Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	law_n	sin_n	transgression_n	7,400	5	10.9794	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39389	To en archy: or, An exercitation upon a momentous question in divinity, and case of conscience viz. whether it be lawfull for any person to act contrary to the opinion of his own consicence, formed from arguments that to him appear very probable, though not necessary or demonstrative. Where the opinions of the papists, Vasquez, Sanches, Azonius, &c. are shewed, as also the opinions of some Protestants, viz. Mr. Hooker, Bp Sanderson, Dr. Fulwood, &c. and compared with the opinions of others; the negative part of the question maintained; the unreasonableness of the popish opinions, and some Protestants, for blind obedience, detected; and many other things discoursed. By a Protestant.	Protestant.; Collinges, John, 1623-1690, attributed name.	1675 (1675)	Wing E718; Wing C5314_CANCELLED; ESTC R214929	62,722	96

a man to Obey Superiours in things which he verily believeth are unlawful about other things we have no Dispute This Argument is so Evident as it needeth not more words We therefore proceed to a fourth § 8. He that doubteth is damned if he eateth and whatsoever is not of Faith is sin Rom. 14.23 But he who doth that which upon probable Arguments he verily believeth unlawful doubteth and yet actethnd acteth not of Faith ergo he sinneth is damned c. The Proposition is the Apostles Rom. 14.23 therefore not to be denyed but yet we find some who will not allow it a Proposition of immutable Truth but with some Circumstances That is as they expound themselves if the Person be sui juris at Liberty and Perfectly in his own Power not required to do the thing by the Command of his Superiours of the Lawfulness of which he doubteth But say they if the Superiour Commandeth then he who doth the ●●ing though he doubteth of the Lawfulness of it runneth no guilt no hazard of Damnation Now we would fain believe this if we could for it would ease us of many perplexing thoughts but we cannot for these Reasons amongst others § 9. First because what the Apostle saith seemeth to us but to be according to the Law and Order of Nature in a rational Soul That the Understanding should first represent that as true and good and therefore Eligible which the Will should chuse § 10. Because it seemeth to us possible by admitting their Interpretation to elude the whole Law of God and make any thing Lawful For what Reason can there be why what God saith in one place should be understood with that limitation and not what he saith in another Why may we not Venerate Images Go to Mass Pray for the Dead Prophane the Sabbath Vse Oyl Spittle Cream c. in Baptism if the Superiour Commandeth as well as wear a Surplis use the Cross in Baptism c. Doth any one doubt whether these things be Lawful or no or upon probable Arguments believe the contrary And is he restrained by this Text Not at all by this Interpretation if Superiours Command these or any of these things will any say That this Text speaks of things onely in their own Nature indifferent We ask who shall Judge what those things are Shall the Superiour If so what we said holdeth for it is not to be presumed he would Command them if he judgeth them sinful Shall the Inferiour He Judgeth them from probable Arguments Unlawful § 11. Thirdly Because whatsoever some Modern Doctors say We see no Scripture Translating the guilt of any Personal Action of ours to our Superiours which in Reason we should find if his Command would Justifie us in doing any thing we judge wicked Especially considering that whether we Judge it right or no it may in it self be sinful and therefore we had need have our Souls secured as to the guilt of it We think with the Apostle that Sin is an Anomie a transgression of the Law by Omission or Commission or Non-conformity how we believe that there is an inseparable guilt which he cleaves to every Omission or Oblique Action every sin bindeth over the Doer or Omitter to an Eternal death and want one Scripture to prove that the sin or Personal Obliquity of an Inferiour Action should be Translated to the Superiour and set upon his score Thus while some deny Christs imputed Righteousness they have devised a new Doctrine of Imputed guilt to the Magistrate or Superiour a Doctrine which no Superiour will thank them for that understandeth the weight of Divine wrath for sin We have heretofore heard that Superiours may make themselves guilty of sin by Commanding others to sin But that the guilt of the Inferiours Personal Action should also be Translated from him and that not to Christ but to the Superiour is a Novel idle Fancy a brutish and irrational as well as unscriptural figment and such a one as if admitted would make the Crowns of Kings and Mitres of Bishops not worth taking up in the Streets Let God therefore be true and these New Diviners all Lyars God hath said That Soul that sins shall dye and that every Soul shall bear its own Iniquity and Iniquity that must be if St. John describes sin right whatsoever is a Transgression of the Divine Law §. 12 Fourthly We cannot admit of this Interpretation because of what followeth in the Apostle Whatsoever is not of faith is sin By Faith saith Dr. Sanderson in his Sermon on Rom. 14.23 is meant A Certain perswasion of the Mind that what we do may Lawfully be done that saith he whatsoever Action is done by us either directly contrary to the Judgment and Verdict of our own Consiciences or at least doubtingly and before we are in some competent measure assured that we may Lawfully do it that is it which St. Paul here denyeth to be of Faith and of which he pronounceth so peremptorily that it is eo nomine sin Now we are sure that he who doth a thing at the Command of others which seemeth to him from probable Arguments unlawful cannot in this sence do it of Faith i. e. with no competent perswasion of the Lawfulness of it with no certainty either Supernatural Mathematical or Moral The Vanity therefore of this limitation being discovered we hope the Proposition will stand good § 13. For the Minor he who denyeth it must say That he who Opineth doth not doubt which indeed we think strictly he doth not for he hath as we said a Moral certainty but that doth but raise the Argument to à fortiori If he whose Conscience is pendulous and who hangeth in Equilibrio is damned if he doth the thing of the Lawfulness of which he doubteth then is he much more damned who doth verily think the thing unlawful and yet will do it But in the largest Notion Opining is a Species of doubting and if that Text of the Apostle be true of Doubting in any sense it must be in that sense which is of all the highest We are able to discern no chink at which our Adversaries may creep out from the Prison of this Argument but shall leave it attending to any thing they shall any of them hereafter offer in Answer to it § 14. Our next Argument shall be this That Principle which destroyeth the Pillar and Foundation of the Protestant Religion is not to be granted by those who own that Religion But to assert it Lawful under any Circumstance to Act contrary to the Opinion of a Man 's own Conscience destroyeth the Pillar and Foundation of the Protestant Religion Ergo. We confess this is but Argumentum ad homines and concerns not those whose business is to oppose and Root up the Religion of Protestants but we are speaking to Protestants who cannot deny the Proposition For the Assumption all that we have to do is to prove that the Asserting of this Principle destroyeth at least one of the