Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	good_a	law_n	transgression_n	4,529	5	10.4346	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49781	The right of primogeniture, in succession to the kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland as declared by the statutes of 24 E.3 cap 2. De Proditionibus, King of England, and of Kenneth the third, and Malcolm Mackenneth the second, Kings of Scotland : as likewise of 10 H.7 made by a Parliament of Ireland : with all objections answered, and clear probation made : that to compass or imagine the death, exile, or disinheriting of the King's eldest son, is high treason : to which is added, an answer to all objections against declaring him a Protestant successor, with reasons shewing the fatal dangers of neglecting the same.	Lawrence, William, 1613 or 14-1681 or 2.	1681 (1681)	Wing L691; ESTC R1575	180,199	230

Facto by the Birth of a Child Secondly That such Marriage and Matrimony between Persons not prohibited by the Moral Law are Lawful I prove 1 The Lawfulness of such Marriage and Matrimony in Respect no Prohibition by the Law of God of the same though without Ceremony 1. Because all Marriage and Matrimony is Lawful which is not Prohibited by the Moral Law of God but these are not Prohibited by the Moral Law of God Therefore they are Lawful Prohibition of Marriage without Ceremony not Prohibited by the Law of God is the Doctrine of Devils The Major is proved 1 Tim. 4.1 Because all Humane Laws forbidding Marriages or Meats which are not forbidden by the Moral Law of God are declared to come from the Devil and to be the Doctrine of Devils And accordingly all Papal and Episcopal Laws all Ecclesiastical Canon and Civil Laws all Decrees of Councils of Trent or any other Councils or Synods forbidding to Marry in any Circumstance or Ceremony not forbidden by the Law of God came from the Devil and are the Doctrine of Devils which see proved Lib. 1. p. 52. And that the final cause of such Prohibitions of Marriage without Pontifical Ceremonies The final Cause of such Prohibitions is only filthy Lucre of the Priests are only accumulation of Fees and Ambition of Pontiffs and Bishops Vid. Lib. 1. p. 55 56 57. 2. All Marriage and Matrimony is Lawful which is not a Sin or a Transgression but such Marriage and Matrimony which are not Prohibited by the Law of God are no Sin or Transgression Therefore they are Lawful The Minor is proved 1 Joh. 3.4 Sin is the Transgression of the Law And Rom. 4.15 Where no Law no Transgression Where no Law is there is no Transgression 3. What is declared no Sin by Scripture is lawful but Marriage between persons not Prohibited is declared no Sin by Scripture therefore Lawful The Minor is proved 1 Cor. 7.28 If thou marry thou hast not sinned and if a Virgin marry she hath not sinned 4. What is commanded by Scripture is Lawful and not Prohibited But Marriage and Matrimony is commanded by Scripture to young Women therefore Lawful The Minor is proved 1 Tim. 5.14 I will therefore the young women marry bear Children 5. What is in Scripture commanded and blessed between persons not Prohibited is Lawful and not Prohibited But Marriage and Matrimony by Carnal knowledge and multiplying Mankind is commanded and blessed in Scripture Therefore Lawful The Minor is proved Gen. 1.27 Male and Female ●reated he them And God blessed them and said unto them Increase and Multiply and replenish the earth 6. What is rewarded in Scripture in Persons not Prohi●ited is Lawful and not Prohibited but Marriage and Matrimony between Persons not Prohibited is rewarded Therefore ●awful The Minor is proved 1 Tim. 2.15 She shall be saved in Childbearing if she continue in Faith and Charity and Holiness with Sobriety The Lawfulness of Marriage which is not Prohibited by the Law of God is acknowledged by the Church of England Which I prove thus All Marriage acknowledged Lawful by the 39 Articles is acknowledged Lawful by the Church of England but the present Marriage whether there are any Witnesses alive or no to prove it Ceremonial is acknowledged Lawful by the 39 Articles Therefore the present Marriage is acknowledged Lawful by the Church of England The Minor is proved thus All Marriage not Prohibited by the Law of God is acknowledged lawful by the 39 Articles But the present Marriage is not Prohibited by the Law of God Therefore the present Marriage is acknowledged Lawful by the 39 Articles Though it is no ways necessary amongst so many clear and unanswerable Precepts and Examples of Scripture it self as are here cited establishing the Lawfulness of the present Marriage to add the Humane Authority of the Church of England or any other National Church yet in regard the Bishops in their Practice and Certificates deny that Doctrine of the Lawfulness of Marriage