Selected quad for the lemma: conscience_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
conscience_n	authority_n	church_n	ordain_v	1,218	5	9.9132	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15733	An ansvvere to a popish pamphlet, of late newly forbished, and the second time printed, entituled: Certaine articles, or forcible reasons discouering the palpable absurdities, and most notorious errors of the Protestants religion. By Anthony Wotton	Wotton, Anthony, 1561?-1626.; Wright, Thomas, d. 1624. Certaine articles or forcible reasons.	1605 (1605)	STC 26002; ESTC S120304	112,048	194

comforts I spake of before vpheld him from all daunger of despayring and deliuered him from that perpetuity of torment in which otherwise hauing taken vpon him our Person hee should haue remained Now this so being we need not feare these thunder-bolts of horrible blasphemy although wee beleeue that Christ our sauiour did for a time indure in his soule the wrath of God which was due to our sinnes Neither doe we hereby make God the enemie of God nor of the humanitie of Iesus Christ which he euer most entirely loued but only auouch that God truly hated and punisht our sinnes in his owne sonne with such a kinde and measure of his wrath as being true and iust was euery way without sinne and finite in regard of the time so that I take the Doctrine to be voide of blasphemy howsoeuer the meaning of the Article bee conceiu'd Article 5. The Protestants haue no meane to determine Controuersies and abolish heresies Protestant No more then they haue a rule to know what is matter of Faith Papist As the Protestants neither know what they beleeue nor A. why they beleeue so haue they no meanes in their church to settle them in vnity of beleefe nor to determine controuersies nor to abolish heresies as hath the catholick church for our sauiour Christ by his diuine prouidence did foresee that heresies were to arise in his church as his Apostle S. Paule doth warne vs * 1. Cor 11 Profe that the church cānot ●r●e Mat. 18. 17 Eph. 4. 11. Ioh. 14. 17 Luk. 10. 16 § Profe of the principall proposition Act ●5 the which as plagues were to infect his flocke and therefore he not only forewarned vs of them but also gaue vs meanes how to preuent and extinguish them 1. ● He willed vs to heare his Church if we would not be accounted as Ethnicks and Publicans 2. He ordeined Pastors and Doctors least we should be carried away with euery blast of vaine doctrine 3. He promised vnto the church the assistance of the holy Ghost in such sort as they which would not heare her would not heare him The catholicks therefore beleeuing certainly that the Church cannot erre that the generall Councils cannot deliuer false doctrine that the Pastors and ancient fathers with ioynt consent cannot teach vntruths when heresies spring vp presently with th● voice of the Church pluck them vp by the rootes a In the first Nicene coūcel was cōdemned Arrius in the coūcell of Constātinople Macedonius In the coūcel of Ephesus Nestorius In the coūcel of Calcedon Eutiches vide Aug. lib. 2. retract ca. 50 and so euer hath practised and after this maner ouerthrowne all encounters false opinions and errours which the Diuill by his ministers euer planted or established in the world and so they haue bin freed from all braules and quarrels in matters of religion But the Protestants admitting the sole scripture as Vmpere Principall propositiō and Assumption and iudge in matters of Controuersie and allowing no infallible interpreter thereof but remitting all to euery mans priuate spirit and singular exposition cannot possiblie without errour wind themselues out of the Labyrinth of so many Controuersies wherewith they are now inueagled and intricated And the irreconciliable iarres betwixt them and the Puritans in essentiall points of faith geue s●fficient testimony that they will neuer haue an end holding those grounds of opinion which they obstinately defend B. And albeit they goe about to bleare the peoples braines I haue heard of blearing the peoples eyes but neuer till now of blearing their braines which I know not what vnity and conformity in matters of faith and in the substance of religion and that their disagreement only consisteth in points of Ceremonies and trifles of small importance yet in very deed they differ in many essentiall points of religion And although this shift will perhaps serue to cast a mist ouer the confused conceipts of simple soules silly fooles● yet no wiseman wil euer beleeue them I pray you tell me is not the Kings supremacie a matter of faith and a chiefe point of religion And do not all sound Puritans in the world denie it and defie it Aske Caluin 7. Amos. Caluin the puritanicall Patriarke what he thought of King Henry the eight for assuming of such a preheminence vnto him read the Annales of Scotland and you shall finde the presumptuous presbytery euery foot opposing themselues against our Kings authority as though he had nothing to doe with the Kirke Looke into the carriage of our precisians at home and you shall find them in shew to professe it but in deeds and effects really to deny it For if they approue his supremacie with what face can they resist his ordinances