Selected quad for the lemma: knowledge_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
knowledge_n	law_n	sin_n	transgression_n	3,416	5	11.8881	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A18439	A replie to a censure written against the two answers to a Iesuites seditious pamphlet. By William Charke; Replie to a censure written against the two answers to a Jesuites seditious pamphlet.	Charke, William, d. 1617.	1581 (1581)	STC 5007; ESTC S111017	112,123	256

transgression of the law be it neuer so litle or done without either consent or knowledge or by a mad man or bruite beast should be properly a mortal sinne Here you playnely conclude that n●ga●●u●ly which Saint Iohn him selfe layeth downe affirmatiuely saying afterwards in the 〈◊〉 Chapt. Euery iniquitie or transgression is sinne if sinne a mortall sinne as hath bene proued Thus the C●●surer hath not added nor altered alone but playnely denyed that to conde 〈…〉 mee which Saint Iohn hath worde for worde to iustifie mee All my places that you so condemne being written and layde together haue I thanke God no cause to make mee blushe but this alone hath ●ause to moue you to the repentance re●antation of this speache so directly contrary to the wordes of the holy Ghost But the Lorde remooue all blindnesse from our eyes and ha●dnesse from our heartes that wee may not struggle agaynst the trueth and so fall into these grosse denials of the manifest worde of God You that charge me in this place with transposition your selfe may be as worthily charged with alteration of the text putting one verbe for an other and two wordes for one both the Greeke and the vulgar translatiō hath Euery one that committeth sinne and you haue agaynst them both Euery one that sinneth This you woulde haue made a ●olde part in me but I am contented to g●aunt it is neither bouldnesse nor ignorance i● you 〈◊〉 though the first may stande better yet your translation is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You 〈◊〉 perhappes to serue the Lorde in your 〈◊〉 and I knowe I serue the Lorde his cause is to be had in high estimation and the examination thereof must be without such disgracing quarrels otherwise he will punish euen him that shall not vse good meanes in the handling of a good cause But to conclude you graunt the question though as you say it commeth not to be so haynous a blasphemie For your vsual taunts of confounding and hudling you may worthily receiue them backe agayne with this va●●tage that you haue manifestly denyed that which the Apostle doth manifestly affirme and so stande vpon a contradiction not onely agaynst my wordes but against the holy and perfect word of God In the second poynt the Iesui●es doctrine is thus reported Concupiscence remayning in the regenerate although it be against the lawe of God yet is it not sinne properly in it selfe or of his owne nature I am charged for mine authour that these wordes although it bee agaynst the lawe of God are not founde in the ●ensure o● Colen To what purpose 〈◊〉 the ca●ill agaynst these wordes which if they had not be●e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neuer 〈…〉 of necessitie 〈…〉 is of con●upiscense against the lawe and you so take it and so defend it Also by your owne graunt the Iesuites of Colen expresse those wordes in effect saying Albeit this concupiscense doe styrre or moue a man sometimes to doe things which are repugnant to the lawe of God yet if no consent of heart bee yeelded vnto it it reacheth not to the nature of a mortall sinne worthy of eternal damnation That concupiscense which doeth styrre or moue a man to doe thinges against the lawe of GOD is it not also it selfe agaynst the law As you thus graunt the words which before were denyed so vnderhande or at vnwares you graunt the matter wherwith you are charged For saying that concupiscense without consent reacheth not to the nature of a mortall sinne worthy of eternall damnation in some sorte you giue vs to vnderstande that it is neuerthelesse some kind of sinne which is to graunt the question or to loade and disguise the sentence with many waste woordes that you may in so doing hide the errour Moreouer you and the Iesuites confesse concupiscense to be sinne by Saint Paules manifest woordes who as you graunt sometimes calleth it sinne But as you wrangle with mee so you misconster the Apostle saying hee meaneth not that it is a sinne properly but by a figure Wherefore his large disputation is shortly to bee layde downe that thereby it may appeare howe corruptly you interprete his meaning The Apostle hauing declared that the Lawe doth thorow our corruption worke in vs the lustes