Selected quad for the lemma: earth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
earth_n	heaven_n	new_a	pass_v	9,879	5	7.7075	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A13861	An aunsuuere made by Bar. Traheron to a priuie papiste vvhich crepte in to the English congregation of Christian exiles vndre the visor of a fauorer of the Gospel, but at lenghth bewraied himselfe to be one of the popes asses, thorough his slouche eares and than became a laughing stocke to al the companie, whom he had amased before with his maske : hereunto is added the subscription of the cheifest of the companie first, and afterward the subscriptio[n] of M. Ro. Watson ...	Traheron, Bartholomew, 1510?-1558?	1558 (1558)	STC 24167.7; ESTC S2369	25,888	69

Christes death was a deprauation of nature and and an absence of righteousnes yet goddes hand foreordained it to be dō as the scripture testifieth If you had made your argument thus sinne is a deprauation of nature ergo god is not the autor nor propre worcker of it you shuld haue ben heard and alowed For it is not al one to ordaine sinne and to be the autor of sinne as you in your dreame make them al one whan you wot not what you speake But I must go farther first telle you that sondrie other of your aunsweres folowing ar nothing els but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pythagoraes he spake it which anie reader maie easely espie by him selfe And bicause your autoritie with me is as great as the popes mules maiestie I must telle you moreouer that I wil spend no time aboute your naked affirmations But it is a sporte to see how clerely you teach me logike I asked you this question he that saieth that Adams sinne was not don besides goddes wil meaneth he not that it was don by goddes wil To this you saie that my question pretendeth a simple conuersion bicause you doubte whether euer I red logike you vouchesafe gently to teach me what a simple conuersiō requireth But your lucke is euer vnhappie For while you labor to shew your selfe conning you shew that you haue lost your witte and al lerning to I haue red diligently though you frette more than I wold wishe for enuie the best autors that write of logike And thei teach that their be three maners of conuersions The first is called conuersio simplex And that is whan the same signes and the same qualite remaining the predicate is turned in to the subiecte and the subiecte in to the predicate And this chaunge is made only in an vniuersal negatiue a particular affirmatiue I must vse of force logike termes with a logician The exemple of an vvniuersal negatiue is this Noman that loueth god abhorreth the readīg of the scripture ergo noman that abhorreth the reading of the scripture loueth god Of a particular affirmatiue this maie be an exēple Some raging passion in a mannes herte is anger ergo some anger is a raging passion The seconde conuersion is called conuersio per accidens And that is whan the subiecte is made of the predicate and the predicate of the subiecte the same qualite remaining but the signes chaūged that is to saie the vniuersal turned in to a particular thus Euerie good thing is profitable ergo some profitable thinge is good The third is called conuersio per contrapositionem whā the subiecte is made of the predicate and the predicate of the subiecte so that by the remouing of the predicate the subiecte is remoued as what so euer is profitable is honest ergo what so euer is not honest is not profitable Now let a logician shew me in what cōuersion my quaestion is he that saieth that Adās sinne was not don besides goddes wil saieth that it was don by goddes wil. My scolemaster saieth it is in a simple conuersion But here the subiecte is not turned in to the predicate nor the predicate in to the subiecte but a declaration only is made that not besides goddes wil and by goddes wil is al one And this had ben a simple conuersion Adams sinne was not don besides goddes wil and goddes wil was not don besides Adams sinne Wherefore seing that in my question there is no simple conuersion my master affirming it so to be is a verie simple logician But he saieth moreouer that I shuld haue put the question thus he that saieth that Adams sinne was not don besides goddes wil meaneth he not that Adam sinned not besides goddes wil. Now this is the songe of a couckoo a tautologie and vaine repetition of the selfe same thinge or it importeth that the speeches be of one force and signifie the same thing after my meaning Who seeth not now that god hath sent such a swimming in to this adle hed that the mā knoweth not what he reproueth dut confirmeth his aduersaries saiyng while he wold ouerthrow it Let vs procede to this my syllogisme Whatsoeuer god suffreth to be don he willeth ordaineth to be don after S. Augustines meaning but god suffred Adam to sinne as no great saincte m. Masker graunteth ergo it was goddes wil that Adā shuld sinne this disguised popely person saieth that the maior and the conclusion be false But I wil proue the maior to be true and than I trust he wil not sticke to graunte the conclusion to be true For I am sure that he wil find no fault in the minor bicause it is his awne S. Aug. saieth that god suffreth nothing but by iust iudgement and that he suffreth nothing vnwilling If god suffre nothing besides his iust iudgement and his wil who seeth not that whatsoeuer god suffreth he willeth and ordaineth to be don by his iust iudgement For shewe me a thinge that he willeth to be don in the world and therefore is don in the world yet he ordained it not to be don For the scripture saieth that what soeuer he wold he hath don in heauen and in erth And he hath not brought anie thinge ro passe in the world besides his ordinance And S. Aug. saieth that this sentence of the scipture shuld not be true if god wold haue anie thinge to be don and neuertheles hath not don it But this new saīt dareth affirme that god wold that Adam shuld not haue sinned and yet brought it not to passe and so ouermalapertly or rather blasphemously ere he beware he accuseth the holie gost good S. Aug. of vntruthe But now I must heare his worthie syllogisme Bar. Taheron saieth / that it was goddes wil and ordinance / that Adam shuld sinne / but the worde of god / and S. Aug. saie cleane contrarie / ergo Bar. Traheron lieth I aunswer that my master with another lie saieth that I lie bicause his minor is shamelesly false For nether the word of god nor S. Aug. is against my saiyng but bothe make most plainly with it The trial whereof I permitte to the godlie As for the preatie plaies wherein he tōbleth himselfe afterwarde in his aunswere I haue disclosed before The similitude which he putteth of a king who perdoneth an offender according to his longe purpose before for the loue he beareth to him is verie poore as himselfe calleth it and as I maie adde to his awne saiyng verie peuisch to For he saieth that the king fulfilled his wil vpō the man and yet ordained not that the mā shuld offend And than he thincketh that he hath brought forth a meruailous monstre after a great terrible cracke But he must shew that god hath no more to do in ruling mennes mindes than a king hath in ruling the mindes of his subiectes if he wil bring anie thing to the purpose A temporal kinges power entreth not in to mennes hertes