Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	mortal_a	sin_n	venial_a	1,538	5	14.1060	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A12482	An answer to Thomas Bels late challeng named by him The dovvnfal of popery wherin al his arguments are answered, his manifold vntruths, slaunders, ignorance, contradictions, and corruption of Scripture, & Fathers discouered and disproued: with one table of the articles and chapter, and an other of the more markable things conteyned in this booke. VVhat controuersies be here handled is declared in the next page. By S.R.	Smith, Richard, 1566-1655.	1605 (1605)	STC 22809; ESTC S110779	275,199	548

aduersary enter the field and like Vergils Bul. A Eneid 12. beates the winde withal his might And casting sand doth florish to the sight it is admirable For omitting particuler cōtradictions almost in euery Article he flingeth down the very main point which he wold establish As art 1. he wold proue that the Pope hath no superiority ouer Princes nor power to depose them and yet affirmeth that some Kings and Emperors haue humbled pag. 17. them selues yeelded their soueraign rights to him and that Popes liued in duetiful obedience pag 2. vnder Emperors vntil the year 603. which he proueth by S. Gregory and yet no les then S. Fabian S. Innocent 1. Symmachus S. Felix 2. Anastasius 2. Vigilius six Popes did in that tyme excommunicate their Emperors S. Gregory was the first that decreed the deposition of Kings and Princes In the second article after he had talked long against the real presence and sacrifice of the Masse he falleth to cal the sacrificing of Christs flesh with Preists hands p. 26. 27. golden words and to say that if we wold be iudged by a doctrin of Bellarmins which a litle before he had said was the Popes doctrin the controuersy about the real presence wold be at an end In the fourth article after he had long labored to proue inuoluntary motions of the flesh to be formal sin and called the contrary damnable doctrin he both affirmeth and proueth such inuoluntary motiōs in S. Paul to haue bene no sin because they pag. 48. were against his wil. In the fift Article after he had spent many leaues to fling down condigne merit at the last he auoucheth that if we wold be iudged by Bellarmins p. 78. 79. others doctrin published in print that controuersy wold be ended yet immediatly before he had affirmed that Bellarm. taught his doctrin of merit which is the very some which commonly al Catholiks hold after mature deliberation and graue consultation with al the best learned Iesuits in the world and with the Pope him self What is this but to confesse that in vain he impugneth the Popes doctrin of merit Such is the force of truth saith S. Austin that it is more forceable to Lib. cont Donat. post collat c. 24. pag. 81. wring out confession then any rack or torment In the sixt Article he admitteth the distinction of mortal and venial sin in a godly sense as he saith and yet streight after concludeth absolutly that al sins are mortal and saith that we flatter our selfs in our cursed deformed venials In the seuenth article after he had spent 27. leaues to fel down Traditions called them falshoods and vanities p. 93. and pronounced them accursed of S. Paul who receaue them at last him self p. p. 134. 135. 134. and 135. accepteth one Tradition about the Bible whither it be Gods word or no wherby he beateth down whatsoeuer before he had set vp against the Traditions of the Church In the last he graunteth that Gods commandements are possible to be kept in a godly sense and yet afterward absolutly concludeth that we can not possibly keep them Thus we see this silly fellow p. 149. as he hath bene of opposit religions and professions so playing ambedexter now the minister now the Priest now the Protestant now the Catholik what aduersary need such a challenger who is so great an aduersary to him self what successe is he like to haue of a mean aduersary who hath this euil euent of his own brauado He promiseth to subscribe if one argument pag. 31. Preface to Iesuits Seminary Preistes which he maketh vpon S. Austins words be answered or if any could conuince him ether to haue alleadged any writer corruptly or to haue quoted any place guilfully or to haue charged any other falsly But al this is fraudulently done only to gain credit with the simple and ignorant Reader of a sincere and inuincible challenger For himself wel knoweth how often that argument out of S. Austin hath bene solued by Catholiks against which solution because Bel cold not reply he wold quite dissemble it And his allegations