Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	death_n	sin_n	wage_n	2,873	5	11.4472	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A69738	Mr. Chillingworth's book called The religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation made more generally useful by omitting personal contests, but inserting whatsoever concerns the common cause of Protestants, or defends the Church of England : with an addition of some genuine pieces of Mr. Chillingworth's never before printed.; Religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation	Chillingworth, William, 1602-1644.; Patrick, John, 1632-1695.	1687 (1687)	Wing C3885; Wing C3883; ESTC R21891	431,436	576

of any probable Doctors though the contrary may be certainly free from sin and theirs be doubtful Which doctrin in the former part of it is apparently false For though wisdom and Charity to our selves would perswade us always to do so yet many times that way which to our selves and our salvation is more full of hazard is notwithstanding not only lawful but more Charitable and more noble For example to flie from a persecution and so to avoid the temptation of it may be the safer way for a mans own salvation yet I presume no man ought to condemn him of impiety who should resolve not to use his liberty in this matter but for Gods greater glory the greater honour of truth and the greater confirmation of his brethren in the faith choose to stand out the storm and endure the fiery tryal rather than avoid it rather to put his own soul to the hazard of a temptation in hope of Gods assistance to go through with it than to baulk the opportunity of doing God and his brethren so great a service This part therefore of this Doctrin is manifestly untrue The other not only false but impious for therein you plainly give us to understand that in your judgment a resolution to avoid sin to the uttermost of our power is no necessary means of Salvation nay that a man may resolve not to do so without any danger of damnation Therein you teach us that we are to do more for the love of our selves and our own happiness than for the love of God and in so doing contradict our Saviour who expresly commands us to love the Lord our God with all our heart with all our soul and with all our strength and hath taught us that the love of God consists in avoiding sin and keeping his commandments Therein you directly cross S. Pauls Doctrin who though he were a very probable Doctor and had delivered his judgment for the lawfulness of eating meats offered to Idols yet he assures us that he which should make scruple of doing so and forbear upon his scruple should not sin but only be a weak brother whereas he who should do it with a doubtful conscience though the action were by S. Paul warranted lawful yet should sin and be condemned for so doing You pretend indeed to be rigid defenders and stout champions for the necessity of good works but the truth is you speak lies in Hypocrisie and when the matter is well examined will appear to make your selves and your own functions necessary but obedience to God unnecessary Which will appear to any man who considers what strict necessity the Scripture imposes upon all men of effectual mortification of the habits of all Vices and effectual Conversion to newness of Life and Universal obedience and withal remembers that an act of Attrition which you say with Priestly absolution is sufficient to Salvation is not mortification which being a work of difficulty and time cannot be performed in an instant But for the present it appears sufficiently out of this impious assertion which makes it absolutely necessary for men either in Act if it be possible or if not in Desire to be Baptized and Absolved by you and that with Intention and in the mean time warrants them that for avoiding of sin they may safely follow the uncertain guidance of a vain man who you cannot deny may either be deceived himself or out of malice deceive them and neglect the certain direction of God himself and their own Consciences What wicked use is made of this Doctrine your own long experience can better inform you than it is possible for me to do yet my own little conversation with you affords me one memorable example to this purpose For upon this ground I knew a young Scholar in Doway licensed by a great Casuist to swear a thing as upon his certain knowledge whereof he had yet no knowledge but only a great presumption because forsooth it was the opinion of one Doctor that he might do so And upon the same ground whensoever you shall come to have a prevailing party in this Kingdom and power sufficient to restore your Religion you may do it by deposing or killing the King by blowing up of Parliaments and by rooting out all others of a different Eaith from you Nay this you may do though in your own opinion it be unlawful because a Bellar. Contr. Barcl c. 7. In 7. c. refutare conatur Barcl verba illa Romuli Veteres illos Imperatores Constantium Valentem Caeteros non ideo toleravit Ecclesia quod legitime successissent sed quod illos sine populi detrimento coercere non poterat Et miratur hcc idem scripfisse Bellarminum l. 5. de Pontif. c. 7. Sed ut magis miretur sciat hoc idem sensisse S. Thomam 2. 