Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	distinction_n	mortal_a	venial_a	4,934	5	12.1153	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A07801	A defence of the innocencie of the three ceremonies of the Church of England viz. the surplice, crosse after baptisme, and kneeling at the receiuing of the blessed Sacrament. Diuided into two parts: in the former whereof the generall arguments vrged by the non-conformists; and, in the second part, their particular accusations, against these III. ceremonies seuerally, are answered, and refuted. Published by authoritie.	Morton, Thomas, 1564-1659.	1618 (1618)	STC 18179; ESTC S112905	183,877	338

storie of Moses in Exodus For there Moses and the Elders of Israel are commanded by God to go vnto Pharaoh and tell him saying The Lord God of the Hebrewes hath met with vs and now let vs go three daze iourney into the wildernesse that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God And Chap. 8.8 Pharaoh said He was willing to let them go to sacrifice vnto the Lord. And more to the same purpose is recorded Chap. 10.15 and 26. Therefore God had required Sacrifice before the promulgation of the morall law SECT X. His second Reply But this was not so published before the law Our Answer It was published before the whole congregation of Israel and so published that before the giuing of the tables of Moses the sacrifice of the Paschall Lambe was prescribed vnto all the families of Israel God commanding thus Speake vnto all the congregation of Israel saying take euery man a Lambe c. Can you haue a more publicke precept than that which is spoken to All Neither is there in all this the least shadow of contradiction for the former exception against Sacrifice was not meant simply as absolutely forbidding the Sacrifices which God himselfe had commanded but comparatiuely onely as preferring obedience before Sacrifices And the argument of almightie God is very exact and emphaticall to wit that forasmuch as in the solemne publication of the Morall law of obedience there was no mention made of Sacrifices or burnt offerings therefore to Obey the morall commandements is farre more acceptable with God then Oblations Sacrifices being onely as the bodie but sanctitie as the very soule of Gods worship SECT XI Their fourth place obiected for proofe of their Negatiue Argument from Scriptures Esay 1.11 To what purpose is your sacrifice vnto me saith the Lord I am full of your burnt offerings And verse 12. Who required these things at your hands Our Answer That is who required them principally or who required them solely without obedience to the law of godlinesse The exception then is not against any defect in the thing is selfe which is the Sacrifice nor against the Act which is sacrificing but against the Actors because they offered their Sacrifices in hypocrisie continuing in transgression and sinne against God This is plaine for you know that the Leuiticall law of sacrificing was then in force insomuch that the people in not sacrificing had sinned by neglect of performing their due homage vnto God so then their transgression in sacrificing did onely arise from their hypocrisie and irrepentance in consideration whereof it is said the God had respect vnto Abel and his offering but vnto Caine and his offering he had no regard The difference then stood not in the things sacrificed as though Abel his corne were more precious in Gods sight then Caines cattell nor in the Act it being the same in thē both for both did offer sacrifice vnto God but the whole distance was in respect of the Agents to wit in that Caine did offer in enuie and Abel in charitie And to shew that the method of Gods respect beginneth at the person and not at the thing it is said God had respect vnto Abel and his offering verse 4. SECT XII The fift place by them obiected for proofe of their Negatiue Argument from Scripture Ier. 7.31 God complayneth saying They haue built the places of Tophet which is in the valley of the sonnes of Hinnon to burne their sonnes and daughters in the fire which I commanded them not neither came it into my heart Our Answer From these words which I commanded not you collect that the sinne here condemned was not against but onely besides the word of God as if these words Quae non mandaui illis facere were not the same in full sence with Quae mandaui illis non facere signifying that God did vtterly forbid them to do this And great reason for they did no lesse then sacrifice their sonnes and daughters vnto Molech which was the most execrable Idolatrie that euer was committed vnder the Sunne and therefore is called in the text verse 30. Th● abomination of Tophet How can you then say that this sinne