaines is vvorthy paine and therfore if it remaine for euer it may iustly bee punished for euer and euer But althoughe it be so that there are not tvvoe gods as Cerdon sayed the one meeke and mylde the other cruel and Churlishe and althoughe the selfe same God and the good and the onlygod bee must bee bicause hee is God mercifull and iust and consequently gentle seuere vvithout all crueltie bicause iustice is noe crueltie yet if vve vvill auouch Luthers and Caluins doctrine for currant vve must of necessitie confesse that God is the cruellest tyraunte that euer vvas or can bee For they affirme as vve haue related in the former Chapter that God commaundethe vs thinges altogetherimpossible and they can not deny but that for transgressing these commaundemēts the vvicked are tormēted in hell perpetually for Christe bidds thē goe accursed in to euerlasting fyer Mat. 2● vvhoe clothed him not in his mēbers vvhen hee vvas in them naked vvho fed him not vvhen in them hee vvas houngrie vvhich if it bee so then is God moste cruel and barbarouse Luther once vvell perceued that this consequence to vvit that God is cruel

follovved euidently out of their permises to vvit that the commaundemētes are impossible vvhat thinke you dothe hee ansvvere to it or hovve dothe hee free gods goodnes from crueltie hee saieth that by light of nature and grace l. de seruo arbitrio it is vnsoluble hovve God damneth him vvho can not chuse but sinne and transgresse and here sayeth he bothe the light of nature and grace do tell vs that the faulte is in God only and not in miserable man but by the light of glorie vvhich the blessed enioye Gods iustice herein is manifested vvhich novv seemethe iniustice Ibidem Yea sayethe hee Gods iustice in this pointe is novve incomprehensible So that Luther sayeth that novve nether by light of nature nor of grace that is faythe for so I thinke is his meaning in his obscure distinction vvee can excuse God from iniustice and crueltie vvho commaundeth thinges impossible vvhich vvee can not performe and yet punisheth vs aeternally And truly if it bee so as they saye that God commaundeth impossibilities and yet punisheth and damneth the transgressours then not only by the light of nature and grace but by all light and reasō in the vvorld it is manifest that god is most cruel and tyrannicall For if that master bee cruel and barbarouse vvhoe commaundeth his seruaunt that is lame to ronne or leape and bicause hee doth not soe beateth him blacke and blevve breaketh his bones in fine killeth him also thē certes God him selfe vvhoe commaundes vs impossibilities and for not doinge them doth not only punishe vs temporally but also damneth vs perpetually and condemneth vs to those aeternall flames of hell vvhere vvee shall euer feele the panges of deathe and yet neuer dye vvhere vvee shall allvvayes bee dying and neuer dead vvher after milliōs of yeares of imprisonmēte torment vvee shalbe neuer a vvhit the nearer an end of our miserie he I saye must needs bee moste cruel and inhumaine more barbarouse then any Scithian and so tyrannicall that in respecte of him Nero Domitian and Dionisius vvere no tyraunts but Clement Princes The fifte chapter maketh it manifest that the reformers pull the true God out of his throne and place an Idol in the same of their ovvn imagination TErtulian that ancient and learned vvriter vvhen hee vvas best disposed that is vvhen hee vvas a Catholike and a vvriter against heretikes in defence of the Catholike and Romain Church and religion vvas of opinion that all heresies are idolatries and all heretikes idolatours Vvhich opinion thoughe at the first blushe it may seeme to rigorous yea erronious yet if it bee vvell vvayed and considered it may very truly be verified of the heretikes of his tyme and of this our vnhappy age and in some sorte of all heretikes vvhat soeuer But before vvee come to the proofe of this his opinion vvee vvill first set it dovvne in his ovvn vvords vvhich are these l. praesc c. 4● Ether they faine another God to the Creatour as the Marcionistes did or if they confesse the only Creatour they declare him othervvise then in deed he is so euery errour cōcerning God is in some forte a variatiō of a kinde of idolatrie By vv ch appeareth that in his opinion euery Heresie is a kinde of idolatrie And truly ther is noe Heresie but ether directly or indirectly it denyeth the true God For ether it denyeth some thing in God and then it directly denyeth God or it denyeth some thing vvhich perteineth vnto God and so indirectly and by a certain consequeace it taketh avvay the true God As for example the Marcionites affirmed that God vvas cruel and that the good God vvas not Creatour of this inferiour vvorld vvhich conteineth the fovvre elementes and all those thinges vvhich are compounded of them and seing that there is no such God vvho is cruel or vvho is not the Creatour of the vvholle vvorld they denyed the true God and confessed an Idol of their ovvn imaginatiō In like māner the Ariās denied that God the father had a Sonne coequall and consubstātiall vnto him and seing that the true god is one god vvhich is the father the sonne and the holy ghost the Arrians in denying the second person to bee God coequall vvith the father denyed the true God bicause the true God is not distincte in nature from God the sonne and they adored an Idol of their ovvne imagination that is a God vvho hathe noe sonne or not coequall and cōsubstantiall vnto him Ser. 3. 4. sent Arianos Vvherfore Athanasius complaineth that the Arrians vnder pretence of religion had brought in idolatrie and abādoned baptisme vvhich can not bee equally ministred in the name of the father the sonne and the holy ghoste if those three persons bee not all equall in deitie and dignitie Other heretikes there vvere vvhich helde noe errour concerning the diuinitie or any diuine person and so could not be sayed directely to deny the true God but yet indirectly they denyed him by denying some veritie vvhich hathe a connexion vvith him As for example Nouatianus vvhoe sayed that there vvas noe remedie against sinne after baptisme directly only denyed the Sacrament of penaunce but yet indirectly and by a certain cōsequence hee denyed God bicause it is not a true God vvhich vvill not accepte of penaunce after baptisme and therfore seing that hee confessed only suche a god hee adored a false God and so vvas an idolatour Nestorius also vvhoe sayed that in Christe beside the diuine person ther vvas also an humaine person and consequently tvvoe persons directly denyed the vnitie of Christes person and affirmed tvvoe persons in Christe but indirectly hee denyed Christe and consequētly God bicause Christe is God and man in one the selfe same person and therfore hee adoring a Christe consisting of tvvoe persons adored a false Christe and consequently a false God and so vvas an idolatour 22. q. 2. a. 2. ad 〈◊〉 l. 9. m●t S. Thomas giues the reason of this bicause sayeth hee and hee alleageth Aristotle for more authoritie God is a thing infinit in perfection yet so simple and deuoide of composition that in him is noe distinction but of persons vvhich allso are one indiuisible God and therfore as an indiuisible pointe is altogether touched or not at all bicause it hath no partes so our vnderstāding ether rightly attaineth vnto the knovvledge of God or not at all and if it erre in one perfectiō of God it erreth in all bicause all is one And so if an heretique denieth any thing of god hee denyeth all But althoughe all heretikes are in some forte idolatours yet I vvill not denye but that there is a difference betvvixte them and paganes For these men deny the true God in expresse termes and adore some creature for God as Iupiter or the planetes or some such like but heretikes only affirme some thing of God vvhich implyeth a denyall of the true God yet they professe in vvordes religion vnto