2. q. 12. art 2. ad 1. Vbi dicit Ecclesiam tolerasse ut fideles obedirent Juliano Apostatae quia in sui novitate nondum habebant vires compescendi Principes terrenos Et postea Sanctus Gregorius dicit nullum adversus Juliani persecutionem fuisse remedium praeter lacrymas quoniam non habebat Ecclesia vires quibus illus tyrannidi resistere posset Bellarmine a man with you of approved Vertue Learning and Judgment hath declared his opinion for the lawfulness of it in saying that want of power to maintain a Rebellion was the only reason that the Primitive Christians did not Rebel against the persecuting Emperors By the same rule seeing the Priests and Scribes and Pharisees men of greatest repute among the Jews for Vertue Learning and Wisdom held it a lawful and a pious work to persecute Christ and his Apostles it was lawful for the People to follow their Leaders for herein according to your Doctrine they proceeded prudently and according to the conduct of opinion maturoly weighed and approved by men as it seemed to them of Vertue Learning and Wisdom nay by such as sate in Moses Chair and of whom it was said whatsoever they bid you observe that observe and do which Universal you pretend is to be understood Universally and without any restriction or limitation And as lawful was it for the Pagans to persecute the Primimitive Christians because Trajan and Pliny men of great Vertue and Wisdom were of this opinion Lastly that most impious and detestable Doctrine which by a foul calumny you impute to me who abhor and detest it that men may be saved in any Religion follows from this ground unavoidably For certainly Religion is one of those things which is necessary only because it is commanded for if none were commanded under pain of damnation how could it be damnable to be of any Neither can it be damnable to be of a false Religion unless it be a sin to be so For neither are men saved by good luck but only by obedience neither are they damned for their ill Fortune but for sin and disobedience Death is the wages of nothing but

sin and S. James sure intended to deliver the adequate cause of sin and Death in those words Lust when it hath conceived bringeth forth sin and sin when it is finished bringeth forth Death Seeing therefore in such things according to your Doctrine it is sufficient for avoiding of sin that we proceed prudently and by the conduct of some probable opinion maturely weighed and approved by men of Learning Vertue and Wisdom and seeing neither Jews want their Gamaliels nor Pagans their Antoninus's nor any Sect of Christians such professors and maintainers of their several Sects as are esteemed by the People which know no better and that very reasonably men of Vertue Learning and Wisdom it follows evidently that the embracing their Religion proceeds upon such reason as may warrant their action to be prudent and this is sufficient for avoiding of sin and therefore certainly for avoiding damnation for that in humane affairs discourse evidence and certainty cannot be always expected I have stood the longer upon the refutation of this Doctrine not only because it is impious and because bad use is made of it and worse may be but only because the contrary position That men are bound for avoiding sin always to take the safest way is a fair and sure Foundation for a clear confutation of the main conclusion which in this Chapter you labour in vain to prove and a certain proof that in regard of the precept of Charity towards ones self and of obedience to God Papists unless ignorance excuse them are in state of sin as long as they remain in subjection to the Roman Church 9. for if the safer way for avoiding sin be also the safer way for avoiding damnation then certainly the way of Protestants must be more secure and the Roman way more dangerous take but into your consideration these ensuing Controversies Whether it be lawful to worship Pictures to Picture the Trinity to invocate Saints and Angels to deny Lay-men the Cup in the Sacrament to adore the Sacraments to prohibit certain Orders of Men and Women to Marry to Celebrate the publick service of God in a language which the assistants generally understand not and you will not choose but confess that in all these you are on the more dangerous side for the committing of sin and we on that which is more secure For in all these things if we say true you do that which is impious on the other side if you were in the right yet we might be secure enough for we should only not do something which you confess not necessary to be done We pretend and are ready to justifie out of principles agreed upon between us that in all these things you violate the manifest commandments of God and alledge such Texts of Scripture against you as if you would weigh them with any indifference would put the matter out of question but certainly you cannot with any modesty deny but that at least they make it questionable On the other side you cannot with any face pretend and if you should know not how to go about to prove that there is any necessity of doing any of these things that it is unlawful not to worship Pictures not to Picture the Trinity not to invocate Saints and Angels not to give all men the entire Sacrament not to adore the Eucharist not to prohibit Marriage not to Celebrate Divine Service in an unknown Tongue I say you neither do nor can pretend that there is any law of God which enjoyns us no nor so much as an Evangelical Council that advises us to do any of these things Now where no law is there can be no sin for sin is the transgression of the Law It remains therefore that our forbearing to do these things must be free from all danger and suspicion of