Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
reason_n	divine_a	faith_n	revelation_n	3,413	5	9.3938	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

Foundations of the Protestant Religion as it stands disting●●●●d from Popery This is that which Divines call The Judgment of Private and Practical Discretion Divines say there is 〈◊〉 ●●●●fold Judgment concerning Propositions of Truth 1. The first is Authoritative or Nomothetick This belongeth onely to God all the Men in the World all their Opinions and Arguments cannot add a Cubit to the stature of Truth nor make an hair of its Head either white or black 2. The Second is Ministerial and Declarative This belongs to the Church in the Scriptural Notion of it The Apostle therefore calls her the Pillar and ground of Truth She keeps the Sacred Records and when there is a doubt about any portion of them Ministerially declareth what is the Truth 3. The third Divines call The Judgment of Private and Practical Discretion This Protestants say belongs to every private Christian who by his own Conscience using the best means first which he can for the Information of it is to determine as to his own belief and Practice what is true and Lawful And indeed here lyes the great difference betwixt the Religion of Papists and Protestants The Papists will not allow the Private Christian to Judge of Truth with reference to his own Practice but Obligeth People To believe as the Church believeth and defendeth Blind Obedience to Superiours as Christians Duty They make it Lawful for Men contrary to their own Judgment and the Dictate of their Conscience from intrinsick Arguments to Practice according to the Opinion of one or more Doctors and necessary to Obey all the Decrees of the Popes and the Commands of Superiours if things be not apparently and demonstratively unlawful It may be one Adrianus or another or two may enter their dissent to this Brutish Doctrine but they do generally agree it and this is Fons Origo mali The very first thing to be taught their Prosilytes as silence was in the School of Pythagoras Hence their vernacular Bibles are burnt and all their other Doctrines are easily swallowed The necessity of an Infallible Judge is Concluded c. § 15. On the other side it is essential to a Protestant to be free and in Bondage to no Man nor as to his Practice to be guided by any but God alone and his own Conscience and his Superiours Commanding him what his own Conscience first perswades him to be necessary or at least Lawful He who denyeth this and pretendeth to hate Popery doth but abhor Idols and commit Sacriledge Nay he doth indeed but deny that in words which he owneth chuseth and preferreth nor is it possible there should be greater Factors for Popery in any place than those that perswade Men that it is Lawful for them under what Circumstances they can Imagine to Act contrary to the Opinion of their own Conscience and do what from which to them seem very probable seems utterly to swerve from that which is right to use Mr. Hooker's Phrase § 16. Now let any pluck up this Flood-gate of Private and Practical Discretion and tell us what should hinder most of the absurd Doctrines of Popery coming in upon us like an overflowing Flood if ever we should be so miserable which is not a thing impossible as in Future Ages to have a Superiour that shall Command the receiving of them or Practice according to them As to the falshood of most of them we have but a Moral certainty at least our perswasion must be Judged no more according to the Modern Divinity for how can we be Infallibly and demonstratively certain in things as to which so great a part of the World is of another mind and so many such Learned Men as Bellarmine Stapleton and an hundred more who dissent from us Besides as we shewed before we are told that in Disputable things we can have but an Opinion of one part And this we take to be a Meditation worthy of those Honourable Persons amongst the Nobility and Gentry of England who have shewed their Zeal so much of late against that Religious Pageantry of Rome If any doubt whether Christians have such a Priviledge given them by God as this of Private and Practical Discretion let them consider those Texts 1 Thes 5.21 1 John 3.1 usually quoted for it and but Read what Bishop Davenant in his most Learned Treatise De Judice Normâ fidei and all other Protestant Writers have said for it Whoever plucks up this Hedge we understand not if he doth not feel the Romish Serpent quickly biting him by the heel and we cannot but think that Man will be Cursed that goes about to remove this Land-mark of all Protestants and cry out to our Superiours in the words of Solomon Prov. 22.28 Remove not the Ancient Land-mark which our Fathers have set § 17. We might further add that the admission of this absurd and brutish principle that if a thing be not apparently and demonstratively sinful it is Lawful for Men to Act contrary to the Opinion of their own Consiciences representing it to them from Arguments which seem to them very probable unlawful All