passions of sinne to meete with a doubt that might bee made against the law as if it were sinne because through our rebellion it stirreth vs vp thereunto answereth saying The Lawe is holy and wee solde vnder sinne the Law spirituall and we carnall In which answere it is diligently to be considered by the waye that were it not holy and the commaundement holy and iust and good euen the Lawe should seeme to bee sinne for occasion of sinne that commeth thereby through our corruption But this occasion is not giuen by the Lawe but altogether taken by our corruption rebelling against the commandement So the Lawe being of it selfe holy altogether and giuen against sinne is not to be charged with our rebellion which is sinfull of it selfe and prouoked by such restraint If the Lawe which hath in it nosinne nor shadowe of sinne come notwithstanding to the question of sinne for the fruite of our corrupt 〈…〉 re prouoked and discouered thereby what shall wee saye of concupiscence that is it selfe vncleane and of it selfe maketh sinne exceedingly sinfull S. Paul following the question doth open the nature of concupiscence in his owne person comparing his estate before the knowledge of the tenth commandement with his state afterwarde Vpon which comparison hee declareth that hee knewe not sinne 〈◊〉 hee knewe the Lawe that saith Thou shalt not couet He knewe other sinnes before by the Lawe and light of nature but he knewe not concupiscence to be sinne So the very Gentiles in their Lawes condemned adulterie murder and other like sinnes but the iustice of God condem●ing concupiscence the Gentiles could not see the Philosophers could not finde it neither will the Papistes acknowledge it although they knowe with the Apostle the Lawe which saith Thou shalt not couer Therefore the Apostle hath set before vs by his owne example what wee may learne by that tenth commandement which sheweth most cleerely y t the Lord our God is a spirituall Lawgiuer binding our spirites our very thoughtes least desires to y ● obedience of his most holy most pure most perfect Law If any of these bee beside the Law it is against y ● holines wherein we were created which is required of vs by the Lawe and so plainely and properly a sinne howsoeuer the Iesuites distinguishe betweene sinne properly so called not properly called sinne Euery sinne is sinne these sinnes which by the Iesuites doctrine are so called figuratiuely except we finde mercie they will bring no figuratiue condemnation in y t day when y ● secretes of all heartes shall be layde open and wee called to giue an account of euery idle worde Your similitude of the Latine tongue taken out of Austen

childishlie doe you cast in an exception of euill men and such like that they are agaynst the lawe of God confounding and huddling in deede The question is altogether of the corruption transgression and sinne which man c●mitteth and you runne to beasts and to the sinne of deuils where in it is good to note that as you speake not to the question so your speach is not true For euill men as they are the creatures of GOD are not against the Lawe but the euill in men not the deuils but the corruption and euill in them not euill lawes as they commande but y t euil in lawes as it is either commanded or executed You must put a difference betweene the creatures and ordinances of God which are all good as they were created and ordeined and the same as they are nowe by themselues corrupted and made abominable To that you say these things are not properly sinnes for that they are no actions I answere If nothing be sin but that which is an action what Censure will you giue vpon Gods iudgement against Hely for not vsing discipline toward his sonnes What sentence will you pronounce for those watchmen that sound not the trumpet when they see the enemie comming Here is no euill action done but a good action left vndone y t is a sin and hath receiued the punishmēt of sinne It followeth in the Iesuites definition Sinne is an humane or reasonable action I would not say sinne is an humane or reasonable but a beastly or vnreasonable action of a man indued with reason Yet in the Censurers iudgement if a madde man or a foole kil a man it is properly no sinne but these effects of sinne these great in●irmities of folly and madnes shall excuse murder adulteri● and other like enormities Lastly you say in the definitiō of sinne it must be added that it is a voluntarie action done wittingly Al these additions are additions in deede and lay open notable corruptions in your doctrine For whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne be it against thy will or w t thy will bee it an action