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
A52604	The agreement of the Unitarians with the Catholick Church being also a full answer to the infamations of Mr. Edwards and the needless exceptions of my Lords the Bishops of Chichester, Worcester and Sarum, and of Monsieur De Luzancy.	Nye, Stephen, 1648?-1719.	1697 (1697)	Wing N1503; ESTC R30074	64,686	64

shall be rewarded by God Concerning obscene Words Riot Gluttony Drunkenness impure Desires not forbidden by the Law and not strictly unlawful till prohibited by the Gospel We are not much concerned in such a Dispute it being confest on all hands that they are forbid in the Writings of the New Testament Notwithstanding I wonder that any should say they are not prohibited in the Mosaick Law Some of them were punishable with Death by that Law as Gluttony and Drunkenness by the Law at Deut. 21.20 Luxury Riot Lust and such like are contrary to the Good of a Man's Children and of himself or of his Neighbour and the Commonwealth and therefore are implicitely forbid by that Commandment at Lev. 19.18 which requires that a Man should love his Neighbour as himself I do not love my Neighbour as my self if I am guilty of Luxury or Riot by which my Heir and the Poor are defrauded or if I am guilty of Ambition Covetousness or Lust by which I spoil or grind or wrong my Neighbour Nay Lust Riot Excess Covetousness do unfit us and very much for the Service of God and for the honest and honourable Discharge of our Station whatsoever that be in the Commonwealth therefore they are implicitely forbidden by all those Commandments of the Law that require either the Fear Regard and Service of God or the Welfare and Esteem of our Neighbour or selves XII Concerning Magistrates I believe 't is not lawful for them under the Gospel to inflict Capital Punishment Death on any Offenders no not on Murderers This was the Doctrine of divers of the Fathers of the 3 first Ages scarce any of them believed otherwise Nay they added it is not lawful to go to War as a Souldier or to assist at Executions or even to defend a Man 's own Life by any such resistance as will take away the Life of the injurious Aggressor The Reason they gave for this last was that by killing a Person who attempts to murder me he is dispatched out of the World without Repentance and therefore is certainly damned but the Christian by being killed loses only this Life and enters upon a blessed Immortality Some Unitarians have been of this mind while others have written against the whole Doctrine In short it is not their Doctrine as Vnitarians for some of them have held it while others I believe the most disallow it XIII Concerning some other Points I believe as the Church of Rome believes for we agree with them in several Points of Doctrine What these Points are he tells us at Ch. 9. from p. 201. namely that some things were said by our Saviour by way only of Monition or Counsel not of Command That we Merit by a good Life and may be perfect That all Sins are not damnable That the Prayers of the Living may help the Dead Nay the Author of the Considerations on the Explications of the Trinity speaks favourably of Transubstantiation Let us begin at the foot of this Account The Author of the Considerations is no otherwise favourable to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation than by saying of it 't is only a Philosophical Error or Folly not an Impiety page 21. And again at page 22. 'T is a Mistake into which the Papists have been cozened by the Philosophy of Aristotle Would Mr. Edwards think a Man favoured the Doctrines in his Books if he called them Mistakes Errors and Follies Mr. Edwards finds Impiety Irreligion Atheism and what not in all Doctrines and all Authors he dislikes We are not so dextrous We sometimes think that we spy an Error or Mistake and sometimes it seems so gross as to deserve the Name of a Folly but to call it Impiety Irreligion Abnegation of Christianity how much soever Mr. Edwards delights in it and makes it his constant Practice as well in Preaching as Writing we cannot approve the Example it being always contrary to Charity Good Manners and Truth The Prayers of the Living may help the Dead There is no Example in Scripture nor I think any solid ground in Reason for such a Belief Mr. Edwards quotes for it but one Socinian Writer nor is that Author positive in the Case He only says Those who believe a middle State of the Dead do well to pray for them That is in case you suppose besides Heaven and Hell some middle place where Souls may repent and reform or where they have not yet received their Doom it is Charity to intercede by our Prayers for them as much as we would for the Living I believe he is the only Writer of his Sect that can be charged with any such thing but we have it in Print concerning a late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Dr. Sheldon that he prayed for the Dead in his daily Prayers But what one particular Man does or says ought not to be imputed to his whole Party and reported to the World as an Article of their Creed All Sins are not damnable A Christian may Merit by his good Works and may be perfect Merit and Perfection may be truly or falsly said of the Works and Life of a Christian Man according as you interpret the Terms Merit and Perfection Taking 'em in the sense that Protestants use them no Man can merit of God the infinite Recompences of Heaven and of Blessedness everlasting nor was any Man perfect or without Sin but only that Lamb of God who taketh away the Sins of the World But Merit and Perfection are sometimes used in a popular Sense namely for that tho imperfect yet sincere Obedience to God's Commandments to which God has graciously appointed the recompence of everlasting Blessedness in Heaven and for universal Obedience as it is opposed not to Oversights and Frailties but to a wilful Indulging our selves in particular Sins In this Sense every sincere Christian both merits and is perfect Yet I own divers Unitarian Writers have spoke either too loosly or too incorrectly on the Point of Perfection but they have been as much opposed by some of their own Number The same cannot be said concerning the distinction of Sin into Mortal and Venial for our People are positive and unanimous that as St. John words this Matter there is Sin which is not unto Death 1 John 5.16 God Almighty they say hath not appointed Hell-fire for our Frailties and Inadvertencies but for our Contempts and advised Breach of his Laws Some things said by our Saviour are Counsels to such as would be perfect not absolute indispensible Commands to all the Faithful without exception He quotes for this an obscure Passage of one single Socinian Writer who never was espoused in that matter by any of his Party We judg the distinction of Counsels and Commands is a great and very dangerous Presumption a Back-door by which to escape from almost a Man's whole Duty The two Doctrines of Counsels for the Perfect and probable Opinions will furnish the most profligate Wretch in the World with Defences for his very greatest Enormities