Selected quad for the lemma: life_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
life_n	eternal_a	sin_n	wage_n	5,908	5	10.9941	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A20471	A disswasiue from poperie, containing twelve effectual reasons by vvhich every Papist, not wilfully blinded, may be brought to the truth, and euery Protestant confirmed in the same: written by Francis Dillingham Master of Arts, and fellow of Christs Colledge in Cambridge, necessarie for all men in these times.	Dillingham, Francis, d. 1625.	1599 (1599)	STC 6883; ESTC S111897	57,357	173

greater things can they desire at Gods hands Nay what christian heart can abide these blasphemies if this be not to honour Marie what is to honour her I ende this heresie with Epiphanius his question Quae Scriptura aliquid de hac re narrauit what Scripture speaketh thus The 6. heresie of Angelisme Iraeneus lib. 1 In regard of breuitie I will knitt vp many heresies together the Carpocratians worshipped the Images of Iesus the Valentinians the crosse the Heracleonites prayed for the dead Epiphan 14. Haeres Elxay the horrible heretike taught praier in an vnknowen tongue Nemo quaerat interpretationem sed solum in oratione haec dicat Let no man seeke for interpretation but onely let him pray thus I will therefore in this sixth particular heresie brieflie speak of Angelisme Haeres 39. Angelici saieth Augustine in angelorum cultu sunt inclinati the Angelists were inclined to the worshipping of Angels Iraeneus likewise sheweth the practise of the church against this worship Lib. 2. cap. 59. Eeclesia non facit aliquid inuocationibus angelicis sed mundè purè dirigit orationes ad Dominum qui omnia fecit The Church doth not any thing by prayer to Angels but purely directeth her praier to the Lord that made all things Lib. de vero dei simul cap. 17. Againe Lactantius writeth thus Non est in Angelis quicquam nisi parendi necessitas itaque nullum sibi honorem tribui volunt quorum honor in deo est There is nothing in the Angels but necessitie to obey therefore they will haue no honour to be giuen to them vvhose honour is in God And in his first booke and seuenth chapter Ministri Dei coli non volunt quippe qui nihil praeter iussum Dei voluntatem faciunt Gods attendants will not be adored for they doe nothing but his commaundement and will If these men were aliue what would they haue written against the Papistes who maintaine the adoration and worshipping of Angels The fifth reason of the popish dissolute and discomfortable doctrine IT is not vnknowne how the Papists without all shame accuse our doctrine of loosenes wheras all our writings sermons and exercises tende to holines of life for we preach mortification of the flesh continuance in prayer and in a word all holy duties we permit no filthie stewes neither by rash vowes cause incontinencie and fornication which are notorious and knowne things amongst the Papists Vrbs est saith Mantuan iam tota lupanar the whole citie is a stewes speaking of Rome And as the liues of the Papists haue beene odious to God and to man so I doubt not but in this motiue to prooue that their doctrine tendeth to horrible dissolutenes and hellish horrour In Aquinas his supplement art 2. quaest 2. it is taught that no man ought to be contrite in heart for originall sinne which is a licentious and carnall doctrine did not the prophet Dauid in the 51. psalme confesse that in sinne his mother conceiued him and S. Paul crieth out Rom. 7. O miserable man that I am who shall redeeme me frō this bodie of sinne out of which places we may gather the griefe that those holy men of God conceiued for their naturall corruption The Papists reason why we must not be contrite for originall sinne is worthie of consideration Non est voluntarium it is not voluntarie say they The syllogisme is thus to be made We are not to be contrite but for voluntarie sinnes but originall sinne is not voluntarie ergo we are not to be contrite for it I answer to the proposition they might as well conclude that it is no sinne let Augustine dissolue this knotte who in his 1. booke of Retract and 13. chap. writeth thus Nullo modo peccatum est nisi sit voluntarium peccatum quippe illudintelligendum est quod tantummodo peccatum est non poena peccati quamvis illa quae immeritò non voluntaria peccata dicuntur quia vel à nescientibus vel à coactis perpetrantur non omninò possunt sine voluntate committi quoniam ille qui peccat ignorans voluntarie quoque