or no action be it reasonable as you speake or against reason If this part of their definitiō were true thē original sin should he no sin because you cannot make it an action done willingly or wittingly Moreouer touching manslaughter done vnwillingly or vnwittingly and to one that is not hated it may be answered that hee that hath so killed a man must flee to the citie of refuge if he be found from the bounds and liberties thereof then the anenger of bloud may kill him Also he cannot depart from the Citie of refuge till the death of the high Priest whose death seemeth herein in some sort to prefigure the forgiuenes of his sinne in the death of Christ the great high Priest Lastly Howlets booke acknowledgeth a sin of ignorance against Christ the wisedome of the Father and hee maketh willing sinne and wittingly committed to come neere the sinne against the holy Ghost Thus betweene your doctrine and his it will fall out that some sinnes are no sinnes and againe that all sinnes are done wittingly and therefore are in some sort against the holy Ghost not easely remitted Which doctrine condemneth all veniall sinne and leaueth no place for indulgences and Pardons for al sinne is wittingly and willingly done sayth the Censure and all such sinnes are against the conscience and therfore damnable saith Howlets author This is the harmonie and consent of your doctrine to mitigate the sorowes of a weake conscience w t many discordes placed in an euil concord As for your example that Iacob sinned not in lying with Lea because he knewe it not it is to make no sinne of a double sinne for Iacob sinned in iudgement not knowing what he did and so sinned as vpon the like ignorance for want of regarde hee might easily haue committed the fowlest incest Also it cannot bee proued that the bed was altogether vndefiled To conclude therefore howsoeuer you alledge Austen to approue your definition it is no way so large as sinne and therefore a most vnlearned definition You prouide for some way to escape by these your last woordes And this is to bee vnderstoode of actual sinne properly betweene properly and vnproperly betweene actuall and not actuall you thinke to finde a defence because the wordes may be diuersly taken But if euery thing repugnant to the lawe of God bee sinne in deede though not actuall the question is graunted and nothing left to you but a warre of woordes against the trueth The contrary doctrine followeth The transgression of the lawe is sinne Howe tauntingly how scornefully doth y ● masker play his part Hee woulde make his reader beleeue I haue made a vowe not to deale plainly in any one thing and that I can not alleadge one litle sentēce without falsifying I prayse the Lorde it is farre from me to make any such vowe or to haue any such vngodly purpose 〈◊〉 〈…〉 approue my cōscience euē to my enemies That you may haue a proofe he●●of this very place out of S. Ioh. which you so w●der at shal be a witnes being in sense truly fitly aleaged to proue it sin whatsoeuer is against or beside y t law of God For as si● is the transgression of the law so again the transgression of the Lawe is sinne these two are conuerted as the ●●finition and the thing defined and as the termes which are mutually verified one of another To giue you an example whereof we say The Gospe● is the power of God to saluation againe The power of God to saluation is the Gospel As for the 〈◊〉 let the same Aposties words be ma 〈…〉 〈◊〉 the fourth chapter where he sayth God is a Spirit yet the woordes lye thus in the Greeke text a Spirit is God wherefore let not a transposition seeme 〈◊〉 to you when you see it bringeth no 〈◊〉 but a true sense ●either accus● 〈…〉 when there is no fraude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of trueth To make some shew● of your fa●●● accusation you lay downe a fal●● example for a man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are not termes generally verified one of another being one the generall and conteyning more the other the speciall and hauing lesse If you had brought an example of the like it would haue followed wel without any shewe of fraude For as Euery reasonable creature is a man so againe Euery man is a reasonable creature They that are exercised but a litle in the knowledge of these propositions may easily see your erro●r or purposed deceit in the example and your false accusation in the matter But after a false example let vs see a false conclusion you conclude saying So these words as Saint Iohn 〈…〉 eth thē are most true Euery sinne is iniquitie or transgression of the lawe But as I vtter the● you say they are false to witte that euery iniquitie or