Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	mortal_a	sin_n	venial_a	6,152	5	13.8485	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A03333	A briefe consideration of mans iniquitie, and Gods iustice wherein the distinction of 1. sinnes into veniall, mortall, 2. sinnes and punishments into æquall, vnæquall is scholastically examined.	Higgons, Theophilus, 1578?-1659.	1608 (1608)	STC 13453; ESTC S116034	10,611	45

A BRIEFE CONSIDERATION Of Mans Iniquitie and Gods Iustice Wherein the distinction of 1. Sinnes into Veniall Mortall 2. Sinnes and Punishments into Aequall Vnequall Is Scholasticallie Examined Miserere mei Domine indigna facientis digna patientis S. Aug. Imprinted at London for Roger Iackson and are to be sold at his shop in Fleetstreet neere the Conduit 1608. ¶ The Authour to the Pretended Catholiques THE CHVRCH in the principall signification of the word is a Body vnited togither in all the partes ioyned with the Head by a mysticall vnion And the Old Enemie hath diuerslie assaulted both Head and Bodie with vnplacable malice but limited power Yet still hee attempteth something and as he is a spirituall Enemie so are his weapons spirituall Sometimes he prouoketh vs to sinne in Morall things as in sins of action Contra bonum Sometimes in things Intellectuall as in sins of Opinion Contra verum The latter is of two sorts either haereticall against the Head Or schismaticall against the Body The Heresies against the Head are eyther against his Natures or Persons or Offices The two former were olde heresies and long since condemned The latter are diuers heresies sprung vp as tares amongst good wheat in succeding ages Such are diuers of your opinions namely against the Priesthood of Christ consisting in Satisfaction and Intercession The former you haue sundry waies violated and not a little by your misapplyed distinction of Veniall and Mortall sinnes which I haue a little rectified in this briefe Declaration and also remooued that imputation of the Aequality of sinne and punishment which you say must necessarily ensue if your conceipt should vanish If you make no answere hereunto you either want Charitie to free me from errour or ability to discharge your selues from suspition thereof And if you make any aunswer let your lynes be more full of substance to satisfie the point then of malice to disgrace the Author who entirely wishing your saluation in Christs Iustice commendeth you to Gods mercy in him Fare ye well 14. Octo. 1607. A Briefe Consideration c. VENIALL sins are rather praeter legem The Papists opinion briefly recited then Contra legem Veniall mortall are so to bee esteemed from their owne nature For veniall condignely deserue onely temporall punishmentes and mortall deserue a ternall punishments and both these in diuine iustice And hence is the inaequality of sinne most properly and principally conceiued In which respect there are certaine temporary punishments also in Purgatorie remaining for those whose sinnes in this life are not sufficiently purged and for which they haue not worthily satisfied The Protestants opinion recited and declared ALL sins ex natura sua merito are mortall deseruing condignly in diuine Iustice eternall death These sinnes are also veniall not propriè but impropriè ex euentu onely They are veniall by grace according to the quality and manner of our Repentance by which we are capable of pardon Quod verum est in adultis c. But to say Peccatum and yet Veniale simply and not Mortale properlie it is a virtuall Contradiction For they are in that sense termini incompossibiles and can consist together no more then fire and cold water and dry or the like the accident being such as is repugnant to the proper or perpetuall quality of the subiect For there is no composition of merely opposites nor construction of mutually destructiues And if any man aske 1. how peccatum can be a subiect it selfe being in nature nothing or 2. being but an accident how can it be the subiect of an accident We answere To the first that though nothing hath Being which is not from God and so sinne is nothing because it is not from God yet the forme of it being an obliquity in the substance or quality or action of a reasonable creature taking integrity from the same so farre as it proceedeth Sinne hath esse priuatinum in that which hath esse positinum from God And therefore Subiectum mali est bonum quia malum subsistit in ente quod in sebonum est To the second that though mortale in peccato haue not so proper an inherency as ordinary Accidents haue in their subiects yet it is so naturally in it that it is in nature inseparable from it but vltimum et independens