sin whereas your acting of them must be if not certainly impious without all contradiction questionable and dangerous I conclude therefore that which was to be concluded that if the safer way for avoiding sin be also as most certainly it is the safer way for avoiding damnation then certainly the way of Protestants must be more safe and the Roman way more dangerous 12. Ad § 5. Here you begin to make some shew of arguing and the first Argument put into form stands thus Every least Error in Faith destroys the nature of Faith It is certain that some Protestants do Err and therefore they want the substance of Faith The Major of which Syllogism I have formerly confuted by unanswerable Arguments out of one of your own best Authors who shews plainly that he hath amongst you as strange as you make it many other Abettors Besides if it were true it would conclude that either you or the Dominicans have no Faith in as much as you oppose one another as much as Arminians and Calvinists 13. The Second Argument stands thus Since all Protestants pretend the like certainty it is clear that none of them have any certainty at all Which Argument if it were good then what can hinder but this must also be so Since Protestants and Papists pretend the like certainty it is clear that none of them have any certainty at all And this too Since all Christians pretend the like certainty it is clear that none of them have any certainty at all And thirdly this Since men of all Religions pretend a like certainty it is clear that none of them have any at all And lastly this Since oft-times they which are abused with a specious Paralogism pretend the like certainty with them which demonstrate it is clear that none of them have any certainty at all Certainly Sir Zeal and the Devil did strangely blind you if you did not see that these horrid impieties were the immediate consequences of your positions if you did see it and yet would set them down you deserve worse censure Yet such as these are all the Arguments wherewith you conceive your self to have proved undoubtedly that Protestants have reason at least to doubt in what case they stand 14. Your third and fourth Argument may be thus put into one Protestants cannot tell what points in particular be Fundamental therefore they cannot tell whether they or their Brethren do not Err Fundamentally and whether their difference be not Fundamental Both which deductions I have formerly shewed to be most inconsequent for knowing the Scripture to contain all Fundamentals though many more points besides which makes it difficult to say precisely what is Fundamental and what not knowing this I say and believing it what can hinder but that I may be well assured that I believe all Fundamentals and that all who believe the Scripture sincerely as well as I do not differ from me in any thing Fundamental 15. In the close of this Section you say that you omit to add that we want the Sacrament of Repentance instituted for the remission of sins or at least we must confess that we hold it not necessary and

Scripture which are not contained in the Creed when once we come to know that they are written in Scripture but rather to lay a necessity upon men of believing all things written in Scripture when once they know them to be there written For he that believes not all known Divine Revelations to be true how does he believe in God Unless you will say that the same man at the same time may not believe God and yet believe in him The greater difficulty is how it will not take away the necessity of believing Scripture to be the Word of God But that it will not neither For though the Creed be granted a sufficient summary of Articles of meer Faith yet no man pretends that it contains the Rules of Obedience but for them all men are referred to Scripture Besides he that pretends to believe in God obligeth himself to believe it necessary to obey that which reason assures him to be the Will of God Now reason will assure him that believes the Creed that it is the Will of God he should believe the Scripture even the very same Reason which moves him to believe the Creed Universal and never failing Tradition having given this Testimony both to Creed and Scripture that they both by the works of God were sealed and testified to be the words of God And thus much be spoken in Answer to your first Argument the length whereof will be the more excusable If I oblige my self to say but little to the rest 15. I come then to your second And in Answer to it deny flatly as a thing destructive of it self that any Error can be damnable unless it be repugnant immediatly or mediatly directly or indirectly of it self or by accident to some Truth for the matter of it fundamental And to your example of Pontius Pilat's being Judge of Christ I say the denial of it in him that knows it to be revealed by God is manifestly destructive of this Fundamental truth that all Divine Revelations are true Neither will you find any Error so much as by accident damnable but the rejecting of it will be necessarily laid upon us by a real belief of all Fundamentals and simply necessary Truths And I desire you would reconcile with this that which you have said § 15. Every Fundamental Error must have a contrary Fundamental Truth because of two Contradictory propositions in the same degree the one is false the other must be true c. 16. To the Third I Answer That the certainty I have of the Creed That it was from the Apostles