in matters of religion why weare they not vestments Surplisses the Cap and Tippet why refuse they to baptise with the signe of the Crosse why subscribe they not to the the booke of common praier why obey they not the ecclesiasticall Canons established by his Maiesties authoritie No other reason of this obstinate repugnancie can be yeelded then that in very truth they doe not in Conscience allow of his supremacy 2. Is not the authority of Bishops their power to create ministers their degree in dignity aboue ordinary Curats and Pastors a matter o● faith and so neerely toucheth the gouernment of the Church that if this hereticall order be abolished Perhaps he would haue said hierarchicall the whole forme of Christs Church is presently confounded 3. The obseruation of feasts and holy dayes infringed by Puritans maintayned by protestants is it but a Ceremony were not the obstinate impugning thereof a sufficient reason to censure them for Heretikes did not the Councill of Nice condemne the Quartodecimani for Heretickes who would only haue obserued their Easter day vpon the 14. day of the moneth of March What if they had called our Precisians to the barre who will haue it wholy abolished Question●es they would haue branded them in a farre deeper degree of Heresie then the Quartodecimani 4 Is not the obseruation of Lent and other fasting days a matter of more moment then trifles or then things indifferent Did not S. Epiphanius cēsure Aërius of Heresie for denying these prescript times for fasting For albeit they be not precisely set downe in scriptures and therein commaunded to be obserued yet they being either ordeyned by the Apostles or instituted by the church which had authoritie to appoint fastes at least as well as the puritane presbytery wi●hout doubt he that calleth this holy institution either doctrine of Diuils or torture of consciences or restraint of Euangelical libertie ought by the iudgement of all true protestants to be condemned for a pagon and infidell who wil not submit his soule to the censure of the Church 5. The Puritans blasphemously pronounce and ignorantly defende that Christ suffred the paines of hell vpon the crosse and that in this passionful agony agonizing griefe did

Supreame head of the Church which title being taken from the Pope and giuen to the King seemed to inuest that whole power in the Kings person which the Pope had vsurped ouer the church Secondly Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester affirmed at Ratisbon that it was lawfull for the King to forbid eating of flesh vpon this or that day to forbid Priests to marry to take from the people the vse of the Cup in the Supper of the Lord The later two whereof are simply vnlawfull the first only so farre as it concernes putting religion in such abstinence of which anon And in that sense onely did Caluin denie the Kings supremacie in this point taking it to be all one with the Popes What opposition the Presbyterie of Scotland hath made against the King I neither know nor haue now leasure to seeke But if they haue done any thing whereby it may iustly be suspected that they thinke the king hath nothing to do with the kirke they haue gone beyond their bounds and shall neuer haue eyther approbation or excuse by my defense As for the Ministers and people which doe not yeeld to subscription and conformitie I must needs labour to cleere them of this imputation To which purpose I desire it may first be obserued that they acknowledge both by word and writing and that ex animo not like you Papists with I know not what aequiuocations that the Kings Maiestie vnder God is the onely supreame Gouernour of this Realme and of all other his Highnesse dominions and countries as well in all spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes as temporall that no forraine Prince person state or Potentate hath or ought to haue any iurisdiction power superioritie preheminence or authoritie Ecclesiasticall or spirituall within his Maiesties said Realmes dominions and countries according as the statute agreeablie to the law of God requireth Secondly they professe with the rest of their Fathers and brethren Protestants that his Maiestie hath authoritie to commaund or forbid in all matters whatsoeuer necessarie or indifferent and that in both these he is to be obeyed vpon conscience Of his authoritie in matters commanded by God we are wholy of one minde About the matters in question there are these two differences Whether they be indifferent or no whether supposing them to be indifferent they may be commaunded and done in case they be thought to nourish superstition in many and to be an occasion of stumbling and destruction to many a one for whom Christ hath dyed And these are the reasons why they dare not as they say approue some things in our church by subscription and practise otherwise professing not onely a willingnesse but a desire to yeeld if they might satisfie their owne consciences in these doubts So that indeed they no way deny the Kings supremacie either by attributing that to any forrain potētate or prelate or any presbytery at home which lawfully belōgs vnto him or by denying his authority in things indifferent Concerning the authoritie