Books of Topicks as to Matters of practice all Argumentative Books in Divinity would be of no Use at all but noxious and mischievous rather Yea the Holy Scriptures themselves would be of very little or no use for the use of Argumentative Discourses in any Science or Discipline is to make a proposition either Demonstrative or Probable to us Yea this is the use of the Holy Scriptures as they inform us of Truth Things are Demonstrable to us upon the Evidence of Revelation Sense or Reason indeed the first is improper for the certainty arising from Divine Revelation is called Faith not Demonstration or Demonstrative certainty but it is quiddam majus what is certain to us upon a certainty of Faith or Demonstrative Reason is not so Ordinarily in a moment This Certainty is Ordinarily hatched out of Topicks and most Propositions even of Divine Truth usually at first appear to the Soul probable before they appear indubitably certain The Gray hairs of that other certainty which is distinguished from Moral Certainty rarely grow up in a Night This being granted which every one experienceth Suppose but a Convocation or a Colledge of Superiours to determine de Omnibus agendis of all things to be Religiously Observed and done To what purpose should any read or study any Books for the disquisition of Truth as to any part of a Proposition for when he hath done so long as the thing to be done appears to him but probably Lawful or probably unlawful which it must do before it appears to him indubitably and out of all Question the one or the other he is according to this Opinion bound in Conscience if he be by Superiours Commanded to do quite contrary to what he Judgeth Lawful if he be not indubitably certain it is unlawful What need he Read and study the Scriptures as to Matter of Practice When he hath found

us Deut. 17.8 Acts 15. we will Examine both these Texts § 8. The words in Deut. 17.8 9 10 11 12. are these If there arise a Matter too hard for thee in Judgment betwixt Blood and Blood betwixt plea and plea betwixt stroke and stroke being matters of Controversie within thy Gates Then shalt thou arise and get thee up unto the place which the Lord thy God shall chuse And thou shalt come unto the Priests the Levites and unto the Judge who shall be in those days and enquire and they shall shew the Sentence of Judgment And thou shalt do according to the Sentence which they of that place which the Lord shall chuse shall shew thee and thou shalt Observe to do according to all that they shall inform thee According to the Sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee and according to the Judgment which they shall tell thee thou shalt do thou shalt not decline from the Sentence which they shall shew thee to the right hand nor to the left And the Man that will do presumptuously and will not hearken unto the Priest that standeth up to Minister before the Lord thy God or unto the Judge even that Man shall dye and thou shalt put away evil from Israel These words are fully that Text. As to which we desire our Reader to Observe 1. That this is Bellarmines first Text to prove Blind Obedience the Duty of Christians So that we may easily judge which way the Face of these Disputants doth stand It might suffice but to refer our Reader to Chamer or any that have Answered Bellamine for an Answer to this Objection 2. Secondly In case this Text will serve the turn now it will infallibly prove the Lawfulness of Priests and Judges putting to death such as shall not do what they have once determined in any case that is indifferent of it self and once by them made necessary But surely this must be asserted by none that value their words at any rate But to come close to the Text if any Argument in this case can be drawn from it it must be this What the Israelites were bound to do upon any determination by the Priest or Judge in the place where the Lord should chuse In hard Matters between plea and plea blood and blood That Christians under the Gospel are bound to do upon the final decision of the Priest or Judge in hard matters between plea and plea blood and blood trespass and trespass stroke and stroke But the Israelites were bound to do according to the final decision of the Priest or Judge sitting in the place which the Lord should chuse and Judging in hard Matters between Plea and Plea Blood and Blood c. Ergo. If the Argument be thus laid it concludeth nothing like the Question but is transitus degenere in genus Our Question is not about Civil things in Controversie where a Man may take any part and not sin against God and where Submission onely inferreth Sussering in matters of a temporal concern but about Religious Actions where a Practice is required which the Party Commanded Judgeth sinful And hazarding the damnation of his Soul Whence also it may be Observed That no Conclusion can from hence be fetched from any purity of Reason But if Mr. Booker intends from that Text to conclude the Question his Argument must be laid thus What the Israelites were bound to as to hard Case● in Judgment betwixt