Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	good_a	law_n	transgression_n	4,529	5	10.4346	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A77707	Rome's conviction: or, A discoverie of the unsoundness of the main grounds of Rome's religion, in answer to a book, called The right religion, evinced by L.B. Shewing, 1. That the Romish Church is not the true and onely Catholick Church, infallible ground and rule of faith. 2. That the main doctrines of the Romish Church are damnable errors, & therefore to be deserted by such as would be saved. By William Brownsword, M.A. and minister of the Gospel at Douglas Chappell in Lancashire.	Brownsword, William, b. 1625 or 6.	1654 (1654)	Wing B5216; Thomason E1474_2; ESTC R209513	181,322	400

Note that faith hath not of it self any efficacy as it is an act of ours for remission and reconciliation but all its vertue doth proceed from its object Christ whose vertue and merit God hath ordained to apply to the sinner for his Justification through faith in him Suitable to this expression of the reverend assembly in their larger Catechism Faith say they justifies a sinner in the sight of God not because of these other graces which do alwayes accompany it or of good works that are the fruit of it nor as if the grace of Faith or any Act thereof were imputed to him for his Justification but onely as it is an instrument by which he applieth and receiveth Christ and his righteousness But Eunomius's error was rather that attributed to Simon Magus than this as appeareth by Augustine and as such also opposed by us Aug. de haeres c. 55. 3. Inst Florinus blasphemed God to be the Author of sin Answ Protestant Churches abhor this doctrine as much as Papists In the Harmony of Confessions the Confession of Saxony the Augustin Confession do disown it and the latter Confession of the Switeers expresly condemns Florinus and Blastus and all that make God the Author of sin to which I will add our late Confession of Faith The Prouidence of God extendeth it self even to the first fall and all other sins yet so as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth onely fr●m the creature and not from God who being most holy and righteous neither is nor can be the Author or approver of sin 4. Inst Origen robd and spoyled Adam in his fall and in him all his posteritie of that precious Gem the naturall Image of God Freewill Answ No Protestants I met with deny naturall freedom of will to fallen man i. e. a liberty to naturall civill and morall actions Yea as to evill man is most free though as to supernaturall good he is unable his condition is such after the fall of Adam that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own naturall strength and good works to faith and calling upon God Harmon confess Sect. 4. Mr. Baxt. Everlast rest part 3. c. 2. Sect. 14. Marg. See the Doctrine of Free-will in fallen man excellently set forth in the Later Helvetick Confession and others M. Baxter observes that Austin himself and all the Fathers and all Divines acknowledge Liberum arbitrium Free-will or choice who yet plead most for a necessity of grace 5. Inst Proclus left the regenerate all foul and conspurcate with sin Answ Protestants in acknowledging regeneration and sanctification do withall confess that those who are regenerate are not as they were before regeneration as to sin and its defilements according to that of the Apostle such were some of you but ye are washed but ye are Sanctified but ye are justified Protestants receive Baptism as a Sign and Seal of their spiritual cleansing by the Holy Ghost we bless God for our Renovation And doth not all this free us from this error 'T is true our confessions of Faith assert that our Sanctification is but imperfect that there are Reliques of corruptions in us as there was in Saint Paul Rom. 7. yet we never say that the Regenerat are all foul and conspurcate with sin there is that in them which is truly good and which God accepts of and freely rewards See Harmony of Confessions Sect. 9. 6. Inst Novatus constituted a Church of meer just Answ Protestants if guilty of the error of Proclus then are free from this of Novatus or if they be guilty of this of Novatus then are they free from that of Proclus There errors cannot agree to the same persons 2. How contrary this error is to our judgment is visible both by the actual composure of our Churches wherein are good and bad tares and Wheat And also by our doctrine the English Divines in their confession of faith acknowledge that the purest Churches under Heaven Confes ch 25. ss 4. are subject both to mixture and error Mat. 13.24.47 which they prove by the Parable of the Wheat and Tears in one Field and of the good Fish and bad in one Net 7. Inst Jovinianus levelled sins by making them all equally grievous Answ 1. Protestants do not equallize sins The Assembly of Divines in their larger Catechism affirm that All Transgressions of the Law of God are not equally heinous but some sins in themselves and by reason of several aggravatiens are more heinous in the sight of God then others The latter confession of Aelvetia doth expresly deliver this doctrine and condemns by name Pelagius Jovinianus and the