Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	woman_n	word_n	work_n	101	3	4.6538	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A12482	An answer to Thomas Bels late challeng named by him The dovvnfal of popery wherin al his arguments are answered, his manifold vntruths, slaunders, ignorance, contradictions, and corruption of Scripture, & Fathers discouered and disproued: with one table of the articles and chapter, and an other of the more markable things conteyned in this booke. VVhat controuersies be here handled is declared in the next page. By S.R.	Smith, Richard, 1566-1655.	1605 (1605)	STC 22809; ESTC S110779	275,199	548

That no points of Christian faith nor that al can not by some way or other be proued by some similitude congruity or probable illation nor that immediatly by testimony of the Church whose testimony in al doctrine of faith can be immediatly proued out of Scripture But only deny that al can be immediatly proued out of scripture by the very words of Scripture and so sufficiently as it sufficeth to captiuate our vnderstanding Articles 39 decreed by Bishops and Ministers 1562. and 1571. into obedience of faith This is directly against the sixt Article of Protestants faith and against Bel in this whole Article But I prooue it as I did the former conclusion For there is no place of al the Scripture which sufficiently proueth al the test Al thinges can not be taken out of Scripture Epiphan haer 61. to be Canonical our B. Lady to be a perpetual virgin and the Sabbath to be lawfully translated from Saterday to Sunday And it shal be more euident out of that which we shal say of Traditions and in answer to Bels arguments For the present it sufficeth that it is so cleare as our very aduersaries do somtime confesse it As See Couel art 4. p. 31. Hooper vvith him Bel p. 134. 135. Luther See Roffens con Luther verit 4. Bellarm. lib. 4. de verb. Dei c. 4. col 164. Luther certaine of Purgatory Bel pag. 134. and 135. art 7. admitteth one point of faith which is not in the Bible professeth that they meane not of it when they say al things necessary to saluation are contained in Scriptures And Luther art 37. said That purgatory can not be proued out of Scripture and yet in the assertion of the same he said That he was certaine there was Purgatory nor cared much what Hereticks babled to the contrary Now let vs come to Bels obiections which albeit for the most part be against Traditions yet because the matters of sufficiency of Scripture and of Traditions are connexed and because we wil keepe his order as much as we can we wil here answer them in that order as they are propunded by him CHAP. II. Bels arguments out of the oulde Testament concerning the sufficiency of Scripture ansvvered Bel citeth dyuers places which make Bel pag. 86. 87. 88. 89. nothing for absolute sufficiency of Scriptures or against Traditions but only bid vs obey and follow the law as Iosue 1. v. 7. and 23. v. 6. Malach. 4. v. 4. omitting therfore these places I answer to other as Deuter. 4. v. 2. and Prouerb 30. v. 6. where God forbiddeth vs to adde to his worde and Deuter. 12. v. 32. where we are bidden to doe to the lorde onely that which he commandeth without adding or taking avvay First that these places make as much against Protestants as Catholicks For they admit one vnwritten Tradition as Bel confesseth and appeareth Bel p. 134. 135. Brent in prolegom Kemnit in examin Conc. Trid. by Brentius Kempnitius the Deane of the chappel and the places cyted by Bel forbid as wel the adding of one thing as of many to Gods worde 2. Secondly I answer that they make nothing against these Traditions which Bel impugneth vz. such as are necessary to Bel pag 86. in praesat Articuli mans saluation for such are indeed Gods worde though vnwritten For the two first places only forbid adding to Gods worde any thing of our owne head or which is mans worde as may be proued First by the reason of the forbiddance prouerb 30. cit vz. least we be disproued and fownde lyers as no doubt we might by adding mans worde which is subiect to lye but not by adding Gods Worde which can neuer proue vntrue though it be not written Secondly because the Iewes did euer adde one thing to Gods written worde as Bel confesseth Conference at Hampton Court p 68. pag. 134. and the Deane of the chappel affirmed they added both signes and words vnto the institution of the Passouer prescribed vnto them by Moyses which addition and Tradition of