peccat c. It is no sinne except it be voluntarie this speach is to be vnderstood of sinne which is simply sinne and not a punishment of sinne although those sinnes which are vnfitly called sinnes against our wills because they are ether committed by constraint or by ignorance cannot be altogether without the consent of will for he which sinneth of ignorance sinneth willingly Thus hath Augustine answeared the popish reason to the full Secondly the Papists teach that some sinnes are veniall of their owne nature that is deserue not eternall death which must needes cause men to cast off the bridle and reynes of holy life why doeth Basil in his shorter Definitions and 10. rule prooue that euery sinne is deadly by this place The vvages of sinne is death But to withdraw men from the opinion of the lightnes of sinne well saith Hierome ad Caelantiam Tanto facilius abstinemus à quocunque delicto quantò illud magis metuimus nec etiam titò ad maior a progreditur qui etiam parva formidat We abstaine so much the more easily frō sinne by how much we feare the same neither doth he make hast to greater sinnes which feareth the lesser Thirdly the Papists teach that the sacrament giues grace ex opere operato of worke wrought without faith for howsoeuer Bellarmine requireth it as a disposi●ion yet the Censure of Colō which knew the Romish doctrine as well as Bellarmine reasoneth thus pueris extra omnem dubitationis aleam sacramenta prodesse nemo sanae mentis dubitare potest in quibus tamen nulla est fides nulla cordis motio nullus peccatorum dolor aut gemitus sanè si in pueris easit Sacramentorum natura cur non erit similis omnino in alijs maximè eùm neque Christus nec Ecclesia vnquam vel vllam diversitatis fecit mentionem Without all controversie children receiue benefit by the Sacraments in whome there is no faith no motion of the heart no sorrow for sinne and why doe not others likewise so seeing neither Christ nor the Church mentioneth any reason to the contrarie What is this but to cause men to come without repentance to the sacraments for if thou be not a murderer a theefe or an adulterer c. the sacraments will replenish thee with grace but Christian Reader take heede of this dissolute and loose doctrine for he destroieth himselfe and damneth his soule that commeth to the Sacraments without faith and repentance and he is so farre from receiuing grace that he purchaseth Gods eternall wrath and irefull displeasure to himselfe Fourthly the Papists bind their votaries prelats and priests to keepe their vowes which yet burne in filthie lusts yea are not those vowes vngodly which cānot be kept without incōtinency 1. Tim. 5.11 If widows as S. Paule saith waxe

chap. and 15. verse be penitent I will not stand vpon any moe places in the newe Testament but come to a fewe of the olde In the ninth of the Preacher and second verse they haue these wordes Omnia in futurum servantur incerta All things are reserued as vncertain for the future time there is no such thing in the Hebrew yet out of this place is prooued the vncertentie of saluation and finall perseuerance O most wretched and vile doctrine that must coyne scripture to defende it selfe In the 98. psalme and 5. verse they translate vvorshippe his footestoole for it is holy and from hence conclude the adoration and worshipping of creatures wheras it should haue beene turned at his footestoole he is holy lahadom the same thing being repeated in the last verse In the 8. of Genesis toward the ende of the chap. where it should be the thoughts of mans heart are euill in their translation it is prone to euill as if there were no difference betwixt prone to euill and euill If I should affirme a papist to be prone to euill and treason doe I say that he is euill and treason it selfe nothing lesse euen so there is a difference betwixt pronesse to vice and vice it selfe In the 14. of Genesis and 18. verse they haue it thus erat enim sacerdos dei altissimi for he was a priest of the most high God in fauour of their sacrifice where it is and he vvas a priest of the high God neither let them aunswere me that the coniunction vau doeth sometimes signifie for that is not the question but whether it so signifieth in this place And because they vaunte of antiquitie in this point Freculph in the first booke of his historie and 42 chap. saith that Melchizedech in refectionem ipsius Abrahae panem vinumque protulit Melchizedech brought forth bread and wine for the refreshing of