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
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A45491 The loyalty of popish principles examin'd in answer to a late book entituled Stafford's memoirs : with some considerations in this present juncture offer'd to Protestant dissenters / by Rob. Hancock. Hancock, Robert, fl. 1680-1686. 1682 (1682) Wing H643; ESTC R25407 95,985 210

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

become of the Souls of the people May not the most erroneous and pernicious Doctrines and Practises prevail in the Church whilst the greatest part of it follow their Guides and think they are bound to believe as the Church believes I know 't is commonly call'd the Jesuitical Art of Equivocation but though they have extended the Practise of it further though they have polished it with more dexterity and defended it with more subtilty than others of that Communion yet I must needs say Parsons spoke one great Truth when he told us this Doctrine hath been received in the Roman Church for 400 years The Principal Cases wherein the Divines of the Roman Church allow of it are these that follow If a man be charged with a secret Crime which cannot be proved by clear evidence If the Judges before whom he appears be Incompetent as all ours in England are If it were told him in Confession or if he hath been absolved by a Priest If it be necessary to the obtaining some great good or the avoiding some great evil And what a man may safely say he may safely swear What he may deny in a Court of Judicature he may deny at his Execution For if that which otherwise would be a Lie is saved by a mental Reservation there can be no danger in swearing to it in standing upon our own vindication and making the most serious Appeals to Heaven at the point of death Besides suppose it were unlawful to equivocate in any case whatsoever yet if it be not a Mortal Sin if a thousand Venial Sins cannot damn a man I know no reason why they should not venture upon it to save their own Lives or the Honour of their Religion In fine This Doctrine hath been expresly avowed by the Holy See those Divines which declaim against it with most seeming bitterness in other cases allow of it in that of Confessions those few Divines which have written against it are charged with singularity or haeresie But he that desires to see the Doctrine of Equivocation and Mental Reservation justified by the greatest Authorities of the Roman Church may consult any of the Authors cited in the Margent (F) Lessius de Antichristo in Opuse Ed. 1626. p. 773. De Justitia Jure c. 42. Dub. 9. n. 47 48 p. 626 c. Bonacina tom 2. Disp 4. qu. 1. punct 12. Fr. Tolet. De instruct Sac. l. 4. c. 21. l. 5. c. 57. Eudaemon Joannes Apol. pro Garnetto c. 2. Azorias Institut Mor. l. 11. De Jure jurando c. 4. J. de Dicastillo Tract de Juram Disp a. dub 12. See also Is Casaub Ep. ad Fr. Duraeum Parsons in his Treatise of Mitigation And in his quiet and sober Recknoning with M. Morton The Judgment of Pope Pius the 5th Abbot de Mendacio Pras p. 9. c. And p. 39 40. whose Books are licensed and approved by their Superiours or other Eminent Divines And now it were easie to give an Answer to the Decree made at Rome March 2. 1679. against some Propositions of the Jesuites and other Casuists that Decree being so very lame and defective that we are not at all secured by it from the pernicious effects of this Doctrine for 1. The Propositions condemned are the 27th and 22th and though I did believe those two Propositions to be false yet I might equivocate in some of the Principal Cases before mentioned 2. They are not condemned as evil or impious in themselves contrary to the Laws of God and Nature and consequently the Censure or Condemnation is not indispensable But what if a man be barr'd the use of Equivocation and Mental Reservation What if he voluntarily or by the command of his Judges do renounce them I answer If they be lawful in other cases there can be no reason why they should be sinful in this V. G. You are commanded to tell all you know of such a Matter Your Answer is I know no more than I have told you i.e. with this Reservation That I am bound to tell you And being further required to speak without a Mental Reservation why may you not still answer I do not make use of any Mental Reservation i.e. So as I am bound to tell you This second Answer is defensible upon the same Principles with the first So Garnette was required by the Lords Commissioners to answer without Equivocation yet he denied a certain Truth upon his Salvation and with the most bitter and solemn Imprecations (G) Is Casaub Ep. ad Fr. Duraeum p. 117. And this was no more than was Lawful by the Principles of Parsons Soto Ja. a Graffiis Bonacina c. On the contrary Simplicity and Godly Sincerity are constantly recommended by her the Roman Church as truly Christian Vertues necessary to the conservation of Justice Truth and Common Society But doth this Author think we never read the Acts of their Famous Council of Constance I am sure J. Husse and Jerome of Prague felt the sad effects of the Simplicity and godly Sincerity which are but other names for breach of publique Faith of the Roman Church Having thus examined the Principles of this little Treatise so far as they fall under our present Debate it will be no hard matter to discover the Fraud and Hypocrisie of his Discourse p. 47. which deserves a distinct Consideration The question between us is Whether the denial of the Principles charged on the Roman Catholicks be a sufficient Justification of their Innocence This Author seems to joyn with us in a just abhorrence of them Let those in Gods Name if any there be of what Religion soever who hold such Tenents suffer for them why should the Innocent be involved with the Guilty There is neither Reason nor Justice in it I confess the Design of dividing the Papists and making a difference between men of loyal and disloyal Principles is very charitable even great and good men are apt to believe that to be practicable which they earnestly desire and I know none which would not be glad to see a prudent and safe way found out for making a discrimination between the Innocent and the Guilty But the Dispute among those of out Church is not whether there be any Loyal and Honest men of the Roman Communion nor yet whether they deserve more Favour than other Papists but whether we can find out a safe and certain way to distinguish between men of Honest and Seditious Principles It is agreed on both sides 1. That there are some good men of that Communion 2. That the Righteous ought not to be as the Wicked 3. That we can have no security from the Principles of their Religion Those very persons who are for dividing the Papists acknowledge That none of them can be truly good and loyal but such in whom common reason or common Christianity prevail above their Religion that all the Reason we can have to believe that they will do us no hurt if they are truly