Ievves added signes and vvords to Gods vvord and their addition confirmed by Christ. theirs saith he was approued by our Sauiour at his last supper And this doctrine was exceeding wel liked in the conference at Hampton Court Thirdly because the Prophets and Euangelists did adde to Moyses law without breaking of the commādement in the aforesaid places 3. Bel answereth That the doctrine of the Bel pag. 89. Prophets is nothing els but an explication of the law But if by the worde explication he vnderstand only such as adde nothing to the sense or meaning of the law but only explicate in other words types or figures the bare meaning of the law he speaketh most absurdly For beside that it is spoken without any reason at al it is against reason and sense to say that al the books of Iosue Iudges Kings and Prophets adde no sense to the law of Moyses For where doth the law of Moyses tel vs of euery worde or action of euery particuler man or woeman recorded in the books of the oulde Testament written since the law was giuen where is euery worde or deede of euery perticuler person in the new Testament And although dyuers actions of Christ especially his death and passion was prefigured in the law yet the like can not be thought of euery action or speech of euery perticuler person so that the words or figures of Moyses law actually tolde whatsoeuer perticuler things ether Prophets or Euangelists euer wrote Wherfore S. Austin S. Austin lib. 1. retract c. 22. recalled what he had said lib. cont Adimant c. 3. That al the precepts and promises in the new Testament are in the oulde For certaine precepts there be saith he not figured but proper which are not found in the oulde Testament but in the new And for this cause Tertullian lib. cont Hermog Tertullian called the Ghospel a supply of the oulde Testament 4. But if Bel by the word explication Hovv traditions are explicatiōs of the lavv comprehend al such additions as though they adde to the sense and meaning of the law yet are ether of their nature or of the intention of the adder referred to the better vnderstanding comprehension and fulfilling of the law as al the reasons similitudes comparisons examples and sentences in an oration are explications of the theame therof because though they adde sense to the sense of the theam yet they al tend to the perfect comprehension of the theame I graunt al the writings of Prophets and Apostles to be explications of the law as hath bene explicated in the second conclusion Chapt. 1. parag 7. 8. but withal adde that the Traditions of the Church are such like explications For what they containe is in like sort referred as a meane to the end to the perfect vnderstanding and fulfilling of the said law and so they are no other additions

Greg. Naz. orat 3. in bapt S. Hierom. S. Chrysost to 4. epist 105. writeth that As death is rendred as a stipend to the merit of sinne so is euerlasting life as a stipend to the merit of iustice S. Ireney l. 4. c. 72. saith By good works we conquer heauen S. Basil orat in init prouerb By good works we buy heauen S. Gregory Nazian For good works we may exact reward not as grace but as playne debt S. Hierom epist ad Celant God hath cause to reward vs. S. Chrisostom hom 7. in epist Rom. calleth vs. Gods creditors and vsurers and him our debtor and hom 3. Tom. 2. de Lazaro that by good workes we deserue heauen as by euil hel Yea Bel him selfe admitteth Bel pag. 77. more then impetration when hereafter he cōfesseth heauen to be due to good workes for where duty is there is not meere Contradict 16. impetration that works are to heauen as the loane of a cloake in a shower of rayne vpon promise of an hundred pownds for here is some iustice And professeth to defend pag. 79. Durand 2. d. 27. quaest 2. expresly admitteth condigne merit Cap. 1. parag 2. Durands opinion who vndoubtedly admitteth more then simple impetration But if Bel had remembred his owne and the common doctrin of Protestants before rehearsed that al good works whatsoeuer are sinne he wold neuer haue graunted that they are impetratorious of Gods fauor and reward For how cā sinne impetrate fauour or reward and not rather offence and punishment Wherupon Perkins in plaine Perkins refor Cathol Of merits p. 112. 104. Caluin 3. instit c. 15. parag 4. 