Abraham I will follow this matter of translations no further at this time By this euery one may gather why they forsake the pure Hebrewe and Greeke fountaines and drinke of the corrupt Latin streames I come in the second place to the denial of plaine Scriptures In the 3. of the Galat. and 10. ver it is thus written for as many as are of the deedes of the law are vnder the curse for it is written cursed is euery one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the law to doe them in which words the Apostle doth thus reason They which cannot fulfill the law are vnder the curse But no man can fulfill the law ergo If this be not the Apostles assumption the Galatians might haue answered Paul that they could fulfil the law and therefore were not vnder the curse Yet the Papists teach that man may fulfil Gods law and so cut the sinewes of S. Pauls reason Secondly in the 4. to the Rom. and 11. verse circumcision is called a seale of the righteousnes of faith out of which place we gather that we are not iustified by the sacraments The Papists to elude the place answer it followeth not that it is so in all because it was so in the patriarchs this answer disioynteth the Apostles argument which is this As Abraham was iustified so are all men iustified But Abraham was iustified without the sacraments Therefore all men are so iustified In the 6. of the Rom. and 27. ver it is saide that the gift of God is eternall life through Iesus Christ our Lord. S. Pauls speach is corrected by the Rhemists saying the sequele of the speach required that as he saide death or damnation is the stipend of sinne so life euerlasting is the stipende of iustice To see papists sit as it were in iudgement of the Scriptures to alow or disalow sentences at their pleasure is the most notorious example of Hereticall pride and miserie that can be Againe in the 6. to the Rom. and 12. v. concupiscence is called sinne yet denied by them to be sinne If the scripture had so said they might well haue expounded it as they doe namely the occasions and matter of sinne But cānot one thing be properly sinne and the occasion of sinne let Augustine then be controlled who in his 5. book contra Iul. Pelag. and 3. chap. writeth thus Sicut caecitas cordis peccatum est poena peccati causa peccati it a concupiscentia carnis peccatum est quia inest illi inobedientia contra dominatum mentis poena peccati causa peccati As blindnes of heart is sinn and a punishment of sinne and a cause of sinn so likewise is concupiscence sinne because it disobeieth the rule of the minde and a punishment of sinne and a cause of sinne Augustines syllogisme is this That which is disobedience to the gouernment of the minde is sinne But concupiscence is disobedience to the gouernement of the minde Therefore concupiscence is sinne Also in the 5. of the Roman and 14. vers Paul prooueth all men to be sinners because of death yet is the virgin Marie exempted from sinne which strengtheneth Pelagius his opinion For he might denie the argument Infants die therefore they are no sinners because Marie died and yet was no sinner In the 1. to the Corinthians and 10. chap. S. Paul beateth downe the conceit of the Corinthians cōcerning the sacraments For the Iewes did eate Christ in their sacraments Yet the Papists will haue our sacraments to giue grace ex opere operato of the worke wrought and so make the Apostles argument to be of no force For the Corinthians might haue replied our sacraments giue grace to them that receiue them therfore we cannot be dismaied with the examples of the Israelites Furthermore in the 9. of the Hebrewes the 25. vers Christ is said to haue offered himselfe but once because he suffered but once The Apostles reason is this Christ died but once Therefore he suffered but once Lastly Hebr. 10. and 8. ver the Apostles conclusion is seeing there is remission of sinnes there is no more offering for sinne Therefore it followeth inuincibly that the masse is not a sacrifice for sinne Yet the papists assertion must needes frustrate both these arguments of the Apostle From the deniall of scripture I come to the addition of the same which argueth extreame despe●atenes The Councell of Laodicea 59. canon reiecteth the books which we doe and commandeth ne aliqui praeterea legantur in authoritatem recipiantur that non besides be read and receiued into authority Ruffinus likewise in his exposition vpon the Creede reiecteth the same and will not haue them alleadged ad authoritatem fidei confirmandam for the confirmation of faith Cirill of Hierusalem in the 4. booke of his Catech. writeteth thus Lege scripturas sacras nempè viginti duos veteris testamenti libros read the holy scriptures namely the two and twentie bookes of the old testament I passe ouer Hieroms authority and Nazianzens with Eusebius Epiphanius and Lyraes