which they themselves acknowledge and pretend to establish in their own Book of Articles To confute therefore those Certificates of theirs out of their own mouths I have here inserted their own 32d Article without which they are not able to secure the Lawfulness of their own Marriages and Legitimation of their own Children against Papists Ossens Gnosticks Nicholaitans Hermogenians and other Hereticks but only on this Principle That all Marriages not Prohibited by the Law of God are Lawful as appears by the Article it self made Anno Dom. 1562. in the Fourth year of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth Roger's Articles p. 185 187 188. where is mentioned 1. That Bishops Priests and Deacons are not Prohibited by God's Law to Marry therefore it is Lawful for them to Marry 2. That it is Lawful for them and all other Christian men to marry at their own discretion as they shall judge the same to serve best to Godliness Whence will likewise follow That the Doctrine of the Church of England and the Ceremonies of the Church of England are two distinct things and to use the words of the Article As every Christian may Marry or not Marry according to his Discretion where not Prohibited by the Law of God so he may Marry with or without Ceremonies where not Prohibited by the same Law of God As Adam might have eaten of all the Fruits in Eden with Ceremony or without Ceremony according to his Discretion where not Prohibited by the Law of God And I think no man will question this 32d Article not to be according to the Doctrine of the Church of England And the same Article touching Marriage is known to be the Doctrine of the Helvetian Bohemian Saxon Suevian and all the Reformed Churches If therefore the Tree is Holy the Fruit is Holy if the Marriage is Lawful the Son is Lawful I have therefore proved him Lawful by Three unanswerable Laws 1 The Act of Parliament of Treasons 2 The Law of the Church of England 3 The eternal and immutable Law of God in the Scriptures 2. The Lawfulness of such Marriage and Matrimony without Ceremony appears in Respect of no Command of any Ceremony by the Law of God 1. There 's no Commandment of any Ceremony in Marriage in the whole Scriptures either Old Testament or New of Moses or Christ of Prophets or Apostles but the same as hath been already shewn have been invented by Priests of Priapus Venus Juno Diana Popes and Bishops either for Lust Covetousness or Ambition No Sin where no breach of a Commandment of God 2. The Scripture makes nothing unlawful nor Sin but what is a breach of the Commandment of God where there 's no Commandment therefore of God of joyning Ceremony with Marriage or Matrimony Marriage and Matrimony between Persons not Prohibited is lawful without them This is proved Luk. 18.18 And a certain Ruler asked him saying Good Master What shall I do to inherit eternal life The answer is

vers 20. Thou knowest the Commandments And Rom. 7.8 Sin taking occasion by the Commandment wrought in me all manner of Concupiscence for without the Law Sin was dead By which appears that where there 's no Commandment there 's no occasion for a Nitimur in Vetitum to kindle Concupiscence to Sin nor much less can there be Sin it self For where there 's no Prohibition nor Command there 's no Law and where no Law as is already said there 's no Transgression Salvation by no Legislator Judge or Law but of God 3. The Scripture teacheth That men can be saved by no Law but the Law of God nor by any Legislator or Judge but God which is proved Jam. 4.12 There 's one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy who art thou that judgest thy Brother And vers 11. He that speaketh evil of his Brother and judgeth his Brother speaketh evil of the Law and judgeth the Law but if thou judge the Law thou art not a Doer of the Law but a Judge And Isa 33.22 The Lord is our Judge the Lord is our Lawgiver If therefore the Law of God is the only Law by which Men and Women are saved in Marriage Matrimony and Child-bearing as well as all other Acts of Humane life and God is the only Legislator and Judge of them then ought their Lawfulness without Ceremony to be judged only according to the Law of God and where there 's no Law of God Prohibiting Marriage without Ceremony nor Commanding it with Ceremony the Law of God declares it Lawful without Ceremony because nothing can be Lawful or Unlawful but in reference to the Commandments and Laws of God Ceremonies rejected by the Scripture 4. The Scripture rejecteth all Ceremonies done without Commandment from God Isa 1.12 When ye come to appear before me who hath required this at your hands to tread my Courts Bring no more vain Oblations Incense is an abomination unto me c. Ceremonies false Translated Ordinances 5. The Scripture teacheth all Rites and Ceremonies