of See S. Hilary lib. ad Constant S. Hierom cont lucifer vincent lyrin cont hereses Authors is too too shamful as shal appeare in the processe of this answer Scripture he alleadgeth but as the Diuel did when he brought it against our Sauiour corrupting ether the words or meaning Fathers he bringeth but quite against their wil and meaning and no maruel for he forbeareth not his professed aduersaries such as in our daies haue written against Protestants and wil make them wil they nil they turne Protestants as he hath done like the spider suck poison out of sweet flowers And I doubt nothing more then that if he find this answere to strong for him to impugne he wil ether proclaime me a Protestant as Daue of Recusancy pag. 22. his breethren do Bellarmin or procure him self as his Father Iewel did to be quit by proclamation against my book But Bel if thou didst meane sincerely to repent if thou beest conuinced remember whence thou Apoc. 13. art fallen and do penance or if thou intendest obstinatly to fight it out harken to S. Hierome Hieron apolog cont Ruffinum and take some shame becoming a man if thou wilst haue none belonging to a Christian and deale plainly set downe the Catholike doctrin truly alleadg Authors incorruptly cite the places rightly answer directly yea or no to euery thing obiected and then in Gods name verte omnes tete in facies contrahe A Eneid 12. quicquid siue animo sine arte v●les and I dare warrant thee it shal be answered But thee my dear Countryman seduced by Bel such like who walking in craftines adulterate Gods worde for whose sake al this 2. Cor. 4. v. 2. pain is taken I beseech for Christs sake haue some care of thy saluation consider how of late your Church seruice and discipline hath bene condemned by more then Petition exhibited in April 1603. a thowsand ministers of enormities abuses not agreable to Scripture and want of vniformity of doctrin al your English Bibles the very foundation of your faith adiudged to be il translated and some to contein very partial See Conference at Hampton Court vntrue and seditious notes and too much sauoring of dangerous and traiterous conceits and order taken to make a new translation Alas pag. 45. 46. 47. what certainty can you haue of that religion which more then a thowsand of your Ministers professe to haue no vniformity of doctrin and abuses contrary to Scripture what goodnes can there be in that faith which is builded of an euil foundation as by your owne iudgmēts your Bibles hitherto haue bene yea what faith at al can there be in this mean tyme whiles the old Bibles are condemned as naught and a new not yet made If these Ministers

mens merits which otherwhere he saith are great matters and to be crowned but to the men them selfs because as they haue merits to be crowned so they haue demerits to be punished which if they were punished without mercy woe should be to them Not because they should be sent to hel but to purgatory or as he calleth it sermon in psalm 37. Emendatory fyer and S. Austin there punished without mercy which fyer saith he is more greeuous then any thinge Confess lib. 9. c. 13. cit vvhich man can suffer in this life And to procure Gods mercy in this behalfe to his mothers soule he both prayed him selfe and requested others to pray for her Be myndful therfore Bel from whence thou art fallen and do penance Apocal. 2. THE SIXT ARTICLE OF THE DISTINCTION OF MORTAL AND VENIAL SINNES CHAP. I. The true Distinction proued and Bels obiection ansvvered BEL perceauing that Catholiques do euidently proue that there is a difference betweene mortal and venial sinnes durst not deny it but proceedeth as he did in the former Article allowing in Bel pag. 81. words the distinction of mortal and venial sinnes in a godly sense which though he be ashamed to expresse yet doth he insinuate Bel admitteth venial sinnes in other tearms of regnant not regnant and meaneth as I suppose that voluntary euil acts are mortal inuoluntary venial which doctrine is already disproued in the fourth article Wherfore here he vndertaketh to proue that euery sinne is mortal of it owne nature and some become venial only for free acceptation mercy of God 2. Supposing therfore that some sinnes Mortal and venal sinnes are such of their ovvne nature are mortal and others venial I intend to proue by Scripture Fathers and reason that they are such of their owne nature The Scripture compareth such sinnes as are mortal and venial to things which of their owne nature are different as Math. 23. to a Math. 23. v. 24. Luc. 6. v. 42. Camel and a gnat Luc. 6. to a strawe and a beame Ergo these kinde of sinnes are different of their owne nature Likewise our Sauiour Luc. 12. 