and contains the principles of Faith I ground it not upon Scripture and yet not upon the Infallibility of any present much less of your Church but upon the Authority of the Ancient Church and written Tradition which as D. Potter hath proved gave this constant Testimony unto it Besides I tell you it is guilty of the same fault which D. Potter's Assertion is here accused of having perhaps some colour toward the proving it false but none at all to shew it impertinent 17. To the Fourth I Answer plainly thus That you find fault with D. Potter for his Vertues you are offended with him for not usurping the Authority which he hath not in a word for not playing the Pope Certainly if Protestants be faulty in this matter it is for doing it too much and not too little This presumptuous imposing of the senses of men upon the words of God the special senses of men upon the general words of God and laying them upon mens consciences together under the equal penalty of death and damnation this vain conceit that we can speak of the things of God better than in the word of God This Deifying our own Interpretations and Tyrannous inforcing them upon others This restraining of the word of God from that latitude and generality and the understandings of men from that liberty wherein Christ and the Apostles left them a This perswasion is no singularity of mine but the Doctrin which I have learnt from Divines of great learning and judgment Let the Reader be pleased to peruse the seaventh book of Acontius de Stratag Satanae And Zanchius his last Oration delivered by him after the composing of the discord between him and Amerbachius and he shall confess as much is and hath been the only fountain of all the Schisms of the Church and that which makes them immortal the common incendiary of Christendom and that which as I said before tears into pieces not the coat but the bowels and members of Christ Ridente Turcâ nec dolente Judaeo Take away these Walls of separation and all will quickly be one Take away this Persecuting Burning Cursing Damning of men for not subscribing to the words of Men as the words of God Require of Christians only to believe Christ and to call no man master but him only Let those leave claiming Infallibility that have no title to it and let them that in their words disclaim it disclaim it likewise in their actions In a word take away Tyranny which is the Devils instrument to support errors and superstitions and impieties in the several parts of the World which could not otherwise long withstand the power of Truth I say take away Tyranny and restore Christians to their just and full liberty of captivating their understanding to Scripture only and as Rivers when they have a free passage run all to the Ocean so it may well be hoped by Gods blessing that Universal Liberty thus moderated may quickly reduce Christendom to Truth and Unity These thoughts of peace I am perswaded may come from the God of peace and to his blessing I commend them and proceed 18. Your fifth and last objection stands upon a false and dangerous supposition That new Heresies may arise For an Heresie being in it self nothing else but a Doctrine Repugnant to some Article of the Christian Faith to say that new Heresies may arise is to say that new Articles of Faith may arise and so some great ones among you stick not to profess in plain terms who yet at the same time are not ashamed to pretend that your whole Doctrin is Catholick and Apostolick So Salmeron Non omnibus omnia dedit Deus ut quaelibet aetas suis gaudeat veritatibus quas prior aetas ignoravit God hath not given all things to All So that every age hath its proper Verities which the former age was ignorant of Disp 57. In Ep. ad Rom. And again in the Margent Habet Unumquodque saeculum peculiares Revelationes Divinas Every age hath its peculiar Divine Revelations Where that he speaks of such Revelations as are or may by the Church be made matters of Faith no man can doubt that reads him an example whereof he gives us a little before in these words Unius Augustini doctrina Assumptionis B. Deiparae cultum in Ecclesiam introduxit The Doctrin of Augustin only hath brought in to the Church the Worship of

And after A certain man amongst us whose name was John one of the Twelve Apostles of Christ in that Revelation which was exhibited unto him hath foretold That they which believe our Christ shall live in Hierusalem a thousand years and that after the Universal and everlasting Resurrection and Judgment shall be I have presumed in the beginning of Justin Martyrs answer to substitute not instead of also because I am confident that either by chance or the fraud of some ill-willers to the Millinaries opinion the place has been corrupted and turned into not into also For if we retain the usual reading But that many who are also of the pure and holy opinion of Christians do not acknowledge this I have also signified unto you then must we conclude that Justin Martyr himself did believe the opinion of them which denied the thousand years to be the pure and holy opinion of Christians and if so why did he not himself believe it nay how could he but believe it to be true professing it as he does if the place be right to be the pure and holy opinion of Christians for how a false Doctrine can be the pure and holy opinion of Christians what Christian can conceive or if it may be so how can the contrary avoid the being untrue unholy and not the opinion of