Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	word_n	world_n	write_n	29	3	8.1523	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A58886	Dr. Sherlock's preservative considered the first part, and its defence, proved to contain principles which destroy all right use of reason, fathers, councils, undermine divine faith, and abuse moral honesty : in the second part, forty malicious calumnies and forged untruths laid open, besides several fanatical principals which destroy all church discipline, and oppose Christs divine authority : in two letters of Lewis Sabran of the Society of Jesus.	Sabran, Lewis, 1652-1732.	1688 (1688)	Wing S217; ESTC R16398	73,086	90

so great a Doctor moved many to my knowledge to a happy Imitation of so Learned a Saint but they were too plain and solid to meet with even a seeming Answer from the boldest of their Mercenary Pens The only Trick left them was by some slie Insinuation some Calumny to divert the well-meaning Reader 's Attention and a Minister better known by his Forehead than Wit attempted it boldly in a Postscript He was however afraid of burning his Fingers with touching the Sermon it self but nibled at three Lines of the Introduction to it a Form of Prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mother of our Lord taken out of the Thirty fifth Sermon of S. Augustin de Sanctis Then to support himself with big words he accuses me of Forgery and Disingenuity not for citing any thing otherwise than it lay in that Sermon but because forsooth this is not really St. Augustin's Sermon but a Spurious Piece unjustly Fathered upon him Then he as insolently triumphs as a weak Enemy who not daring to attack a Camp should brag of the Victory because he had most couragiously shot at random at an exposed Centinel Now Sir take a view of his Proofs and of those Forgeries he accuses me of in the two Letters which I writ in my own Defence His Proofs were these First the Title A Sermon on the Feast of the Assumption doth not agree at all to any thing that is near S. Augustin's time There was then not only no Feast of the Assumption therefore no Sermon could then be Preached on that Solemnity but not even any belief of such an Assumption This is a most weak pretence of a Proof For as I shewed that Day of Assumption when applied to any deceased Saint ever signified in the Language of Fathers the Day of their Death I cited several Sermons made by the Fathers as S. Cyril Amphilochius Methodius made on our Lady's Purification long before any Solemnity of it were observed in the Church of God That S. Hierom or an Author of the same Age William of Paris S. Bernard made Orations on the Assumption of our Blessed Lady altho' they doubted of her being assumed into Heaven in Body That the Sermon in S. Meliton's name own'd for his in the Fifth Century spake as fully on the real Assumption of our Blessed Lady as any Catholic ever did since And therefore it is evidently false that there was no such Belief in S. Augustin's time Farther I added That as Nicephorus witnesses Juvenal Patriarch of Jerusalem proved the truth of this Mystery as now piously believed in the Catholic Church to have been received of very ancient Tradition and that in the presence of Marcion the Emperor in whose time was the Fourth General Council Next I shew'd what a Cheat this Minister put upon his Readers by insinuating that the Thirty fifth Sermon I cited spake not of the Blessed Virgins Death but of her Assumption in the Sense which that word now vulgarly bears whereas the contrary is most evident and is expressed in such words as are found in all the ancient Writings of the Fathers on this Subject to wit In these the World is honor'd by so great a Virgins departure in what order or manner she passed hence to Heaven the Catholic Church doth no way recount neither is her Body found on Earth neither is her Assumption in the Flesh as it is read in the Apocrypha's found in the Catholic Church This is the true Opinion concerning her Assumption that not knowing whether in her Body or out of it as the Apostle hath it we believe her assumed above the Angels It is not evident from hence that this Minister most falsly imposed upon his Readers To this Accusation of mine he returns not a word of Answer to my Proofs only these insignificant Trifles That Nicephorus comes too late That S. Bernard doubted of our Blessed Lady's Assumption in Body That the first mention we find of Meliton's Book was Sixty Years after S. Augustin's time when it was declared Apocryphal Not a word to the Sermon under S. Hierom's name nor to any of my other Proofs His Second Proof was That