contritionis ergo contritio manet post hanc vitam the punishment of purgatorie satisfyeth for sinne but satisfaction hath his efficacy from contrition therefore contrition indureth after this life The force of this argument driueth him to this aunswere paena illa quam animae in purgatorio sustinent non potest proprie dici satisfactio quia satisfactio opus meritorium requirit the punishment which the soules sustaine in purgatory cannot properly be called satisfaction because satisfaction requireth merit But there is no merit in purgatory therefore no satisfaction And if his argument in the same place be good that there is no sorrowe for sinnes in purgatorie because sacramenta non manent post hanc vitam the sacraments indure not after this life Then is therfore no satisfaction in purgatory because satisfaction is a part of their sacrament of penance as well as contrition The 12. Contradiction Aquinas in his third part quaest 25. articulo 3. holdeth that Imago Christi est adoranda adoratione latriae The Image of Christ is to be worshipped with the same worship that Christ himselfe and prooueth it clarkly I warrant you out of Aristotle his booke de memoria I will not stand to set downe his reason beeing fully answered by Picus Mirādula that great learned man to whome I referre the reader concerning this question The contrary is held by many Papists as may be seene in Picus before named and in Bellarmine himselfe Behold vnto what Idolatrie Papists are growen to worshippe a creature with the same honour which is due to the Creator himselfe The 13. Contradiction In the Censure of Colon we are taught pag. 89. a certaine vaine kinde of difference betwixt faith and hope Faith saith that Censure is of generall propositions as Quicunque crediderit baptizatus fuerit salvus erit Whosoeuer beleeueth and is baptized shall be saued But it is not of these propositions ergo advitam aeternam ingrediar aut mihi peccata remissa sunt I shall enter into life euerlasting or my sinnes are forgiuen me pag. 139. The Catechisme of Colon teacheth contrariwise that ad iustificationem requiritur vt singuli credant sibi remissa peccata per Christum It is requisite to iustification that euery one beleeueth that his sinnes are forgiuen him by Christ Serm. 1. de Eunuch and prooueth the same by that excellent testimonie of Bernard It is not sufficient to beleeue that thou canst not haue remission of sinnes but by Gods mercie and thou canst haue any good thing except God giueth thee it and that thou canst not deserue eternall life by any workes besides these which are but initiū fidei the beginning of faith Hoc etiam addendum vt credas quòd per ipsum tibi peccata condonentur this moreouer is to be added that thou beleeuest that thy sinnes are forgiuen thee by God and this is the testimonie which the holy Ghost doth assure thee of in thy heart saying thy sinnes are forgiuen thee Out of this testimonie of Bernard we may gather that to thinke of the Popish faith the contrarie is cōstantly maintained by the Papists namely that no man is to beleeue the forgiuenesse of his sinnes which doctrine is plainely confuted by their owne Catechisme as we saide The 14. Contradictions Spes saith the Master of sentences est cum fiducia expectatio futurae beatitudinis Lib. 3. dist 26 veniens ex dei gratia meritis praecedentibus Hope is an expectation of the blessednes to come with an affiance proceeding of Gods grace and our precedent merits yet the same Catechisme of Colon pag. 138. and 140. placeth all our affiance in God his mercifull promise But no more of this contrarietie because I haue spoken of it in the reason of dissolute and discomfortable doctrine The 15. Contradiction The same Catechisme teacheth out of Bernard that we are iustified onely by faith pag. 141. hoc est non per merita propria sed per misericordiam dei quam sola fides accipit apprehendit that is none by our owne merits but by Gods mercie which onely faith doth apprehend What Protestant teacheth any otherwise Bernard his words are these Quisquis pro peccatis compunctus esurit sitit iustitiam Serm. 22 in Cantic credat in te