Christians Again if we read the place thus That many who are also of the pure and holy opinion of Christians do not acknowledge this I have also signified certainly there wll be neither sense nor reason neither coherence nor consequence in the words following For I have told you of many called Christians but being indeed Atheists and Hereticks that they altogether teach blasphemous and impious and foolish things for how is this a confirmation or reason of or any way pertinent unto what went before if there he speak of none but such as were purae piaeque Christianorum sententiae of the pure and holy opinion of Christians And therefore to disguise this inconsequence the Translator has thought fit to make use of a false Translation and instead of for I have told you to make it besides I have told you of many c. Again if Justin Martyr had thought this the pure and holy opinion of Christians or them good and holy Christians that held it why does he rank them with them that denyed the Resurrection Why does he say afterward Although you chance to meet with some that are called Christians which do not confess this do not ye think them Christians Lastly what sense is there in saying as he does I and all Christians that are of a right belief in all things believe the Doctrine of the thousand years and that the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament teach it and yet say That many of the pure and holy opinion of Christians do not believe it Upon these reasons I suppose it is evident that the place has been corrupted and it is to be corrected according as I have corrected it by substituting in the place of not instead of also Neither need any man think strange that this misfortune of the change of a Syllable should befal this place who considers that in this place Justin Martyr tells us that he had said the same things before whereas nothing to this purpose appears now in him And that in Victorinus comment on the Revelation wherein by S. Hieroms acknowledgment this Doctrine was strongly maintained there now appears nothing at all for it but rather against it And now from the place thus restored these Observations offer themselves unto us 1. That Justin Martyr speaks not as a Doctor but as a witness of the Doctrine of the Church of his time I saith he and all Christians that are of a right belief in all things hold this And therefore from hence according to Cardinal Perrons Rule we are to conclude not probably but demonstratively that this was the Doctrine of the Church of that time 2. That they held it as a necessary matter so far as to hold them no Christians that held the Contrary though you chance to meet with some called Christians that do not confess this but dare to Blaspheme the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob c. Yet do not ye think them Christians Now if Bellarmines Rule be true that Councils then determine any thing as matters of Faith when they pronounce them Hereticks that hold the Contrary then sure Justin Martyr held this Doctrine as a matter of Faith seeing he pronounceth them no Christians that contradict it 3. That the Doctrine is grounded upon the Scripture of the Old and New Testament and the Revelation of S. John and that by a Doctor and Martyr of the Church and such a one as was converted to Christianity within 30 years after the Death of S. John when in all probability there were many alive that had heard him expound his own words and teach this Doctrine and if probabilities will not be admitted this is certain out of the most authentical records of the Church that Papias the Disciple of the Apostles Disciples taught it the Church professing that he had received it from them that learned it from the Apostles and if after all this the Church of those Times might Err in a Doctrine so clearly derived and authentically delivered how without extream impudence can any Church in after times pretend to Infallibility The Millinaries Doctrine was over-born by imputing to them that which they held not by abrogating the Authority of S. John's Revelation as some did or by derogating from it as others ascribing it not to S. John the Apostle but to some other John they know not who which Dionysius the first known adversary of this doctrine and his followers against the Tradition of Irenaeus Justin Martyr and all the Fathers their Antecessors by calling it a Judaical opinion and yet allowing it as probable by corrupting the Authors for it as Justin Victorinus Severus VI. A Letter relating to the same Subject SIR I Pray remember that if a consent of Fathers either constitute or declare a Truth to be necessary or shew the opinion of the Church of their Time then that opinion of the Jesuits concerning Predestination upon prescience which had no opposer before S. Austin must be so and the contrary Heretical of the Dominicans and the present Church differs from the Ancient in not esteeming of it as they did Secondly I pray remember that if the Fathers be infallible when they speak as witnesses of Tradition to shew the opinion of the Church of their Time then the opinion of the Chiliasts which now is a Heresie in the Church of Rome was once Tradition in the Opinion of the Church Thirdly Since S. Austin had an opinion that of whatsoever no beginning was known that came from the Apostles many Fathers might say things to be Tradition upon that ground only but of this Opinion of the Chiliasts one of the ancientest Fathers Irenaeus