of Bishops it is not an essentiall point of faith and besides the best protestant diuines holde that the forme of gouernment is left to the discretion of euery church to be framed as the ciuill estate may beare it and therefore it is not denyed I thinke that there may be a Presbytery but that a Presbytery is fit for a Monarchie So that the abolishing of Bishops in some Churches is not a confounding of Christs church but a dissoluing of one outward forme of gouernment Essentiall points of faith are matters of doctrine wherein a man may be sound and yet faile in some parts of obedience If therefore by not obseruing you meane not thinking it lawfull to obserue or appoint holy daies I say it is no essētiall point of faith to doubt of or deny this authority though the Puritans generally hold such deniall to be an error If it be your meaning to charge the Puritans with neglecting the obseruation of such daies I dare be bold to say that all Puritans do more religiously obserue them then any Papist doth the Lords day or Sunday which I auowe both of Ministers and people That it is vnlawfull for the church or magistrat to appoint fasts for the religious humbling of men vpon iust occasions it is a foule error for any man to hold but not against any essentiall point of faith required to the being of a christian either in truth or profession Both Protestants Puritans agree generally about this point as for the weekly fish daies Lēt the 4. ember weeks our church and state disclaime the appointing of them for any vse of religion and keepe them only as meanes to prouide for the encrease of cattell and mainteinance of shipping Mariners Fishermen and Fishmongers Neither is this doctrine of Christs suffrings any essentiall point of faith nor blasphemy on the one part or other as I haue s●ewed before in the fourth article This makes no difference betwixt Protestants Puritants because many on either side are of this opinion many of the contrary Of this I say as of the former that taking it in such a sense as this Papist doth it is no essentiall point of faith but in the true meaning of the article it is for it belongs to to the truth of Christian Religion as a substantiall point to hold that our Sauiour Christ was wholly in the estate of the dead both for soule and bodie Of this matter alsoe there is diuersitie of opinion betwixt Protestants and Protestants Puritans and Puritans and therefore it is fondly and falsly set downe as a point of dissent betwixt protestants and Puritans The like answere is to be made to this also saue onely that it may be doubted whether any Protestant agree with the Papists in this point or no generally I am sure the Puritans and the Protestants are of one opinion in this matter To hold that Christ is God of God the naturall sonne of God coessentiall Coēternall to his father is a matter of necessitie at the least so that the Contrary ouerthrowes religion But for my part I dare not affirme that the distinct knowledge of all such points is of necessity to saluation And surely sauing other mens better iudgment I am of opinion that those Clauses of Athanasius Creed which seeme to shut all men out of heauen that beleeue not those articles of the Creed are to be vnderstood of some of them onely or of the Contrary to the truth The holy and learned man spake according to the occasion the heresie of Arrius hauing made a maine difference betwixt the true and false Christians But of these three last points see The fourth Article Thus much of the maine differences which this Papist ●oats now followe the petty ones as hee calls them The first whereof is as true as the former seauen For our agrement in the matter of Baptisme may easilie be knowne by our ioynt consent to the articles of Religion 1562. according to

and most effectually intended their sinnes For he that intendeth any effect wherewith an other effect is necessarily conioyned consequently intendeth it as for example He that intendeth to burne a ship in the middest of the sea intēdeth cōsequently the death of all the men which be in her In like m●ner if God intended that Iudas should sell Christ vnto which action sinne was necessarily adioyned consequently God intended the sinne as well as the selling C. Cal. lib. 1. institution C. 18. §. 1. The Minor is to to euident for the Protestants deride Gods permission they say that all his actions are energetical or effectual they desperatly auerre that Pauls conuersion Dauids adultry were in like maner the works of God and as he elected some to Glory before the preuision of workes so he reiected some from glory before the preuision of sinnes Here hence I inferre that according to the Protestants principles God is most properly the author of sinne because he impelleth most effectually thereunto Next that he is the only author of sinne for that he inforceth D. men vpon necessity to sinne and they as instruments follow the motion of their first cause Againe that man sinneth not For where there is necessitie of sinning there is no sinne For sinne is free or no sinne Besides how can man sinne in conforming his will to Gods will Finally God is worse then the diuell For that the wickednes of the diuell principally consisteth