to have been only Temporary till a Time of Reformation and to be abolished by Christ as Heb. 9.1 The first Covenant had Ceremonies For the Original word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought to be Translated Rites or Ceremonies and not Ordinances or Laws as the Latin Translation is and appears to be intended and is so Expounded by the Text it self Vers 2 3 4. which names a Tabernacle Candlestick Table and Shewbread Vayle Golden Censer and Ark overlaid with Gold And v. 9. Gifts and Sacrifices which could not make him that did the service perfect as pertaining to Conscience And vers 10. Meats and Drinks and divers washings and carnal Ceremonies imposed on them until the time of Reformation All which are an Enumeration of what we call in English and should have been Translated Ceremonies and not Ordinances or Laws As likewise Colo. 2.14 ought to have been Translated Blotting out the hand-writing of Ceremonies that was against and which was contrary to us And took it out of the way nailing it to his Cross And ought not to have been Translated Ordinances or Laws Mission to teach is no Mission to make Ordinances For the Original words used in this Text are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The word Dogma is a Derivative from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to Teach which word Teach gives not Authority to be a Legislator or to Command or give Ordinances or Laws as Ex. 24.12 And the Lord said unto Moses Come up to me into the Mount and be there and I will give thee Tables of Stone and a Law and Commandments which I have written that thou mayest teach them Here Moses hath no Authority to be a Legislator nor to make a Law or Commandments or Ordinances but only to teach those made by God In like manner Mat. 28.19 Christ saith to his Disciples Go therefore and teach all Nations And vers 20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you So neither doth here the Authority of teaching make the Disciples either Legislators or Judges nor give them Power to give Laws Ordinances or Commandments to the Nations but only to teach them the Commandments which Christ gave to the Teachers themselves If therefore the Original word Doceo gives no pretence to Translate what signifies only Teaching to be making Ordinances much less doth the Derivative word Dogma which according to Isidore Derivatur à Putando i. e. hoc puto esse verum hoc puto esse bonum is derived from thinking that is to say I think this to be true I think this to be good And is the Thought or Opinion of Doctors on a Law or Ordinance much less pretence I say doth such Derivative give to call Thoughts and Opinions the Laws and Ordinances themselves These Thoughts and Opinions then ought not to have been Translated Ordinances but Ceremonies because Ceremonies have only Thoughts and Opinions of men and no Law of God for them And so doth the Text expound it self that it intendeth not Ordinances but Ceremonies as ver 20. Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the Rudiments of the world why as though living in the world are ye subjects to Ceremonies Touch not taste not handle not which all are to perish with the using after the Commandments and Doctrines of Men which things have in deed a shew of Wisdom in Will-worship So the Pope is but a Thinker of all his Ceremonies of Marriage And all his Ceremonies of that and the rest are but Thinkings as the Bell tinketh Ceremonies are Will-worship and abolished by Christ so the Fool thinketh and hath taken so many first and second Thoughts on the tinking of this Silver Bell of his Profit that he knows that if once the Truth of the Doctrine should be spread and believed That Christ hath abolished all Ceremonies The Commandments of God of Marriage cannot be limited by or to the Ceremonies of men because Marriage where commanded by God is not a thing indifferent it would ruin him and all other Popes who are Masters of them 6. It being made the Express Command and Ordinance of God Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth And 1 Tim. 5.14 That the younger women marry and bear Children if the adding or diminishing or limiting of this Law or Commandment of God by prescribing to them Papal or Episcopal Ceremonies should make them unlawful then first would it be in the power of Popes and Bishops to make God's Commands things indifferent which they might change or null or they might set all Carnal Copulation and Childbirth to Sale by imposing such Ceremonies as none shall be able to pass without first giving notice to the Priest and paying him what Fees he pleaseth of which see more Lib. 2. p. 96 97. Secondly this prescribing or Compulsion to Ceremonies in Marriage punisheth Lawfuld Childbirth in Mothers and causeth infinite Murders of Children which Vid.