qui iustificas impium solam iustificatus per fidem pacem habebit apud Deum Whosoeuer is pricked in his heart for his sinnes and hungreth and thirsteth after righteousnes let him beleeue in thee that iustifieth the vngodly man and beeing iustified by onely faith he shall haue peace with God Here I might haue also alleadged the testimonie of Albertus Pighius for iustification by imputatiue righteousnes The same Catechisme also fol. 85. teacheth that iustifying faith is vnseparable from hope and charitie and answereth the place of the 1. to the Corinth and 13. chap. by the testimonies of Chrysostome Theophylact Basill and Ambrose how well the papists agree in these 2. points with this their Catechisme let their owne writings witnesse The 16. Contradiction Scotus in the first booke of sentences and 27. distinct prooueth that good workes deserue opera merentur tantùm ex pacto works deserue onely by reason of God his couenant and promise His argument is this Meritum non est nisivbi est dignum at non est dignū respectu intrinsecarum actionū there is no desert but where there is a worthines but in respect of our inward actions there is no worthinesse ergo His assumption is thus prooued tunc enim deus non possit non retribuere beatitudinem if there were any worthinesse in the works themselues then God is bounde to giue vnto them happinesse and blessednesse but God is not bounde Ergo. Reade Bellarmine in his 5. booke of iustification and thou shalt not onely finde Scotus his opinion misliked whose argument is vnanswerable but Durandus also reprehended by Bellarmine such is the harmony betwixt Papists in substantiall points of religion The 17. Contradiction Roffensis in his 32. article against Luther agreeth with Luther about veniall sinne namely that none is veniall of it own nature but only by gods mercy Quod peccatum veniale solùm ex dei misericordia veniale sit in hoc tecum sentio that a veniall sinne is only veniall through Gods mercy therein I do agree vnto thee Read more Papists of Roffensis his minde in Bellarmine lib. 2. de purgat cap. 4. yet we know that Aquinas generally all Papists do teach otherwise The 18. Contradiction Aquinas in his prima 2. 109. quaest artic 6. teacheth that man without grace cannot vitare peccatum auoide and eschew sinne and answereth three reasons brought against this opinion The first reason is thus framed He that cannot auoide sinne but sinneth necessarily sinneth not at all The second argument is this It followe●h of this opinion that reprehensions are needlesse Thirdly lastly Eccles 15. it is said that ante hominem est vita

maius gloriae tutissimum est fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordia benignitate reponere by reason of the danger of pride and vaine glorie it is safest to put our whole confidence onely in the mercy of God not in our merites or good workes And this he prooueth out of the 9. chap. of Daniel we pray not in our righteousnes but in thy manifold mercies and out of the 17. of Luke when you haue done all that you can you are vnprofitable seruants nay out of their owne praiers Deus qui conspicis quia ex nulla actione nostra confidimus O God thou seest that vve trust not in any of our actions or vvorkes and least these his proofes should not be waightie enough he quoteth Chrysostome in diuers places as namely in his 3. homily vpon Matthew writing thus Noli mercedem poscere vt accipias mercedem require no reward that thou maiest receiue a rewarde Next followeth Ambrose Non sic vixi vt me pudeat vivere nec mori timeo quia bonum Dominum habemus I haue so liued that I am not ashamed to liue neither am I afraide to die because I haue a mercifull Lord. After Ambrose followes Augustine Gregorie and Bernard and lastly he vseth this reason vel homo habet vera merita vel non habet man hath good works in truth or els he hath thē not in truth but in appearance onely if onely in appearance then is he dangerously deceiued if in truth then he looseth nothing for his trust is onely in God This is to disanull all his former doctrine for before he prooued that a man might put his confidence in good workes because they deserue eternall life but now he confesseth that it is best to put no cōfidence in works but only in Gods mercie out of which I conclude that it is safest to disclaime our owne merits in the attaining to saluation and by consequent to be a Protestant The syllogisme shall be thus framed It is safest to put no confidence in workes but