Selected quad for the lemma: opinion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
opinion_n	mortal_a	sin_n	venial_a	597	5	12.4318	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61614	A sermon preached before the King at White-Hall, March 7, 1678/9 by Edward Stillingfleet ...	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1679 (1679)	Wing S5654; ESTC R8214	30,613	56

Officers to be excused from doing it made them a sort of libellati although their names were never entred in the Heathen Rolls and they were forced to undergo severe penance before they were restored to the communion of the Church So much simplicity and singleness of heart was then supposed necessary to the Christian profession No directing the intention no secret reservation no absolution either before committing the fact or immediately upon confession of it were ever heard of or allowed in those days of Christian innocency and simplicity If the Heathen Officers sought after Christians they neither lied to them nor betrayed their Brethren but would rather endure torments themselves than expose others to them for which reason S. Augustin highly commends the resolution of Firmus an African Bishop who rather chose to be tortured himself than discover a Christian committed to his care who was sought after for no other reason but because he was a Christian and the Heathen Emperour himself was so pleased with it that for his sake he forgave the other person and suffered him to enjoy his liberty When the Christians were summoned before the Heathen Tribunals they used no shifting tricks or evasions they concealed no part in their minds of what was necessary to make what they spake to be true they did not first peremptorily deny what they knew to be true and then back such a denial with horrid oaths and dreadful imprecations upon themselves and after all think to justifie the doing so by vertue of some secret reservation in their own minds Is this becoming the simplicity and ingenuity of Christians Such may possibly think themselves Wise as Serpents in so doing but I am sure they are far from being innocent as Doves But are there any who go under the name of Christians who own and defend such practices I think indeed scarce any who went under the name of honest Heathens ever did it For they did not only require constancy and fidelity in oaths and promises but simplicity an● sincerity both in the making and keeping 〈◊〉 them They condemned the Romans wh 〈…〉 t to avoid their oath by a trick and 〈…〉 ck to the Carthaginians they mig 〈…〉 e constancy of Regulus in observing the words of his oath as to his return although very capable of a mental reservation and if he did not promise the Carthaginians to perswade the Roman Senate to the Peace he behaved himself with great sincerity as well as constancy When the King of Persia thought by a trick to avoid the oath he had made to one of his Neighbour Princes viz. That he would not pass such a stone which was set up as a Boundary between them and he took up the stone and caused it to be carried before his Army his Counsellours told him they feared such deceit would never prosper with him because as the Prince sent him word Covenants are to be understood according to the plain meaning of the words and not according to any secret reservation Since then the very Heathens disallowed such artifices and frauds are there any worse than Heathens that justifie and maintain them Is not this rather an artifice and fraud of their Adversaries to render them odious But even in this respect we ought to be harmless as Doves and therein lies a necessary part of Christian Ingenuity in not charging on others more than they are guilty of I shall therefore fairly represent the doctrine held in the Church of Rome about these matters and leave you to judge how far it is consistent with Christian Simplicity There are some things wherein the Divines of the Roman Church are agreed and some things wherein they differ The things wherein they are agreed are these 1. That an Officious lie is but a venial sin This they do not stick to declare to be the common opinion of all their Divines Ex communi-omnium sententiâ saith Azorius A lie that hurts no-body but is intended for the good of others is no mortal sin and herein all are agreed saith Reginaldus because say they where there is no other fault but the meer falsity it is not of its own nature and kind any mortal sin for a lye of it self is a harmless thing or at least saith Lessius the hurt is not great that it doth and it is no great matter whether men be deceived or not if they do not suffer much by it and from hence he concludes it to be venial in its own nature It is true they say an officious lie may become a mortal sin by accident when it is confirmed by an oath when it is too publick and scandalous and used by those from whom the people expects Truth as Bishops and Preachers and Religious men saith Sayr Not even in them saith Navarr unless the scandal be great or their consciences tell them they are mortal sins or some other circumstances make it so If it be in matter of judicature although the thing be small yet I think a lie a mortal sin saith Cajetan because men are then bound to speak truth That reason is of no force at all say Soto and Navarr for that circumstance alone doth not alter the nature of the sin So that if a man tells never so many lyes provided he intend to hurt no body by them they do not make one mortal sin For that is a fixed Rule among the Casicists that an infinite number of venial sins do not amount to one mortal and consequently though they have obliquity in them yet they do not put a man out of the Favour of God But upon these principles what security have men to invent and spread abroad lyes provided they are intended for a good end in their own opinion What sincerity is to be expected when the confessing a truth may do them injury and the telling a lye may do them good For even Cajetan himself makes that only a pernicious lye when a man designs to do mischief by it They cry out upon it as a great scandal for any of us to say they think it lawful to lye for the Catholick cause and in truth they do not say so in words for they still say a lye is unlawful for any end whatsoever but here lyes the subtilty of it They grant it in general to be a fault but such a venial such an inconsiderable fault if it be for a good end and they have so many wayes to expiate the guilt of venial sins that the difference is very little as to the practice of it from making it no sin at all And some think they had better own downright lying than make use of such absurd wayes of evading it by mental reservations by which men may be truly said to affirm that which they do deny and to deny that which they do affirm But notwithstanding this 2. They are agreed that in some cases th●… which otherwise would be a lye is none by