subiectum est homo peccans vel Angelus peccans Wherefore the distinction of sinnes into Veniall and Mortall ariseth not ex ipsis Rebus but Personis and hence it followeth ●●●t all sinnes are damnable in all me● not to all men all deseruing 〈◊〉 not all receyuing damnation 〈◊〉 to the Reprobate no sinne is finally veniall and to the Elect no sinne is finally mortall Notwithstanding it must bee obserued that one sinne simpliciter vniuersaliter est mortale because it is not onely punishable but euermore punished with eternall death in all that commit the same this is Peccatum contra Spiritum Sanctum For though it be not fully cleered at leaste in the iudgement of many men what this Sinne is and wherein the formality of the same consisteth yet wee obserue this difference betwixt this and other mortall sinnes I call sinnes Mortall two wayes first by way of Explication and so to say a mortall sin Mortale est generaliter nota explicatiua specialiter est nota distinctiua it is to shew the nature of all sins secondly by way of distinction and so to say a mortall sinne it is to designe this sinne whereof I now speake That Impenitencie maketh other remissible sinnes not to be remitted but doth not perpetually and necessarily attend those sinnes Whereas this sinne is simply irremissible the party so sinning beeing euermore obdurate by his owne vniust action and the iust subtraction of Gods grace so that Impenitency followeth it necessitate ineuitabili and therefore it is called mortall in an eminent degree and is neuer veniall not because God in his absolute power cannot forgiue it but because in his iust will he hath decreed neuer to forgiue it This is it which our Lord speaketh of Mathew 12.31 and which his beloued Disciple vnderstandeth saying There is a sinne vnto death and there is a sinne not vnto death distinguishing not betwixt some sinnes mortall in nature and others veniall in nature but betwixt one sinne simply mortall in nature and in necessary effect vnto all and all other sinnes simplie mortall in nature but not in necessary effect vnto all and therefore possibly veniall And if any Papist say that Veniall Sinnes must bee repented of I aunswer that this Repentance being omitted maketh not a Veniall Sinne to be a mortall sinne in their iudgement For then they shoulde agree with vs who say that a mortall sinne is veniall by repentance and that a veniall sinne as all sins except one are propter possi●ilitatem Poenitentiae for want of Repentance is finally mortall But the Papists say that sinnes veniall not repented of are not mortall nor meritoriously punishable by eternall death If they say not thus there is no controuersy betwixt vs and if they say thus there is no reconciliation as far as I can conceiue The Ancients speaking of mortall sinnes vnderstand

great sins Peccata vastantia conscientiam such as vsually exclude grace by which our sinnes become veniall vnto vs. To returne a little back againe that wee may proceede forward more orderly we note that Impaenitency is not the Sinne against the Holy Ghost because it is in Paganes also who neuer knewe his Diuine Person nor felt his liuelie motion It is not formale huius peccati but consequens In all other sins it is rather contingent then consequent For as no sinne can bee forgiuen without repentance so this sinne excludeth possibility of repentance and therefore cannot be forgiuen Heb. 6.4 NOW as Death is the wages of all sinnes so Christ onely is the propitiation of all sins and both by merite He taketh away Originall sinne yet Baptisme is required ordinarily as the instrument Hee taketh away Actuall sinne yet Repentance is required euermore in those that are of Capacity Neither doth hee take away some sort of Sins onely and not al sorts For hee taketh away all Kinds of sins Actuall aswell as Originall all degrees of Actuall the lesser as well as the greater leauing nothing vnsatisfied either in the guilt or punishment For if hee tooke away some kinds of sinne Originall and not Actuall or some degree of actuall great and not little Or if hee tooke away the guilt and not the punishment or part of the punishment as beeing satisfactory and not all hee were not an whole but an halfe Redeemer which is an impious doctrin and wee not wholly but halfe saued which is an vncomfortable doctrine He alone trode the winepresse c. But he hath done all these things alone helping vs not by meriting grace for vs to helpe our selues withall and sauing vs not by giuing vs power to saue our selues withall but performing euerie part and parcell of satisfaction by actiue obedience in fulfilling the law and passiue obedience in suffering for our