Stoicks for making all sins equally grievous 8. Inst Pelagius did endeavour to stop the course of Original sin in Infants and thereupon bereaved Baptism of its due necessity Answ The Protestants are so full in acknowledgment of Original sin in their confessions Catechismes Systems of Divinity and Comentaries on Scripture and so harmonious in their administration of Baptism to Infants which is a clear evidence of their belief of Original sin that I wonder with what face this man could bring in Pelagianism in this point as a Doctrine wherein Papists and we mainly differ 9 Inst Berengarius grew to that height of wickedness as to out Christ of the Sacrament Answ This as you express it Protestants detest who unanimously hold and always did so that Christ is really present in the Sacrament The truth is Berengarius was no Heretique in this point he lived in that age when the irrational and Antiscriptural doctrine of Transubstantiation began to be broached This new error he opposed affirming that Christ was not bodily present as the Transubstantiators taught but in a spiritual manner as Protestants now teach and will maintain it against you 10. Inst Zenaius despised Images as worthless Answ Protestants acknowledge that Images have their use and consequently a worth in them They may be used privately for Ornament yea and publikely too as Historical remembrances of persons provided that the Images of the Trinity be not made and this was all the use they had amongst primitive Christians as Cassander fully shews saying Certum est initio c. It s most certain that in the beginning of the Gospel times for a good while Leven in the time of Agustin a little after there was no use of Images amongst Christians especially in Churches as appears by Clemens and Arnobius but afterwards they were admitted into the Church as Historical expressions of things done or as lively Images of Holymen And thus far I know no Protestant Church or rational Christian that can disalow them 'T is true we abhor the worship of them and complain of Papists as Irenaeus of old did of the Gnosticks for their worship of them But this will not prove that we despise Images as worthless 11. Inst Calvin drew compulsion upon humane actions Answ 1. If this were true yet its false that this is a point wherein Catholicks and Protestants

Popish Dominions that he could say lived well You are abundant in mentioning the good lives of Catholiques and their holiness of life is become a note of your Church Sure you do not mean that Papists absolute keeping of the Commandements is your Note The truth is he lives well who for the main of his life endeavours to conform himself to God sorrowing for his failings and inability to do what God requires and flies to the mercy of God for the remission of all the miscariages of his life he that lives thus lives well and if he dies he dies well Blamelessness before men sometimes yea usually denominates a good life The perfect life wherein is no sin is the life of Angels and Saints in Heaven where there is perfection of knowledg and grace This perfection the Apostle Paul aimed at but confesseth he had not attained Phil. 3.12.3 Whereas you speak of tearming him a good liver that steals c. I know not who asserts it nor to what end you urge it It s one thing to live directly contrary and another thing to live according to the Law though it come short of Angelical perfection 3. Argument is this The justness of Laws that inflict severe punishments upon the breakers of the Commandments are n●t at all consistent with the impossibility of keeping them Necessity is a good and forcible excuse against the strongest charge Supposing you to speak of humane Laws I answer 1. No humane Lawes take hold of any for want of exact and perfect obedience Exact obedience refers to thoughts which human Laws reach not to either to reward or punish 2. They suppose a possibility of outward conformity to them before men this was in Paul before his conversion who as touching the righteousnesse of the Law was blameless but this was no more but outward conformity for he wanted grace whereby only your perfection is attainable 3. What you say of necessity is vain for 1. There is no necessity of coaction whereby man might be forced to transgress the Law the will of man is free from this necessity 2. If there be any necessity to transgress it s contracted by our selves through our own fault and therefore is not a good and forcible excuse against the strongest charge Do you think when God shall ask natural men at the last day why they did not keep his Commandments that their necessity will be a good and forceable excuse against Gods charge And your self cannot deny but that natural men as such are unable to keep Gods Commands unless you professe Pelagianism 4. Argument you say The very light of reason gives testimony to the Commandments possibility they being all grounded upon reason and suited to her bent and inclination the wickedst man alive cannot say that he breaketh any Command without some secr●t check of conscienco Answ 1. What could Pelagius have said more for his error Doth not your argument prove his opinion to say the Commandments being grounded on