this is the Protestants constant doctrine ergo it is safest to be a Protestant and indeede it hath beene alwaies iudged the part of a wise man to encline in eam partem quae cautior est into that defence which is best but our defence is best by the aduersaries own confession ergo it is the wisest part to holde with the Protestants So now I may iustly vse the Orators exclamatiō in his oration pro Coelio ô magna vis veritatis quae contra hominū ingenia colliditatē solertiā c ô mighty power of truth who doth defend it selfe against the wit craft subtiltie of men I will end this reason with some sayings of Hieron because his authoritie hath not bin yet vsed in this matter in his 3. book against the Pelagians he writeth thus Nec in sapientia nostra nec in vllis virtutibus confidendum sed in solo domino We trust neither in our wisdome nor in any vertues but onely in the Lord and in his dialogue against the Luciferians Credo tamen secundum fidem meam fieri nolo si etenim sit peribo I beleeue yet I vvould not haue it be according to my beleefe for then I perish So must euery Christian say if it be according to our workes wee perish but we trust onely to the mercie of God therefore looke and waite for saluation To this confession of Bellarmine I might likewise haue adioyned Steuen Gardiners but Bellarmine being the papists Pythagoras shal serue in stead of all And now for a conclusion of this point and reason let any papist answer me what harme can come of the Protestāts doctrine if they say good works are come to a downefall by it I would haue yeelded but that S. Paul in the 2. of the Galat. ver 17. many hundered yeares agoe hath answered this rotten and stale obiection If vve that seeke for iustification by Christ be found sinners in Christ is Christ the minister of sinn God forbid c. by which place of holy Scripture this friuolous cauill is so plainely confuted that the Papists except they cannot resolue the Apostles argument might as well haue charged Pauls doctrine with dissolutenes as they do ours therfore I desire all men to holde that which is safest which is the part of a wise man to doe But it is safest to hold as we hold and it is the part of wise men to defende the best part which is ours Ergo it is safest to hold with and why was the Pharise cōdemned vs but for putting his confidence in workes he acknowledged them to come from God Luk. 18. v. 11 saying I thanke thee that I am not as other men are I fast twise in a weeke I giue tith of all that I haue If we giue thanks to god for those his good actions and workes then by necessarie consequent it may be concluded that he ascribed thē not to himselfe but to the giuer fountaine of all good things yet hath he Christs owne testimony against him for what thē but for his affiance in his workes Thus the Papists by their owne doctrine of confidēce in workes become Pharisees also I see not why they may not say to god as the Iewes did why do we fast thou doest not regard vs why doe we afflict out soules and thou doest not acknowledge vs Better it is to pray with the Prophet Dauid Enter not into iudgement O Lord with thy seruants Psal 143. v. 3 for no flesh is righteous in thy sight To which place of Scripture Bellarmine answereth that it is to be vnderstood Tom. 1. lib de Mona cap. 13 ad comparationē Dei in comparison of God and so contenteth himselfe with the answer of Pelagius as I prooue out of Hierom in his booke ad Ctesip Non iustificabitur in conspectu Dei omnis vivens quod testimonium sub nomine pietatis eludunt aiunt enim ad comparationem dei nullum esse perfectum quasi hoc dicat scriptura quando enim dicit in conspectu tuo hoc intelligi vult quod etiam qui hominibus sancti videntur dei scientiae atque notitiae nequaquam sunt sancti No mā liuing shall be iustified in thy sight which testimony vnder the pretēce of piety they delude for they say that no man is perfect in respect of God as if this were the meaning of the scripture for whē it saith in thy sight it giueth vs to vnderstand that those which seeme holy to men in gods sight and knowledge are not holy Out of this testimony it appeareth that the papists accepting of Pelagius his answer ioyne not onely with the Pharises in this point but also with the Pelagiās of whose heresie I haue spoke before I dare not stay any longer in this reason lest I forget my selfe promising to haue ended it before but the laying open of the Papists Phariseisme and Pelagianisme I hope will ad some weight