plea and plea blood and blood trespass and trespass stroke and stroke That Christians are bound to do in all Litigious Controverted Cases of Religion or at least in such Cases where the Superiours Judge the things by them Commanded to be in themselves of an indifferent Nature But the Israelites in hard Cases in Judgment betwixt plea and plea Blood and Blood trespass and trespass stroke and stroke were Obliged to do according to and not decline from the Sentence of the Law which the Priests the Levites or the Judges should teach them and according to the Judgment which they should shew them though in the Opinion of their own Consciences it swerved utterly from that which was right Ergo. Christians also under the Gospel in all Litigiout controverted Cases especially of such Quality where the Superiour Judgeth the things indifferent are bound to do according to and not to decline from the Sentence of the Law which the Civil or Ecclesiastical Superiours now adays shall teach them though in the Opinion of their own Consciences it utterly swerveth from that which is right To which we Answer 1. The whole concludeth nothing to the purpose for it concludeth not that they ought to do any thing contrary to the Sentence of the Divine Law That was of Old to the Priests a Regula Regulans an Original Rule and must be so to all Superiours and it is impossible any should be Obliged to Act contrary to it But lest any should say they were bound to take the Priests and Levites and Judges Sentence to be the Sentence of the Divine Law we further Answer § 9. By denying the Major which is most notoriously false and before it can be made good those that inherit Mr. Hooker's Spirit must make good these things 1. That there it the same Reason or Equity for Superiours final decision and a Christians submission as to his Practice to a final decision in things of a Religious Nature which the Superiour Judgeth indifferent and the Inferiour from Arguments which in the Judgment of his particular Conscience seem probable judgeth unlawful As there was for a final decision amongst the Jews and their submission to such decision in Matters between Blood and Blood plea and plea trespass and trespass stroke and stroke which apparently there is not a determination in the latter being absolutely necessary for upholding the Beings of Polities the Course and Order of Justice the preservation of Humane Society and not making the World a Den of Thieves and Murtherers But no such things can be pretended for things in Religion by the Superiours owned in their own Nature but indifferent and so left by God Neither is there the same Equity or Reason for the Inferiours Submission For what harm could the Inferiour have by submitting to the final decision of the Priests Levites and Judges in those Civil things He might possibly be inforced to put up a wrong to part with a little Money or with some part of his Inheritance or suffer in case of Blood operatly which was his due by a Divine Law He was in no danger by such submission of damning his Soul or wounding his Conscience by finning against God though he might judge he were severely or unrighteously dealt with He might possibly think the part contrary to the decision more just and right But what was he to do Nothing but part with his own Right in Temporal things for the sake of publick Justice and Order and Peace which is every good Christians Duty and Choice But here

Now we would ask how we shall know what the Will of God in his Word is but by the Judgment of our particular consciences at last be the Will of God in it self what it will The Will of God to us must be Interpreted as to Practise by our own Judgments and apprehensions Hence Dr. Ames saith well that he who acteth against his Conscience Interpretatively acts against the Will of God And Filiucius saith right such Actions declare that Men chuse and love sin For so far as they know what is sinful they do sin and if they miss of sinning in their Actions it is but as the blind Man hits the Crow there 's no thank to them out of choyce they sin It is involuntarily if they do that which is right No Action materially good can possibly be so formally if done contrary to the Judgment of our Conscience because it is impossible it should have the concurrence of the Will whiles the Practical Conscience faith it ought not be done The Will cannot will what it judgeth evil it may indeed be mis-guided by the Understanding but it cannot will evil sub ratione mali and so consequentially cannot will what the Conscience telleth the Man he ought not to do So as indeed it is but a Natural Principle That the Practical Conscience is and must be the Proximate Rule of our actions Filiucius saith right that the Law of God and the Law of Nature respecteth our Actions as they are free which they cannot be unless they proceed a Principio cognoscente from a knowing Principle within our selves We proceed to a second Argument § 3. That Principle which allowed perverteth the whole Order of Nature in the operations of a Reasonable soul must be