Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	apostle_n	law_n	transgression_n	5,619	5	10.4785	5	true

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

as we shewed Dr. Sanderson did when he speaketh of Doubting he must either say nothing to the purpose for he knows his Adversaries have given him Arguments which appear to them very probable why they Judge the things required unlawful Or else he must mean that if a Man hath any doubt and be not fully perswaded that the Action is unlawful though he hath never so many Arguments which make it appear to him probably such Notwithstanding them he is bound to do the thing Now if this be his Sence he saith that which is not to be made good by any but Mr. Hooker's Principles before spoken to and that which I will think never any Protestant spake before him For his Rule of Tene certum relinque incertum besides that it must be understood of the two parts of the same Proposition not of two distinct Propositions as he wrings it By his leave that is not uncertain of which we are Morally certain Nor 3. Is it certain or can be to any Soul either by Faith or Mathematically or Morally That the Superiour is in all things to be Obeyed Nay the contrary is certain Nor is it certain that he is to be Obeyed in things which the Inferiour upon Arguments which he judgeth very probable Judgeth unlawful for him to do For his confounding the Notions of Disputable and uncertain it is ridiculous for if all things disputable be therefore uncertain because they are disputed and that by some Learned Men too whether the particular Soul dispute them or no. There 's hardly an Article of our Faith will be left us certain or indeed any thing else but onely this That we must Obey our Superiours In the mean time Reader Observe whither these Modern Casuists are driving 1. There are few Actions he might have added Propositions too that are not Disputable Freeman p. 33. 2. In Disputable Actions we must Obey Superiours Commands ibid. p. 15. 3. Yea we must Obey though we doubt i. e. though upon Arguments which to us appear very probable we think the things unlawful to be done because it is certain saith Freeman That Superiours are to be Obeyed in things Lawful and in disputable things it is uncertain that what is required is unlawful 4. Ergo. There are very few Actions but if we be Commanded this or that part let our Consciences say what they will we must do as we are commanded § 19. These now are Doctrines not fit to be openly and plainly asserted in this Noon-day of Truth Therefore the particular Judgments of Private Persons Founded on Arguments which to them seem very probable and inferr a Moral certainty must be confounded with the Notions of Doubts Scruples Fears Jealousies Let this Doctrine obtain a little and let the World Judge if the exploded brutish odious Doctrine of Blind Obedience the Pillar and Basis of Popery be not by slight of hand established The Consequence of this Doctrine if true would be this That Men need no more look to Scripture to see whether an Action were Lawful or no but look upon it as the Will of God to believe as the Church believeth and do as their Superiours command without any regard to the command of God Of this more anon § 20. The Advantage of this Doctrine pretended is Peace by which they can mean no more than an outward Harmony in Action 2. The stretching the bounds of Morality For if two successive Superiours Command me the two contradictory parts of the same Proposition One Commands me to go to Church Another to tarry at home and I am bound to Obey in things disputable it must follow that all things in the World that are disputable are indifferent Now there being as Mr. Freeman saith few actions not Disputable It must follow that there are few Practical Propositions but a Man as to them may do what he list take what part he pleaseth so all things shall become Lawful But now the woful dis-advantage of it is that he who practiseth according to these Principles 1. Shall be sure to have no Peace in his Conscience but a continual regret within himself 2. He will be at last damned For saith the Apostle he that doubteth is damned if he eateth Rom. 14. Except somebody can prove what hath been impudently enough said That Superiours must another day answer to God for all the sinful actions which their Inferiours have done at their command a Doctrine no Superiour hath cause to thank them for Nor is there any way to avoid the first unless it were possible for Men to perswade themselves as Mr. Hooker would have them That it is the Will of God that in Litigious and controverted cases of such Quality Men should submit to the judgment of final decision though in their private Opinions they Judge it utterly to swerve from that which is right as to which we have said enough We therefore stick to the Protestant Doctrine That it is not Lawful under any circumstance of Command to act against an Opining Conscience CHAP. IV. The Question stated It is proved that it is not Lawful to Act contrary to the Opinion of a Mans particular Conscience by five Arguments because the particular Conscience is the Proximate Rule of Action granted by all Divines Because of that Text Rom. 14.23 Because it Subjects a Man to continual Terrors of Conscience The contrary Principle over-throws the Natural Order of the Souls Operation and plucks up a great Pillar of the Protestant Religion and would make the Scriptures and Argumentative Books of little Vse but to Torment Men. § 1. WE come now to assert our Proposition That it is not Lawful for any Person to act against an Opining Conscience i. e. as we have largely opened That supposing a Person though he hath not demonstrative Arguments to prove this or that unlawful which he is required to do Yet if he hath formed up a particular Judgment of Conscience from Arguments which seem to him very probable so as he cannot Answer them nor rest satisfied in the Answers of others while he so judgeth it is sin and wickedness in him especially in Matters which concern the Worship of God to do that Action however required of him This we shall make good by several Arguments § 2.1 To swerve from what God hath made the Proximate Rule of our actions is sinful But to act contrary to the Opinion of our own Consciences is to swerve from what God bath made the Proximate Rule of our Actions Therefore it is sinful The Major can with no Modesty be denyed for what is sin but a Transgression of or deviation from the Rule of our actions The Minor is as Evident It is granted by all Divines we have met with both Popish and Protestant that the Practical Conscience is the Proximate Rule of our Actions nor did we ever meet with it denyed by any Learned Man And indeed it must be so For That Gods Word and Law is the Remote Rule must be owned