what not and what lyable to the Lawes of Nature Fate and Providence whereas the Laws of Fate and Nature may be Exercised both over these and over Subjects Ignorant Insensible Irrational Foolish Mad-men and deprived of all Intellect alike Secondly in regard of their ability as the Law Moral can be only Exercised on persons able to perform it but the Laws of Nature Fate and Providence over Babes new born Blind Deaf Dumb Maimed and the Dead themselves Thirdly in regard of Liberty as the Law Moral can only be Exercised over free Agents but the Lawes of Nature Fate and Providence may be Exercised over necessary Agents forced Agents Bond-men Slaves Captives Prisoners and persons in Chains and Fetters Though therefore all humane Actions are under one of these four Laws a Man is a necessary Agent as to the Law of Nature and a forced Agent to the Law of Fate and Providence and a free Agent as to the Moral Law yet seeing he may be in many things Ignorant when he is Ruled by Nature when by Fate when by Providence Not revealed to Man by which of these four Laws he doth Act in any particular Action and when by the Moral Law and consequently it may be secret and not revealed unto him when he is a necessary agent when a forced agent and when a free agent or in the more Common word when his Will is free and when Bond In this Ignorance therefore of all the other Three Secret Laws he ought to act according to the Moral Law which God hath revealed and promulgated alwaies and according to the other Three when God hath in particular Acts of his own manifested his Will in them as it is an Act of God that an Eldest Son is born who is an Infant or Minor And a Brother born who is a Major and this Act of God is good and of great Mercy but that on this Act of God Murder should be Committed or Civil Wars be unjustly Raised is Evil and an Act of Man and God is not the Author of this Sin and though no humane Law could have caused or prevented this of the Infancy of a Son or Majority of a Brother yet may and ought human Laws prevent or punish the wicked acts of men which may ensue thereon in attempts to Murder either and seeing God by his Moral Law hath Commanded Powers to be a Terror to Evil Doers it is their Duty therefore And if they neglect it the bear the Sword in vain to make Laws to prevent and punish them and not to leave Infants and Subjects Exposed in such a Wilderness of Dangers as this is of Succession because its possible Fate may destroy them notwithstanding the greatest human care and Providence may without any such care taken at all preserve them Which Stoical and Epicuraean Follies of fata regunt homines fatis agimur Cedite fatis or Res humanas ordine nullo fortuna regit or vita regitur Fortuna non Sapientia to Extend beyond their Bounds prescribed by God or to all humane Actions because ordained and permitted in some were like the Ridiculous Pagan Divinity derived from none but such Authors Not to sow because Fate may destroy the Harvest with it and Providence may give an Harvest without it Not to wear Arms in War because Fate may destroy with them and Providence may preserve without them Not to do good Works because if Predestinated to be Damn'd thou shalt be Damn'd with them And if Predestinated to be Saved thou shalt be saved without them I should not have thought this of Fate worth the objecting or answering had I not found the same Actually press'd in the most Excellent Historian and Statist that ever writ in the Isle of Great Britain for such was Buchanan out of whom I have recited it Answ 4 To the Objection of the Civil Wars between Baliol and Bruce and York and Lancaster notwithstanding the Succession of the Crown ascertained to the Kings Eldest Son Answ 4. As to the Calamities of Civil Wars which followed between Baliol and Bruce in Scotland and the Houses of York and Lancaster in England notwithstanding the Laws in both Kingdoms making the Crown Hereditary to the Eldest Son And that such Lawes did not prevent the same I Answer first As to Scotland the effect of the Law of Primogeniture could not be expected where there was no Eldest Son surviving nor on the Death of Margaret of Norway so much as an Heir Lineal Male or Female left but if there had been an Eldest Son left there is no appearance of any thing against it but the Crown of Scotland had never Returned to the Line of the Earl of Huntingdon but remained in the Line of King Alexander the Third who was the last Possessor which would have prevented all those Ten Competitors to claym from Huntingdon and consequently the Wars between Baliol and Bruce Then as to the Civil Wars in England if Richard the Second had left a Son there appears no probability that ever there had been a Civil War between York and Lancaster Besides if when there is an Eldest Son left as was by Edward the Fourth and an younger Son with him and notwithstanding there followed a new Civil War between York and Lancaster in the Persons of Richard the Third and Henry the Seventh first though this Law of Primogeniture in Succession did not prevent it And though the Law make it High Treason to Compass the death of the Eldest Son yet could it not prevent the Murder of both the Sons To which I answer That it is not to be Imputed as a fault to the Statute or Law that some wicked persons dare break it but is notwithstanding of greater use as the Statutes which make it High Treason to Counterfeit the Kings Seal or to Clip Money and Felony to Rob on the High-Way Though many have notwithstanding Counterfeited the Seal Clipt Money and Rob'd on the High-way yet are not these Statutes Useless but a great Security to the People for though there are now a few if there were no such Statute at all there would be multitudes of Malefactors Richard the Third designing to Murder his Brother's Sons first slandered them with Illegitimacy Besides as to the Particular Instance of Edward the Fourth it was his Inadvertency and indeed Imprudence to Commit the Guardianship of his Son in Minority to his Brother who thereupon forged Illegitimacy against them and Murdered them And it was done for want of such a Law of Succession as was Enacted by Kenneth the Third and Malcolme Mackenneth the Second in Scotland which according to Buchanan lib. 6. p. 191. was A Guardian by the Law of Scotland to be Elected by Parliament during the Minority of the Prince Vt Rege Impubere Tutor qui pro Rege esset interea Eligeretur vir prudentia opibus insignis qui ad quartodecimum usque Annum Regis nomine rem administraret Ad id aetatis