2. tearms affirmeth that our righteousnes is not capable of merit and vtterly renounceth al merit of man And Caluin not only abhorreth the name of merit affirming it to be proude and to obscure Gods grace and to make men proude but professeth that our good vvorks are euer sprinkled vvith many filthinesses for vvhich God may be iustly offended and angry vvith vs so far saith he are they from purchasing his fauour or procuring his liberality towards vs. Thus we see how conformably Bel speaketh to his owne and his fellow Bel against his fellovv Ministers Ministers doctrine 4. Second Conclusion Good workes done in Gods grace are condignely meritorious of eternal life This is that which Bel impugneth in this Article as a point of our faith and auoucheth it to be defyned by the Councel of Trent but falsly For the Councel hath no word of condigne merit but only of true merit which in plaine tearms Bel him self dare not impugne or deny If any shal say saith the Councel that a iustified Ttident sess 6. can 32. man by good works which he doth by the grace of God and merit of Iesus Christ whose liuely member he is doth not truly deserue increase of grace eternal life and consecution therof if he departe in grace and also increase of glory be he accursed Here are good works defyned to be true merit of glory without determining whither they be cōdigne merit therof or no. Wherupon vega who was one of the Vega. Deuines of the coūcel writeth de fid ope q. 4. That some noble schoole diuines being moued saith he with no light arguments and vsing a certaine sober and prudent moderation haue denyed that there is any condigne merit of eternal happines And againe It is certaine saith he that there is merit in our works and some of them be meritorious but of what reward and how they are meritorious it is in controuersy there are diuers opiniōs amōgst the schoole diuines And q. 5. he affirmeth Gregory Gregor 1. d. 17. q. 1. Durand q. 2. Marsil in 2. VValden de sacra c. 7. Burgens in psalm 35. Eckins in centur de predest Durand Marsil Walden Burgensis and Eckins to deny condigne merit Satus also an other diuine of the sayd Councel l. 3. de Nat. Grat. c. 7. saith that there is some difference amongst Catholiques about condigne merit and c. 8. after he had proued condigne merit out of the Councel and otherwaies yet concludeth not that it is a point of faith but only calleth it conclusionem probatissimam a most approued Conclusion And Bellarmin whome Bel tearmeth the mouth of Papists lib. 5. de iustific cap. 16. after he had rehearsed twoe opinions of Catholiques wherof the one seemeth plainly to deny condigne merit the other admitteth it only in a large sense proposeth and defendeth the third opinion which defendeth condigne merit absolutly only as verissimam communem sententiam Theologorum most true and the common opinion of Diuines as indeed it is and we shal proue it anone against Bel. Hereby appeareth Bels shameful proceeding in this Article in impugning condigne merit as a point of faith defyned by the Councel of Trent which hath no word of condigne merit and omitting the question of true merit which the Councel defyned Catholiques defend as a point of their faith against Protestants 5. The third Conclusion is that This This seemeth defyned Conc. Trid. sess 6. c. vlt. in Bulla Pij 5. Gregor 13. condigne merit is not absolute but supposeth the condition of Gods promise made to reward it This is held of the best Diuines and proued at large by Bellarmin l. 5 de iustifi c. 14. The fourth Conclusion is that This condigne merit in our works is not perfect hauing actual and perfect arithmetical equality before explicated This manifestly S. August in psal 93. to 8. S. Chrysost 2. Cor. 9. S. Bernard serm 1. de Annuntiat the Fathers teach with al Catholiques and Bels arguments hereafter brought conuince it and no more The fifte Conclusion is that the imperfect cōdigne merit which is in our works to heauen riseth not meerly of Gods acceptation but partly of the due proportion and sufficiency before explicated in them to the reward This likewise is no matter of faith yet truth taught by S. Thomas 1. 2. 4. 114. ar 1. 3. Bonauent S. Thomas S. Bonauent 2. d. 17. and Deuines in that place cōmonly Bellar l. 5. de Iustif c. 17. though Scot. 1. Bellarm. Scotus d. 17. and some others deny it with whom Bel also falleth in league towards the end Bel pag. 7● of this Article The sixt Conclusion is that the said condignity riseth not of any due proportion which is in the substance of our worke if it be considered in it selfe but as it is the fruit of the holy Ghost mouing vs to do it and the effect of Gods grace helping vs in doing it which grace making vs partakers as S. Peter speaketh of deuine nature 1. Pet. 1. v. 4. Coloss 1. v. 10. 2. Thessal 1. v. 5. so dignifyeth our works as according to S. Paul we walke vvorthely of God and become vvorthy of Gods kingdome And because Bel denyeth none of these Conclusions but the second and fieft them