58. compareth some Math. 5. v. 27. sinnes to mites or farthings which of their nature are smal debts Moreouer God hath no where reuealed that some kinde of sins become venial only by his mercy Therfore we ought not to say so The Consequence is euident for none knoweth the pleasure of God but by his reuelation The Antecedent I proue for Protestants can neither name the sinnes which God hath made venial nor the place where God hath reuealed any such making of his Bel citeth Math. 12. v. 3. where it is said that VVe shal giue account of euery idle word And 1. Iohn 3. v. 4. where sinne is called iniquity But in neither place it is said that Gods mercy maketh any sinne venial and other like places cited by other Protestants rather proue that al sinnes notwithstāding Gods mercy are now mortal then that any which of them selfe were mortal became venial by his mercy Likewise for venial sinne he nameth sinne not regnant wherby he vnderstandeth inuoluntary motions of concupiscence But for such inuoluntary motiōs which Bel rightly calleth Bels beleefe of venial sinnes befydes Gods booke not regnant sinne but wrongly venial nether are they any true sinne as venial sinne is nor is it any where reuealed that they being of their nature mortal sins are made venial only through Gods mercy Therfore Bels beleefe of some sinnes made venial by Gods mercy is wholy besides Gods booke 3. Holy Fathers also in calling some sinnes Fathers litle sinnes light short least daily offences as S. Hierom in c. 5. Math. l. 2. in Iouinian S. Hierom. prope fin S. Austin to 10. 3. S. Chrysost tom 2. Conc. 3. in Lazar. to 2. S. Austin serm 41. de sanctis and in Enchir. c. 71. and S. Chrisostom hom 24. in Math. insinnuate that venial sinnes are such of their owne nature for they were neuer litle nor light if of their nature they were mortal and damnable as a wounde which of it nature is mortal and deadly could neuer be called a litle or light woūde though God of his mercy did cure it Likewise S. Hierom putteth a difference betweene S. Hieron dial 2. cont Pelag. S. Gregor 21. moral c. 9. S. Austin hom 19. de ●empore cacia and hamartia and S. Gregory and S. Austin betwixt crimen and peccatum yea S. Hierom epist ad Celant accounteth it a paradox of the Stoiks to put no difference betwixt scelus and erratum 4. By reason also this is euident For who seeth not that to steale a pinne is of it nature a smal offence And I would aske of Bel whither a sinne after it is by Gods mercy made venial reteineth the selfe same nature of offending God deseruing Hel and the like which it had before or it changeth it nature If it change it nature then a●ter Gods mercy of it nature it is venial and Gods mercy is only the cause of changing the nature of it If it retaine the selfe same nature how is it possible but God if he account of it truly according to truth as al his iudgements are Rom. 2. v. 2. should not account of it as a mortal sinne and deseruing hel Wherfore what Protestants talke of some sinnes becomming venial or no sinnes at al by Gods meere not imputing them for sinnes without any alteration in the sinnes them selfs is meere contradiction and contrary to S. Austin and reason as is shewed in the fourth Article c. 3. parag 4. 5. Againe infidels haue venial sinnes Ergo venial sins become not such only by Gods meere not imputing them for mortal The consequence is cleare out of the Protestants doctrine who put that not imputing only VVillet contrac 17. part 3. p. 560. towards the faithful regenerate The Antecedent I proue because they can doe al the sinnes which the faithful doe If one say that sinnes which in the faithful be but venial are in Infidels mortal This is contrary to reason because knowledge of Gods precept in the faithful rather encreaseth his fault for the seruant which knovveth the Luc. 12. v. 48. vvil of his maister and doth it not shal be beaten vvith many stripes and ignorance in infidels diminisheth their fault wherupon S. Paul said I haue gotten mercy because I did it ignorātly 1. Timoth. 1. v. 13. in incredulity And I aske of Bel why God maketh sinne not regnant venial rather then regnant and either he must say that God doth it without any cause or because they are inuoluntary and these voluntary which is to say that by their different nature they are made mortal and venial 6. Finally some sinnes of their nature breake frendship with God and deserue his eternal hatred and punishment others do not Ergo some of their nature are mortal others venial The