natural reason it s in the power of nature to keep them is the grossest Pelagianisme 2. I will grant to you that the commandments are suited to reason as it was in its primitive purity but not as depraved The Commandments therefore were not impossible to Adam in whom reason was pure and right nor should they have been impossible to any of us if we had stood innocent but now they are impossible to us because reason in us is depraved and they are not suited to depraved reason there are neither fewer nor easier Commandments given to us then to Adam but the very same If you say grace supplies reasons defect I answer 't is true that Grace doth reform Nature but brings it not to its primitive purity there is no man reacheth to that height of reason that Adam had and to that consonancy of it to Gods Law Adams posse non peccare is in no son of man 3. Whereas you say the wickedst man alive c. I question the truth of it when your Church through the hypocrisie of lyers brings in Doctrines of Daemons forbids to marry and commands to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth Do your conscience check you Are they not rather seared with an hot iron according to the Apostles prediction Do wicked mens consciences checks them for every thought of their hearts that is evil It may be the commission of the grosse external act of theft or adultery or murder and the like is usually atended with some check in most men but the commandments reach further then to the outward act to mens thoughts and words and gestures and few men will know that these are sins now there must be science before conscience 2. Suppose it true all that it proves is this that there are some footsteps of reason and conscience in men which we deny not but it proves not that reason hath its perfection in them or that the Law might be kept by them though its probable that they might break it lesse then they do See Rom. 1.18 19 20 21. 4. Having ended your Arguments you come in the next place to answer some seeming objections against you 1 Object God only requires mans endeavour To this you Answer 1. This is repugnant to Christs expresse words which are not Math. 19. If thou wilt come to Heaven endeavour to keep but keep the Commandments Many a good endeavour as many a good purpose burns in Hell Heaven is rhe reward of doing not of endeavouring Reply 1. Not taking notice of the objection which is your own figment I say God doth require endeavour which by urging that text Math. 19. you seem to deny yea there are as many Commandments of endeavours as of actual obedience in the New Testament yea further there are promises and those of Heaven made to endeavours L●ke 13.24 Strive to enter in at the strait gatte c. Mat. 7.7 8. Ask and it shall be given you seek and ye shall find c. Reply 2. Though God do not require only endeavour yet God accepts of endeavour where there cannot be action God commends accepts of Davids intention of building him an house though he built it not If a good intention may be accepted instead of action which your Rhemists assert why not a good endeavour Rep. 3. Endeavour is the utmost that is attaineable in this life according to the judgment of your best School-man Aquinas Aquin. 22. q. 24. 7. c. who shews that that perfection of charity whereby the whole heart of man is continually and actualy carryed towards God is our perfection in our Countrey but not p●ssible in this life in which because of human infirmities its impossible always actually to think of God or to love him but there is another kind of perfection which is when a man doth wholly endeavour to devote himself to God and Divine exercises omiting other things unlesse so far as humane

profession of Doctrine In your next words you call it Apostolical power which may extend to jurisdiction as well as to Order to Government as well as Doctrine but in the confirmation of your assumption you only though frequently express it by a power to preach and inculcate the truth which is no more then profession of true Doctrine against errors and thus it must be understood if the Argument be good 2. Your felf overthrow the truth of this proposition 1. In saying Apostolicall power and doctrine where Communion is not wanting are sure evidences of the true Catholick Church whereby you declare then your enumeration of particulars in the proposition is unsufficient and may be where the true Church is not viz. where communion is wanting and this is more necessary with you than any thing you express 2. Whereas in the former Chapter we asserted the profession of true doctrine to be a mark of the true Church you vehemently opposed it as an error how comes it then to be a truth in this Chapter Is it a truth or no truth a Popish truth and a Protestant error 3. These marks or rather this mark may agree to particular Churches and have rather agreed to any particular Church than the now Roman Yea they may agree to particular Christians of other Churches as to Chrysostome Bishop of Constantinople Athanasus Bishop of Alexandria Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem whom you mention and were distinct Patriarchs from the Bishop or Patriarch of Rome yea every private Christian hath a