beleeue he hath great skil in that tongue though the wordes be in his booke neither accented nor printed right but remitting this fault to the printer the text he englisheth thus But the gift of God is life euerlasting in Christ Iesus our lorde and then argueth in this manner Eternal life is the free gift of God therfore it can be no way due to the merit of mans workes 2. Answer First the consequent seemeth opposite to this other proposition of his pag. 77. Eternal life is due to the workes of Gods elect Secondly the Antecedent is false Foure reasons vvhy eternal life is grace and neither here nor any where els taught by S. Paul He calleth here eternal life grace as it may be called for diuers causes 1. because God gratiously couenanted with vs to giue it as a rewarde of our good workes which we being his slaues by creation he might haue exacted of vs without any rewarde at al. This is S. Thomas his reason S. Thomas 1. 2. q. 114. art 2. 2. because the workes them selues for which God giueth vs life eternal were freely giuen vnto vs by Gods grace This is S. Austins reason epist 105. 5. Austin 3. because the workes haue no perfect actual equality to eternal life but only virtual and proportionate and this reason giueth Theodoret. in cap. 6. Rom. where he Theodoret. saith that temporal paines and eternal ioyes in aequilibrio non respondent and Bel falsly translateth Bel pag. 63. Fals translation 4. are nothing answerable 4. because as workes are rewarded euen aboue their virtual and proportionate equality as Deuines say vltra condignum No maruel if S. Paul called eternal life rather grace or gift then a stipend seeing it hath much more of grace then it hath of iustice yet notwithstanding he no where called it meere grace yea in 1. Cor. 3. Philip 3. v. 14. 2. Timoth. 4. v. 8. S. Paul might haue called glory a stipend S. Austin calling it a rewarde a goale and crowne of iustice he clearly declareth that it is no meere grace nor free gift beside that as S. Austin writeth epist 105. he might haue called it a stipende as he calleth death in respect of sinne but forbore lest we should thinke it were so iustly deserued by good workes as death is by euil And perhaps he called it so in the next verse before where he calleth eternal life in greeke telos which as Beza Beza Rom. 6. confesseth may there signify vectigal or mercedem and is equiualent to stipend 3. Notwithstanding this Bel exclaimeth pag. 62. against the Rhemists that they translated Charisma grace in steed of gift for to extenuate the clearnes of this text wherin he sheweth his malice and folly For malice it is to accuse men to corrupt Scriptures of set purpose and to bring no proofe therof yea to confesse as he doth that they follow the auncient vulgar edition of which S. Hierom was either Author or amender And folly it is to condemne that translation as done for to extenuate the clearnes of Scripture and withal to confesse as he doth that it is according to the olde vulgar edition and that it may be here admitted and to approue an other translation of Donation or Gift which maketh no more for his purpose then Grace which him selfe in the next page englisheth Free grace and finally to alleadge in his owne behalfe Theodoret. S. Chrisostom Origen Ambros Theophilact In cap. 6. ad Rom. and Paul of Burges whoe al in the very places which he citeth for him selfe read as the Rhemists translate grace though some of them explicate it by Gift as it is indeed though no free gift 4. But let vs heare why the Rhemists did not wel translate the worde Charisma by Bel sup Perkins refor Cathol p. 107. Grace Because saith he it signifieth a gift freely bestowed If so Syr why did not you your mates and your Bibles so translate it but Bibles printed by Barker 1584. absolutly by gift So you condemne other and commit your selfe the like fault Remember what S. Paul saith to such Rom. 2. But how proueth he Charisma to signify a Gift freely giuen Forsooth autos ephe This Lexicon Grynaei Basileae 1539. vvho citeth Budaeus Lexicon Gesneri auctū per Arlemium Iunium Hartengum Basileae great Grecian hath said it contrary to the Lexicons made and printed by Protestants who make Charisma al one with Charis and to signify Grace or gift without mention of Free gift contrary to the old vulgar translation contrary to the vniforme reading of Fathers contrary to his owne and his fellows translations Are these your cleare and euident demonstracions which shal be able to put al Papists as you promise to silence for euer in this behalfe pag. 62. 