very lately some Benedictin's at Paris in their late Edition of S. Augustin's Works had cast it into their Appendix as Spurious and that they told us that in their MSS. it wanted the Name of any Author but that the Louvain Doctors told us that in several Manuscripts which they used in their Edition of S. Augustin this Sermon de Sanctis was intitled to Fulbertus Carnotensis 1. I Answered That these were no Proofs or where they have an appearance of a Proof that 't is grounded on a Mistake 'T is no Proof at all on any side that in many Manuscripts there was no Name to the Sermon this is self-evident 2. That it is evident this Sermon was not of Fulbertus Carnotensis for the Sermon I cited assures us that the Church at that time taught nothing of the Corporal Assumption of the Virgin whereas Fulbertus in his Sermon of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin teaches That Christian Piety believed that Christ raised gloriously his Mother and placed h●r above the Heavens This was an undeniable Proof and therefore the Minister answers nothing to it However I added out of Courtesie that 't is no new thing that a Saint's Sermon should in some Manuscripts appear under other Names than their known Authors the same having happened to several Sermons of S. Chrysologus S. Ambrose c. That Syncletica's Life the undoubted Work of S. Athanasius was in some ancient Manuscripts intitled to Polycarp the Anchoret The Minister disproves not any one of these Instances To his vain Argument that the Style of this Sermon did seem to differ from that of S. Augustin's which is his private Opinion and of few late Writers I opposed the contrary Opinion of S. Thomas Aquinas who owned this Sermon to be S. Augustin's that eminent Doctor so well versed in this Saint's Writings that he was called Augustinus Contractus a Doctor to the defence of whose Doctrin the greatest part of Christian Divines are sworn Was not this a very full Answer Yet to shew how the Louvain Doctors owned the Invocation of Saints to have been S. Augustin's Doctrin I minded him that they receive his Eighteenth Sermon de Sanctis in which he speaks thus Having received these our Vows by thy Prayers obtain Pardon for our Sins What we offer let it by thee be pardonable What we ask with a faithful Mind let it become attainable Receive what we offer return us what we ask c. The Last Proof the Minister offers and which he values most is That one Isidore is quoted in that Twenty fifth Sermon de Sanctis thus Hence Isidore observes it is uncertain by this Saying whether the Sword of the Spirit is meant or the Sword of Persecution Now Isidore of Sevil in his Book of the Life and Death of Saints Chap. 68. hath these words Which indeed is

uncertain whether he meant the Sword of Martyrdom or the Word of God heavy and sharp beyond any double-edged Sword. 'T is evident says the Minister this same Isidore is cited in the Thirty fifth Sermon which could not therefore be of S. Augustin's composing who lived Two hundred years before this Isidore This indeed hath the face of a Proof therefore I offered these following Reasons why the Isidore quoted in the Thirty fifth Sermon was not the Isidore of Sevil. 1. In the Thirty fifth Sermon in debate are these words In our time no Author among the Latins can be found who treating of the Blessed Virgins Death hath been positive and express Now S. Gregory of Tours being one of the most famous Authors of the Sixth Age and having as fully and positively written of this Assumption as any since the Author assuring that no one amongst the Latins had done so could not be a Learned Bishop that lived after the Seventh Century and therefore the Isidore whom he cites cannot possibly be Isidore of Sevil. Again the Sermon cited under the name of S. Hierom and at least as ancient as the Fourth General Council and which was cited by the famous Hincmar Bishop of Rheims by S. Odilo and others contemporaries with Fulbertus could not have escaped his knowledge As for the words of Isidore of Sevil they vary as much from those that are cited in the Thirty fifth Sermon as the words which express the same sense in Epiphanius who writ before S. Augustin Hence I inferr'd that since we know many Isidores and famous before S. Augustin's time 't is far more probable that one of these was cited in the Thirty fifth Sermon and therefore without any danger of Forgery I might well cite a Sermon as S. Augustin's especially in a meer Introduction to a Sermon which the greatest Divine of the latter Ages and whom most do follow in this had cited and that as a Proof in Arguing All that is replied to this is