transgressing of the law that euery part and parcell of meryt being entirely in his own person he might haue all the glory in such an excellent benefyt of his redeemed brethren Thou art worthy O Lord c. Apo. 5.9 Therefore as it is true which S. Augustine saith He that made thee without thy selfe doth not saue thee without the selfe because in Creation God required nothing of vs but in Saluation hee requireth somewhat of vs a sanctified heart But these also are his gifts Da quod iubes iubo quod uis a reformed will which must be obedient to his diuine will so it is true Hee that made vs without our selues saueth vs without our selues also because as man did not concurre operatiuely with God in Creation so he doth not concur meritoriously with him in Saluation Wherefore though Man must do somthing toward his saluation in the Court of new obedience after his acquittall in the Court of Iustification yet he can doe nothing by way of merit in either because he hath not power in the state of sinne or grace actiuely or passiuely to satisfie Gods Iustice For though God afflicteth his Children and though his children must liue conformably to his Lawe yet the first being a fatherly and gentle correction it looseth the property of Punishment and the second being a filial but vnperfect obedience Poena it cannot haue the estimation of Righteousnesse Iustitia so that neither is satisfactorie in the Court of the supreme Iudge For sinne is the transgression of the law without the law there being no sinne and no ignoraunce herein can totally excuse the offender though inuincible ignorance may mitigate the degree of his offence Therefore euery sinne is committed mediatly at leaste against an infinite Obiect God the Author of the law who consequently requireth an infinite punishment Wherefore as it was necessarie that our Redeemer should haue our true humane nature that sinne in it might be punished Iustly So this humane nature was to subsist in an infinite Person that sinne by it might be conquered fully And hence was the incarnation of our blessed Lord By powerfull assumption not by naturall generation who tooke our nature sanctified by the holy Ghost into the vnity of his person Such a Redemer we were to haue considering the quality of our sinne and Gods Iustice that hee might make proportionable satisfaction But when God is to punish a sinner according to the proper merit of his vnpardoned sinne hauing not meanes to satisfie his iustice vpon any infinitenesse of mans person which he is to punish he chooseth the infinitenesse of time wherein he will punish him thereby to make some manner of proportion betwixt the sinne of man and his owne Iustice But because the person sinning and punished is in no manner matchable with the person or rather nature offended and punishing therefore this punishment may be truely called Passion but is not Satisfaction whereas the infinitenesse of our Redeemers person made his passion to bee a true satisfaction sufficient for the sinne of ten thousand worlds Hence it followeth that all our sufferings in this life whatsoeuer are but expurgations of the matter of sinne not satisfaction for the guilte thereof nor may stand in place of condigne punishment which are both taken away sufficiently by Christ the first beeing imputed to him the second inflicted on him in his death that we might haue the reall benefit thereof effectually by the working power of the Spirit And therefore no sinne is so veniall in its nature as that any man may worthily satisfie for the same in this life or in the life to come Secunda Quaestio YET notwithstanding we say that there is inequality in Culpa and consequently in poena also For if the punishment were equall wee must suppose that all sins are equall which is false or that God is not iust which is impious or that he doth not punish a greater sinne more then a lesser because he is mercifull which is a senselesse opinion obscuring the cleare distinction of his Iustice Only to make his Iustice and mercy consist together in punishing the very Diuells other damned miscreants we say that he punisheth them not so much as their sins haue deserued Which if it seeme an hard saying it is to those that know not how to value the sin of man and the Iustice of God 1. First concerning the Inaequality of sinne wee say that it may be considered principally in three things Diuersitas Obiecti in quod peccamus 1. In respect of the Obiect against which we sinne so a sinne against God is greater then a sin against man a sinne against the first Table then the second But this must be truely conceiued For if wee compare a sinne in the least part of a commandement