5. Novv saith he let vs vievve the iudgement of holy Fathers vpon this text With a good wil Syr But marke good Readers how the Fathers are holy their wordes are golden See Bel p. 62. 64. 65. 71. 75. 67. 59. 104. 132. their mouthes golden and them selfes glistering beames and strong pillers of Gods Church when they seeme to make for Bel who otherwise amongst Protestants are but plaine Austin and Hierom and their doctrine stubble errors spottes blemishes Likewise when Popish writers seeme to fauour Bel they are with him famous renowned zealous great schoole doctors great Clerks indeed whoe other whiles are but parasites and dunces 6. First he produceth out of Theodoret pag. 62. Theodoret. in c. 6. Rom. that S. Paul did not cal here eternal life a revvarde but grace because it is the gift of God and al our labours are not of equal poise vnto it This is nothing against vs who neither say that S. Paul did in this verse cal eternal life a rewarde nor deny that it is the gift of God nor affirme that our labours are of equal poise vnto it Next he produceth S. Chrisostom in c. 6. Rom. writing S. Chrysost p. 63. that The Apostle called not eternal life a revvarde but grace as Brixius translateth or gift as Bel hath to shevv that they vvere deliuered not by their ovvne strength nor that there is debt revvarde or retribution of labour but that al those things came by Gods grace or as Bel hath they receaued them freely by Gods gift Here S. Chrisostom at the first sight seemeth to deny Genes v 1. Prouerb v. 18. 2. Paralip v. 7. Sap. v. 16. Eccl. v. 22. Isai v. 10. Math. v. 12. 1. Corinth v. 8. S. Chrysost eternal life to be a rewarde or retribution of good workes which is not only contrary to Scripture Gen. 15. 2. paralip 15. prouerb 11. psal 118. Sapient 5. Eccles 18. Isai 40. Math. 5. 1. Corinth 3. Apoca. vlt. v. 12. but euen to him selfe hom 43. in 1. Corinth saying that VVe shal haue perfect revvarde and most ful retribution not only for the good vve do but

desire of knowledge and by obscurer wipe away loathsomnes For here he plainly teacheth Scripture to be obscure in some places But perhaps it is because S. Austin addeth Almost nothing is in the obscure places which is not most plainly vttered otherwhere But this helpeth Bel nothing For nether saith he that al obscurities are plainly other where explicated Nor that it is plaine in what places they are explicated And so S. Austin admitting some obscure places of Scripture to be no where explicated in Scripture and supposing it not to be plaine in what places such obscure places as are explicated be explicated admitteth Scripture to be obscure An other place he citeth Bel p. 111. 112. 113. out of S. Austin as also S. Hierom and Theodoret concerning reading of Scripturs which shal be answered in the next chapter CHAP. VII Of the vulgar peoples reading Scripture FIRST conclusion it is not necessary to al sorts of people that desire to attaine to eternal life to read Scripturs The contrary auoucheth Bel pag. 103. 109. wherin he exceedeth the heretike Pelagius who required not reading but only knowledge of Scripture for to be without sinne therby condemned a great part of Christians as S. Hierom writeth dialog 1. cont Pelag. But S. Hierom. it is so manifest as it needeth no proofe For how should they doe that can not read Doth Bel thinke Scripture to be like a neck verse that who can not read it shal be hanged where doth God command euery one vpon paine of death to read Scripturs whence came this new law which Bel proclaimeth But marke Reader Protestants taught at first that no works were necessary to saluation And now Bel auoucheth one more vz. reading of Scripturs then euer Catholiques dreamed on 2. Second conclusion It is not expedient See S. Gregor Nazianzen in Apologet orat 1. de Theolog. for euery one of the vulgar sort to read Scripturs This I proue because vnlearned and vnstable persons depraue the Scripture to their owne perdition Many of the vulgar sort are vnlearned and vnstable Therfore many of them ought not to read Scripture The Minor is euident The Maior is auerred by S. Peter 2. c. 3. v. 16. and proued by Hacket More Ket Hammont See Stovv Ann. 1561. 