Selected quad for the lemma: knowledge_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
knowledge_n	know_v	sin_n	transgression_n	1,337	5	11.0260	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45213	An argument upon a generall demurrer joyned and entred in an action of false imprisonment in the Kings Bench Court termino Trinitatis 1631. rot. 1483. parte tertia, betweene George Huntley ... and William Kingsley ... and published by the said George Huntley ...	Huntley, George.; Kingsley, William, 1583 or 4-1648.; England and Wales. Court of King's Bench.	1642 (1642)	Wing H3779; ESTC R5170	112,279	128

necessity of necessity my Lord there there must be some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some law transgrest If there be no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no law transgrest then it is impossible it is impossible my Lord that there can be any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any transgression of Law If there be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no transgression of law then it is impossible it is impossible my L. that there can be any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any fault or offence If there be no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no fault or offence then it is impossible 't is impossible my Lord that there can be any 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 any wrath or punishment any fining or imprisonment any deprivation degradation excommunication or any other censure sentence mulct or punishment whatsoever rightly and justly inflicted Nay further my Lord this law must be a knowne law for by the law is the knowledge of sinne saith the Apostle Rom. 3.20 and by what law is the knowledge of sinne surely by a knowne law not by an unknowne law for seeing sinne is the transgression of the law he that will know sin which is the transgression of the Law must know it by the law transgrest and therefore he must first know that law which is transgrest and this the Apostle doth expressely and pregnantly shew Rom. 7.7 What shall we say saith the Apostle is the Law sinne God forbid nay I know not sinne but by the Law for I had not knowne lust to be a sinne unlesse the law had said thou shalt not lust So that first we know the Law and then by vertue of the law we know sinne which is the transgression of the Law And here my Lord I must againe repeate the Apostles question What shall we say saith the Apostle is the Law sinne God forbid yea God forbid it in deede my Lord for if the law be sinne then the lawyers cujuscunque generis eo nomine are sinners and the greater Lawyers the greater sinners and Judges the greatest of Lawyers the greatest of sinners and how shall wee avoid or confute this consequence my Lord which to toucheth all our copyholds Why just as the Apostle doth the former The Apostle proves the law to bee no sinne because the law discovers forbids condemnes and punisheth sinne And if the Lawyers doe so then the Lawyers cujuscunque generis eo nomine are no sinners but the ornaments both of Church and common wealth and Gods Ministers and Deputies to reforme and preserve both But if in steed of discovering sinne they conceale sinne in stead of forbidding sinne they command sinne in stead of condemning sinne they justifie sinne and in stead of punishing sinne they patronize protect and preferre sinne then Lawyers cujuscunque generis eo nomine are sinners and the greater lawyers the greater sinners and judges the greatest of Lawyers the greatest of sinners for as the law doth first discover sinne and then condemne and punish it so must Judges first discover a particular sinne a particular transgression of law and particular law transgrest and then condemne and punish it Otherwise they are not judges according unto law but sinners against law and their very act and worke of judging in respect of the anomy obliquity and irregularity of it is not judging according unto law but sinning against the law Nay my Lord not onely Judges but every man is to shew unto his brother his particular sinne his particular transgression of law and the perticular law transgrest even by Gods owne expresse command Levit. 19.17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart but thou shalt plainely reprove him and not suffer sinne upon him and if every man must plainely reprove his brother and not suffer sin upon him then every man must plainely shew his brother his particular sinne and if every man must plainely shew his brother his particular sinne then seeing sin is the transgression of the Law every man must plainely shew his brother his particular transgression of law and if every man must plainely shew his brother the particuler transgression of law then every man must plainely shew his brother the particular law transgrest And if every man must doe this in love as a brother then ever Judge must doe it both in love as a brother and in Justice as a Judge and therefore no Magistrate whatsoever no not the supreame can justly inflict any wrath or punishment upon any man whomsoever unlesse he first discover in him and to him to him and in him some particuler fault some particuler offence some particuler vice some particuler error some particuler evill some particuler sinne some particuler transgression of Law And by this my Lord it appeares that the two finall sentences of the High Commission Court against mee are both voide first that of the deprivation and degradation because in twelve sheets as it it stands upon record in this Court it mentions no one particular fault but onely generalls namely grievous and enormous crimes excesses delicts contumacies contempts incorrigibilities therfore my Honored Lord Cheife justice under favour your LP. was much mistaken when your Lordship delivering your opinion in the speciall verdict between Alllen Nash did paralell my case and Caudreys case in the principall point The principall point in Caudreys case (g) And that the said Caudrey before time of the said trespasse supposed was deprived of his said benefice before the said Commissioners as well for that he had preached against the said booke of common prayer as also for that he refused to celebrate Divine Service according to the said booke shewed particulerly wherin Caudreys case Fol. 3. was not whether the sentence found against Caudrey did charge Caudrey with any particuler crime within any branch of the Commission found for that 's evident granted on both sides in Caudreys case is the principall point in my case the negative thereof is as evident in my case as the affirmative thereof was in Caudrys case and that negative makes the principall point and question in my case to be this whether the matter be coram non iudice or not seeing the sentence found against mee doth not charge me with any particuler crime within any branch of the Commission found but onely with generalls namely grievous enormous crimes mentioned in the articles and those Articles not found so that in very deede there is nothing at all found against me according to this rule of the common law de non apparentibus et non existentibus cadem est ratio idem iud●cium But the principall point and question in Caudreys case was whether the High Commissioners had persued the forme of their commission or not in depriving Caudrey upon his first conviction who by the Statute the 2 of the 1. Eliz. was to be deprived upon his second conviction which is no point or question in my case And if your Lordship will paralell these two cases in the