That the Author of the Thirty fifth Sermon looked upon S. Gregory as mistaken But can that allow him to say that no body writ Positively on that Subject meaning only that they were mistaken This is the Issue of that Controversie which this Preface-maker stiles me Famous for I leave it to your Judgment Sir whether my Defence doth not prove it a Calumny in the Minister who accused me in citing this Sermon of Disingenuous Forgery He knew well his weak Surmises misplaced by him for Arguments could not make it out therefore having espied in my Second Letter that I resolved to take no farther notice of such unknown Masks or Persons who concealed their Names that their Errors when baffled their Calumnies when cleared may not put them to the Blush he confidently puts out a Third Letter without any the least addition of a new Proof and again conceals his Name to secure himself from an Answer which he knew I had publickly professed I would not give if he thus concealed his Name and only repeated what I had Answered then he most disingenuously brags that I had dropt the Question Now Sir a full account of the Controversie being thus given observe the vain silliness of the Preface-maker's accusing me of Forgery I have now proved how false 1. The 35th Sermon of S. Augustin a Forgery this Charge is 'T is owned at all hands for 2. The 14th Sermon de Sanctis a Forgery S. Augustin's not disproved or denied by my very Adversary in his last Answer who only complains that the Citation in the Margin did not lead him to it My very adversary owns that 3. The 18th Sermon of S. Augustin de Sanctis a Forgery the Louvain Divines Printed it amongst those Works of S. Augustin which they own for his but not with an undoubted Certainty I expresly cited it as a Sermon S. Hierom ' s Sermon a Forgery that went under S. Hierom's Name and therefore added Or an Author of the same Age. Not a word hath been attempted to prove there was not such a Sermon in that Age. Pray where lies the Forgery My words were A Sermon under S. Meliton ' s Book a Forgery S. Meliton's Name 'T is evident there was such an one by the very Censure of Pelagius in a Council above 1200 Years ago when it was reckoned amongst the Apocrypha that is of an Authority doubted of and not asserted to its Author Wherein lies this Forgery But in one of my Letters it was Printed Malion for Meliton tho' corrected in the next These Men are as wonderful Persecutors of Errata's as Dr. Tenison of Errors in Spelling But such Trifles must be the Pageantry of these great Writers Atchievements and those it seems who at the end of their Books note the Errata's of the Print own themselves guilty of great Forgeries And why Nicephorus who writ The Story about Juvenal and Marcion a Forgery it lived almost a thousand years after S. Augustin and was the first Historian found to have mentioned it Doth not this prove me guilty of a great Forgery in citing Nicephorus What Proof for it Every man S. Athanasius de Incarnatione a Forgery indeed hath owned it to be his Work but the last Critick one du Pin hath lately questioned it therefore a Forgery Is not this a shameless Nonsense Luther did not own S. James's Epistle Canonical therefore 't is a Forgery is as good an Inference I cited to him the Leaf in his own A Prayer to the Virgin not a syllable whereof was to be found there a Forgery Century-Writers where the Place and Leaf in Athanasius's his Works are cited to be found where the Centuriators quote them yet this must be a Forgery I proved evidently in my first S. Cyril ' s Quotation falsifi'd a Forgery Letter to you Sir that the Minister had egregiously falsified it and that I had it right according to all the Greek and Latin Copies In the same Letter I have convinced Nectarius upon Theodore a Forgery the Minister of his dull Ignorance and taught him where to find that Sermon of Nectarius but no Answer given me no notice taken of mine yet it must be a Forgery I cited not one of these but told That the Prayers out of Methodius Ephrem Syrus Athanasius S. Leo are Forgeries my Minister I could cite from those Authors if need were evident Instances of Praying to Saints He very wisely not so much as knowing what and whence I would cite declares they must needs be Forgeries this Preface-maker adds confidently that certainly they are so Is not this a bold kind of Calumny No Proof of this but the Minister's S. Gregory Nazianzen ' s Prayer to the Blessed Virgin a Forgery plain Assertion against the general Sense of the Learned World. Is not this a pleasant way of proving upon us Forgeries How is this proved I do not find The Proof from S. Ambrose is a