1579. daily experience of new Christs new Iewes new heresyes daily gathered out of Scripture And in truth the Protestants counselling of common people to read Scripturs is much like to the Diuels perswading of Eue to eat the Apple He asked Eue why God forbad her to eat they aske why the Church forbiddeth vs to read And both answering alike He replyeth you shal not die but become like Gods They say you shal not fal into errors but become like Deuines And the euent is like in both Eue by eating fel out of Paradise and incurred death simple people by reading dye in soule fal out of the Church 3. But saith Bel. A good should not be Bel p. 107. taken wholy from the godly for fault of the bad Answere The godly are not debarred from reading Scripture if they be desyrous and iudged by their Pastors to be such as wil reape good therby Neuertheles they ought not without lycence lest as S. Austin S. Augustin lib. de vtilit credend c. 10. tom 6. writeth in the like case Though they hurt not them selfs by reading they may hurt others by example As he that could fly be made to go lest his example prouoke others to so perilous attempt This saith he is the prouidence of true religion and deliuered from our Auncestors and to alter this course were nothing els then to seeke a sacriledgious way to true religion Moreouer though a thing be good in it selfe yet it is not good but to such as know how to vse it But euery one of the common people knoweth not how to vse Scripture For as Gregory Nazianzen S. Nazianz. orat Quod non liceat semper publice de Deo contēdere In Apologetico S. Hierom. epistol ad Paulin. writeth The vvord of holy vvritt is not so base that it is open to the vnlearned common sort and seely men creeping as yet vpon the ground And againe To some it is better to be taught by others And S. Hierom complaineth that euery one challengeth the knowledge of Scripture and that the chatting old vvife the doating old men and the prating Sophister take it in hand See Theodoret lib. 4. c. 17. What wold he say now if he saw Protestants children reading Scripture and taught to read english by the Byble Now let vs see Bels obiections 4. Bel alleadgeth S. Chrisostom as affirming Bel p. 103. 104. S. Chrysost proaem ep ad Rom. 1. That if we read Scripture seriously vve shal need no other thing ● That it is a great shame for men charged with wife and children only to heare sermons and not withal to study Scripturs 3. That many euils come of ignorance of Scripture as heresies and dissolute life Answer The first point is not against vs who graunt that in reading Scripture we may find al things necessary But the question now is whither it be better for euery one to find such things him selfe out of Scripture or no. As for the second point S. Chrisostom only saith that it is a shame not to exact more diligence of men in hearing sermons then in gathering mony At lest saith he be ready to heare what others haue gathered and bestovv so much diligence in hearing vvhat is said as in gathering mony For though it be a shame to exact but so much of you yet wil we be content if you performe so much The third point is easely answered because he saith Innumera mala nata sunt quod scripturae ignorantur Christ sup vntruth 84 not That much mischeef commeth of not reading as Bel falsly affirmeth pag. 105 but of not knowing the Scripture vz if men wil nether read it them selfs nor heare it readd and expounded by preachers Nether could he thinke that much mischeef can come of not reading Scripture if so be it be heard seeing he promiseth to be content if men wil heare it 5. An other place he citeth out of S. Bel p. 105. S. Chrysost hom 29. in 9. c. Genes tom 1. Chrisostom where he exhorteth men auscultare lectionem scripturae to harken to the reading of Scripture And againe At home to apply them selfes to read Scripturs Answer The first part maketh nothing for reading Differences betvvixt S. Chrysost and Protestants but only for hearing Scripture as is euident The second exhorteth to reading but 1. not euery man woman child as Protestants do but men and namely such who as he saith proem epist ad Rom. haue wiues charge of children and family And hom 9. Colos Hear you saith he who liue in the vvorld haue care of vviues and children who as he writeth conc 3. de Lazaro haue publicke offices