was onely not commanded was it not also expresly forbidden as it is written Thou shalt not offer thy children vnto Molech When I first read this obiection I wondred to vnderstand that any of your schoole by telling vs of some things vnlawfull as besides the word of God and of some things vnlawfull as against it could so well symbolize albeit against your wills in termes with Bellarmine and some other Romish spirits who to maintaine their distinction of mortall and veniall sinne tell vs that the mortall sinne is contra legem against the law but the veniall sinne is onely praeter legem besides the law As though sinne being a transgression of the law and a contradiction vnto Gods command a man could imagine any sinne which is not against the law which were to conceiue sinne to be no sinne Be you therefore so discreete as to leaue this art of subtiltie vnto popish coyners who haue a faculty to stampe all their mettals although neuer so base with Caesars image intituling their owne fancies the Oracles of God Our answers vnto other allegations which you obiect concerning adding to Scriptures and will-worship are reserued to their proper places We proceede now to your proofe from Fathers SECT XIII The second proofe of the Non-conformists for their Negatiue arguing from Scriptures from the iudgement of ancient Fathers Basil calleth it a defection from faith to bring in any thing besides Scripture Cyprian saith Whence cometh this tradition Not out of diuine Scriptures Ambrose saith They that know not the sweetnesse of these waters viz. of Scriptures do drinke of the torrents of this world Augustine I. from that saying of Christ I haue many things to say which you cannot carrie c. saith Who therefore of vs can tell what those things are which he himselfe would not reueale Againe II. Away saith he with mens writings let the voice of God sound in our eares III. Let vs remoue the deceitfull weights of mens balances and admit of Gods ballances IIII. Who can deliuer vnto vs any specia●l prohibitions of these execrable superstitions which are vsed in the knots of earings and serue not to the worship of God but to the seruice of diuels v. Is it lawfull to sacrifice vnto Neptune because we reade not of any thing directly spoken against Neptune Thus haue the ancient Fathers reasoned Negatiuely from Scriptures Our Answer You vndertooke to confute onely Ceremonies of our Church and such which were onely besides Scripture yet this you now labour to effect by such Testimonies of Fathers whereby they condemne not Ceremonies as being beside Scripture but onely Dostrines of men flatly contrary to the truth of Scripture For Basil in the place alledged confuteth not any matter of

which maketh a man fall either into dangerous errours in doctrine or else some sinfull act of conuersation Thirdly by weakenesse they interpret such an hinderance whereby a Christian is made onely more slow and remisse in the profession and course of Christianity Which three phrases are notwithstanding expounded more pertinently by others to be set downe thus seuerally not by way of distinction but for exaggeration of the sinne of wilfull offence against Christians in prouoking of them vnto any damnable errour or sinne by any sensible externall meanes And in this last sence do we proceed to discusse this Argument concerning scandall SECT II. Our second Answer is by distinction of the kindes of scandall I. Diuision That distinction of scandall will best fit our purpose whereby it is vsually diuided into these two members the one is called Actiue the other Passiue SECT III. Our I. Subdiuision of Actiue Scandall is in respect of the partie Agent direct indirect The Actiue is in respect of the partie Agent who by an Act which he doth shall willingly prouoke another to any euill And this kind admitteth many Subdiuisions First than an Actiue Scandall is either directly euill or onely indirectly The direct manner of scandall is when the Act is euill in it selfe Thus the Act of Dauids murther was scandalous And this kind of scandall is no way excusable being euill ratione obiecti which is properly sinne The Indirect scandall is seene in Acts which are in their owne nature good or at least not euill but yet because either in respect of time or place or of some other Circumstance the act doth occasionally fall out to be scandalous as did the eating of things offered vnto Idols which was therfore forbidden being a sin either more or lesse according to the diuerse affections of the Offender For this indirect scandall may happen to be after two sorts sometime without the intention of the Agent who hath no meaning to giue any such offence of which kind we may reckon the fact of Saint