power from Christ to embrace true Doctrine and to make profession of it and to contend earnestly for it against all false doctrine Answ 2. To your minor I deny it to be true your proof of I shall mainly examine The second Proposition say you I clear by instances in and from the Apostles down to Luther Zuinglius and Calvin and those of such points as Catholicks and Protestants mainly differ in Parturiunt montes c. Who would not here expect some great matter from this Doctor yet who ever examines his instances shall finde nothing but a heap of lies and fopperies For my discovery hereof I shall shew particularly what this man undertakes and how he swerves from his undertaking 1. He undertakes things 1. To produce a Catalogue of such points wherein Catholicks and Protestants mainly differ So that to bring instances of such doctrines as Protestants disclaim as well as Papists is to lie grosly and to befool the Reader 2. To produce the generallity or universall company of Christians as appears by those words Christians generally maintained so often repeated in the following instances 3. To produce this company professing c. when any opposition was first made whereby is implied that when the Protestant supposed errors did arise in severall ages these Authors and Councels did then arise and oppose them 4. To bring in the testimony of Roman Catholicks for he proves that the Roman Church is Catholick because of their constant opposition of Heresies in all ages since Christ 2. The frothiness of his undertaking appears in his swerving from it which comes not to be delivered 1. As for his instance of such points c. who that read his Profession but would expect a Catologue of Protestant errors from the Apostles down to Calvin but behold a Catalogue of such Doctrines as Protestants and Papists comply in the opposition of Here are fifteen instances of which the six first together with the eighth tenth eleaventh and twelfth as he delivers it fourteen and part of the fifteenth we utterly disclaim as none of the doctrine of the Protestant Churches but a dead bastard which the whore of Rome hath laid at our side insteed of our own living child which this author hath carefully hid from the eyes of his followers making shew onely of h●s own deformed bastard But lest I should seem to affirm rather then prove Our disowning of them I shall take a little liberty to demonstrate what is the judgement of the Protestant Churches in those points that this Author mentions as errors only first I will advertise the reader of a jugling feat of this Romish artist 't is this when he brings in Fathers or Councels in opposition to some errors he turns them from opposing those erors to assert some doctrines not directly contrary to those errors but rather to the true doctrine of Protestants as S. 2. in opposition to S. Magus opening Heaven to Faith unaccompanied with good works he brings in the Apostles and Austin asserting that good works are Absolutely necessary to salvation Sect. 3. in opposition to Eunomius attributing Justification to a simple act of faith he brings in Irenaeus and Austin affirming that Faith alone doth not justifie Sect. 4. Whereas Florinus blasphemed God to be the Author of sin he brings in Tertullian Origen and the Trent Councell asserting that God doth no more but permit as if God could do no more about sin but he must be the Author of it Having premised this I come to his instances 1. Instance Simon Magus took upon him to open Heaven to Faith unaccompanied with good works Ans Is this the doctrine of Protestants or do they open Heaven to Faith accompanied with good works Do not all Protestants require that the Faith which justifies be an active or operative Faith and proclaim other Faith dead read concerning the necessitie of works the English Confession Non tamen dicimus c. Yet we say not that men may live dissolutely as if it were sufficient for a Christian on●ly to be dipt and to believe and nothing else expected from him true Faith is living and cannot be idle Read the Articles of the Church of England especially Act. 12. Albeit that good works which are the fruits of Faith and follow after Justification cannot put away our sins and endure the severitie of Gods judgement yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith c. Again Act. 17. They which are predestinated they walk religiously in good works c. To all this the reverend Assembly of Divines consent saying Good works are the fruit and evidences of a true and lively Faith that believers are created thereto that having their fruit in holiness they may have the end Confess of Faith c. 16. Sect. 2. eternall life If you say Protestants hold they are not absolutely necessary I answer this was not the error of Simon Magus nor is the contrary opinion the professed Doctrine of the Church of Rome as appears to any that reads the Councel of Trent Session 6. or of her children see the Rhemists on Lu. 23.43 2. Inst Eunomius attributed to a simple act of faith virtue and efficacie to cleanse and wash a-away whatsoever ordure and spots of sins Tolet. in c. 3. ad Rom. This is no Protestant doctrine We fully consent to the speech of the Jesuite Tolet. Advertendum est c.