false But this opinion That it is Lawful for us to act contrary to what appears to us Lawful from probable arguments perverteth the whole Order of Nature in the Operations of a Reasonable Soul Ergo. The Major needeth no proof to any who will believe that it is not the Will of God a Man should be Metamorphosed into a Beast So that all our business must be to prove the Minor To which purpose let us but take a view of the Noblest Empire in the World I mean that of Reason in Man and Observeth the Order which God hath by the Law of Nature prescribed by which Reason sitting as a Queen should Rule there The Will is the great Minister in this State the great wheel which by its imperate Acts moveth the whole Man The Object of it is Good or Evil about these two it is Exercised chusing the former refusing the latter and then Commanding all the Inferiour Faculties of the Soul and Members of the Body to move according to its Judgment and Choice The Philopsoher telleth us The Will is blind and that its work is onely to keep its Seat and Judge and Command The Understanding serves it with the Notion of things that takes cognisance of them discerns and represents them as true or false whether reference to Speculation or Practice The Understanding in its work is served by the Interior and exterior Senses So then this is the Order of the Ceasonable Soul in Man whereas all Objects are either Sensible Rational or Spiritual The exterior Senses the Eye and Ear c. bring Intelligence of sensible Objects The Fancy Memory and Imaginative Power bring Intelligence of Objects proper to their Sphear The Understanding takes notice of all Propositions thus brought in to it discerneth them and judgeth concerning them whether they be true or false according to Principles of Sense Reason and Revelation according to the variety of the Matter upon this the Will maketh its choice Those which the Understanding discerneth true and good it willeth and chuseth what it discerns false and evil it refuseth nillete and rejecteth and accordingly Commandeth the Soul to believe or not believe to love or hate to desire or fl●e from whatsoever the Understanding discerneth and judgeth evil and noxious Here now is the Government of a Reasonable Soul Now let us Observe how guilty the Principle we oppose is of Treason and Sedition against this Noble Government of the Soul instituted in it by God himself We cannot make a better Judgment than by putting a particular case Suppose this the Proposition It is or it is not Lawful for Persons once Ordained to be re-ordained The Case now is to be Judged in the Court of Reason 〈◊〉 Senses bring in this Proposition as what they have some where seen or heard to be brought into Practice Upon this the Court of the Reasonable Understanding taketh cognisance of it The Understanding discerns it a Proposition relating to Instituted Worship and that the Truth concerning it is to be determined not from Principles of Sense or Principles of Natural Reason but from Scripture and Reason working upon things Revealed and comparing things Spiritual with Spiritual The Eye is therefore employed to Read what can be The Ear to hear on all sides what is spoken about it The Fancy or Imagination is also set on work to find out Mediums to prove the one part or other and so the thing cometh with all these helps to be Discoursed by the soul within it self Then the Vnderstanding discerneth and judgeth which part of the Proposition is true and consequently fit to be Practised which is false and fit to be rejected It either concludes one part Demonstratively and certainly false or probably and in all likelihood false or else it hangs in equilibrio not knowing what to determine In the present Case we suppose the Vnderstanding to bring in its report in this Sense As to this Practical Question Whether it be Lawful for them who by Ministers have been Ordained and made Ministers to be re-ordained and made first Deacons then Priests by Bishops I have done my best to try the Truth or Falshood of either part The Eyes and Ears have given me an account of what they have seen in any Books or heard from any Discourses of Learned Men about it The Fancy hath also been employed to weigh and consider Propositions to consider Arguments brought by others on one side and the other and devise Mediums for one part and for the other Now upon my utmost Judgment of the thing from weighing Arguments on all sides it is not demonstratively certain that this Proposition is false That Persons once Ordained may not be re-ordained and that a Submission to such a re-ordination would be sinful But it doth appear to me very probably so I cannot Answer the Arguments which I have thought on or others have brought to prove it so and though I dare not arrogate infallibility to my self and determine the Arguments I have for the Negative unanswerable yet I can find no Answer I can acquiesce in and so far as I can judge it is sinful and will certainly issue in horror of Conscience or Eternal Damnation or both without pardoning Mercy Now the business is