in the mouing perswading and inducing of men to sin the which by the Protestants confession God performeth more effectually then the Diuell because the motions of God are more forcible lesse resistable then the illusions or suggestions of the diuell Many sinnes moreouer are acted without the temptations of the diuell some of ignorance some of passion but none without the motions of God so that God is worse then the Diuell both in causing greater multitude of sinnes then the diuell and in the forcible maner of causing sinnes Which the diuell cannot attaine vnto The which doctrine is as good a ground for Atheisme as euer hell could deuise for were it not much more reasonable to saye there were no God at all then to beleeue there were such a God as commaundeth perswadeth vrgeth impelleth men to sinne and yet for the same sinnes will torment them with the inexplicable paines of hell Protestant Whosoeuer defends that God Commaunds perswades vrges A. impells to sinne makes God the cause of sinne Of this proposition there is no question betwixt the Papists and vs. Yet I hold it necessary to speake a word or two of it not by way of refutation but of explication If a man commaund vrge c. to that which is euill and the effect ensue therevpon he is iustly to be charged with that sinne as the Author of it In Gods Commaunding it is otherwise For that which he B. commaunds being otherwise euill chaunges the nature by his commaundement so that neither he that commaunds nor the partie that obeies commit any sinne in commaunding or obeying For example it is vnlawfull for a man to offer vp his Child for a burnt sacrifice yet God commaunds Abraham to do so and Abraham is ready to fulfill the comm●undement Both without sinne because the will of God is the rule of righteousnes and he that gaue man a lawe hath reserued authoritie to himselfe to dispence with that lawe when and as it pleaseth him and as this Papist saith truely Euery man is bound in Conscience to Conforme his will to the will of God But yet this is not simply true For admit that Iudas had knowne that it was Gods will that our Sauiour should be betraied to the Iewes by him might he therefore the doing of it At no hand for he was to haue receaued a warrant for it that it might be lawful wheras he had the contrary charge in the 6. Commaundement Thou shalt not kill But if God had geuen him commission to do it as he did to abraham for the offring of his sonne then he had bin bound to yeeld obedience to this commaundement of God and had not sinned in obeying So much doth it concerne a man to liue in obedience to those lawes which God hath prescribed to all and euery man generally and particularly Abraham hath a commaundement not to kill if it be Gods wil he should kill without sinning therby God wil giue him warrant and charge to kil without which howsoeuer Gods wil stand Abraham cannot do it lawfully And therefore it had not ben warrantable for Iudas Pilate or the Iewes intending that good end which God intended to haue done contrary to the generall commaundement of God without a speciall commission to that purpose which is more then a knowledge that God would haue it done This being vnderstood we disclayme as needelesse all such excuses for God as this Papist seemeth to make on our behalfe For we say not that God moued them for a good end but that he did not moue them at all and yet there is a great deale of difference betwixt mouing and commaunding perswading vrging impelling since he may truly be said to moue a man that offers him the outward occasions whereby he may be prouoked to the doing of any thing which I suppose God doth and you will graunt may do without being guilty of sinne for so doing But if we would maintaine that God moued them it it were no hard matter to answer your strong proofe For neither doth God binde him selfe to those lawes which he giues to man and his will being the rule of Iustice that which he will haue done by his willing of it ceasses to be euill So that he cannot doe any euill though he may commaund that to be done which till he commaunded it could not be done without sinne But you vrge vs further that God indirectly and most effectually intended their sinnes Of his effectuall intending by and by in answere to the Assumption Now only of his direct intending which we are so farre from denying that we hold it absurd to make any question of it For what is more plaine in the scripture then that 2 Sā 24. 1. God would haue Dauid sinne to the end that he might by his sinne haue occasion to punish the people as he did Doth not Michah professe that it was Gods purpose 1. Reg. 22. 22. 23. that Achab should fall at Ramoth Gile●d by hearkening to the false prophesies of them whom a lying spirit was to seduce Goe saith God thou shalt preuaile And to come to your owne example did not God intend decree that our sauiour Christ should be treacherously betrayed by Iudas falsely accused by the Priests vniustly condemned by Pilate If he did not certainly determine these things so that the euen could not but ensue thereupon he did not certainly prouide for the saluation of his children because it might haue come to passe that Christ should not haue bene betrayed