Peter when he did so partially apply himselfe vnto the Iewes to the scandall of the Gentiles And this we call the lesse sinne The other maner of indirect scandall is that which sometimes proceedeth from the wicked intent in the Scandalizer and such was the sinne of many Heretikes who would vse Fasts and other Ceremonies of deuotion and austerity to draw disciples after them and to seduce men from the truth of Christ. Thus much in respect of the partie Agent SECT IIII. Our 2. Subdiuision of Actiue scandall in respect of persons offended either weake strong The second Subdiuision hereof is in respect of the persons that are offended for it is either perfectorum hominum of men throughly grounded or pusillorum of weake and more simple Concerning the Perfect the Stumbling blocke is on their part that gaue scandall albeit the parties that are offended are not thereby scandalized that is not so offended as to stumble and fall And thus it may be said that Peter did scandalize Christ himselfe when wishing Christ to fauour himselfe and not to die he receiued that answer from Christ Satan thou art a scandall vnto me For albeit this motion proceeded from a good and most friendly intent in Saint Peter who was the speaker for it was onely that Christ should fauour himselfe for the preseruation of his life yet did Christ discerne therein a wicked purpose of the suggester the diuell for the which cause Christ called Peter Satan because in Peters seeking to hinder the death of Christ Satan sought to hinder mans redemption But Christ preferring mans saluation before his owne life taught vs by his owne example to deale with all such scandals or blockes which are temptations to hinder vs in our course of Christianitie euen as a man would do with a blocke that lyeth in his way that is to Cast it behind him for so said Christ in his answer Get thee behind me Satan As for the Pusilli weake ones our Sauiour speaketh in their behalfe saying He that offendeth one of these little ones that beleeueth in me it were better c. Thus much in respect of the Parties SECT V. Our 3. Subsidiuision of Actiue Scandall in respect both of persons and cause either Determined Vndetermined A third subdiuision is both in respect of the cause and of the persons in cases of indifferencie For sometime this case is determined by the Church and sometimes it happeneth not to be publiquely defined When such a matter is once fully concluded by the Church whether in part or in whole so that it doth not euidently appeare to be against the Word of God so far forth it greatly cōcerneth all such persons to conforme themselues thereunto according to the doctrine of S. Paul in a question of Ceremony If any seeme to be contentious we haue no such custome nor the Church of God For indeed all men are bound in conscience to preserue aboue all things the regard of the generall peace of Gods Church before the grieuance of any sort or sect of men Which the Apostle also doth expresly teach saying Giue offence to no man neither to the Iew nor to the Gentle nor which the Apostle addeth in a further speciality to the Church of God Because such a Scandall is so much the more heinous than others by how much more pernicious a thing it is to the endangering of the health of the whole body than to weaken or lame any one limb or member thereof But if the case be either not at all or but onely in part determined by the Church then is there a charitable consideration to be had of other mens consciences who are not perswaded of the lawfull vse of indifferent things Then the generall rule is that so farre as a man may vse indifferent things without offence of others he need not to forbeare them Eate saith the Apostle making no question for conscience sake Why Because God hath giuen man a liberty to vse such things or not to vse them And the Apostles reason is this For the earth is the Lords But in case of offence against others the Rule is Not to eate namely in the behalfe of another mans conscience This was the cause that the Councell of the Apostles giuing libertie to vse such meates as had bene formerly accounted vncleane did notwithstanding make a restraint from eating of Strangled and Bloud and things offered vnto Idols lest thereby they might giue offence to the Iewish Proselites newly called to the faith And for the same cause the Apostle in great circumspection did circumcise Timothie to auoyde the Scandall of the Iewish new Conuerts and lately called to the faith of Christ but at another time would not circumcise Titus lest he might giue way to false Apostles who defended an absolute necessity of Circumcision to the preiudice of the liberty of the Gospell Thus much in respect of both Cause