Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
work_n	charity_n	faith_n	justification_n	4,801	5	9.5998	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A07966	An apology of English Arminianisme or A dialogue betweene Iacobus Arminius, professour in the Vniuersity of Leyden in Holland; and Enthusiastus an English Doctour of Diuinity and a great precisian. Wherein are defended the doctrines of Arminius touching freewill, predestination, and reprobation: the said doctrines being mantained & taught by many of the most learned Protestants of England, at this present time. Written by O.N. heertofore of the Vniuersity of Oxford.; Apology of English Arminianisme.	O. N., fl. 1634.	1634 (1634)	STC 18333; ESTC S119849	84,307	213

which performeth his Penitency do neuertheles obtayne remission of his sinnes or not and Lastly I will conclude thi● point with a demonstration for I 〈◊〉 terme it no lesse taken from the ●xample of Dauid And to begin with the first sort we thus read z 1. Pet 1. Passe the tyme of your dwelling here in feare Agayne a Philip. 2. Worke your Saluation with feare and trembling And finally b Prou. 2. Blessed is that man who is euer fearefull But if a man be infallibly assured of his Iustification how can he be fearefull thereof To come to the second branch of Texts teaching That a man performing sorrow and being penitent for his Sinnes notwithstanding is not assured of the remission of his Sinnes Now according hereto we read c Acts 8. Re pent of thy wickednes and pray to God si forte remittatur tibi if chance it may be forgiuen thee In like sort it is said d 〈◊〉 3. Who can tell if God will turne and pardon v. c. And the same words are in ●o●● c. 2. And finally we further thus read e D●niel 4. Perhaps God will pardon thine offences Now heere Enthusiastus I refer●e euen to your iudgement and to the iudgment of all heere present whether this doubtfulnes of Romission of Sinnes and the former Admonition that we should not rest ouer secure of our Iustice both which points are prooued from the two former Classes of Scripture stand not wholy incompatible with our Aduersaries persumed infalliable certainty of their owne Iustification Enthusiastus I freely grant that these Texts do seeme to eneruate and weaken the doctrine of the certainty of Iustification But I pray you proceed to that example of the Prophet Dauid which aboue for it is conuincing you called a Demonstration Arminius Well I come to Dauid whose example is a sealing Argument closing vp this point and affordeth to vs a certainty of Truth touching the vncertainty of mans Iustification Thus then I vrge Yf Charity can be lost then fayth can be lost if Fayth can be lost then Iustification may be lost My first proposition is warranted by the doctrine of vs all f D. Fulke against the Rhem. Testament in 1. Cor. c. 3. sayth Fayth cannot be without Charity who teach that Charity doth as necessarily accompany a Iustifying fayth as heate doth the fyre That Charity may be lost is proued from the example of Dauid who killed Vrias seeing a voluntary pretended murther and such was that of Dauids is a meere priuation of Charity For how can we loue that man with true Charity whom we intend to murther and depriue of his life Now the Euangelist assureth vs that g 1. Iohn 3. Who loueth not his brother is not of God but abideth in death From hence then the vnauoydable resultancy is that Dauid in the murther of Vrias and during all the tyme before his repentance thereof was not of God but for the tyme abode in death and consequently neyther had Charity nor fayth for if he had fayth he had not abyded in death because it is written h 1. Iohn 3. By fayth the iust man liueth Enthusiastus I haue read some of our learned Brethren labouring to auoyd this Argument by answering that Dauids fayth was not lost in his murther of Vrias but only for the tyme slept And others doe affirme that Dauid when he committed murther and adultery i D. Fulke in the disputation in the Tower ann 1581. the second daves Conference was and remained the child of God did not fall from his fayth And another great man amōg vs affirmes that k Beza in respons ad Act. Colloq Montisbelgar part altera P. 73. at one and the sam● time Dauid sinned and sinned not Arminius Tush Enthusiastus all this is but ● froath of words seruing only to blear● the eyes of the ignorant but it is wholy dissolued with the least touch of a iudicious finger And to the first and second part of your Answere Either Dauid had fayth at the tyme of his murthering of Vrias or he had it not for no Medium can be giuen betweene these two Extremes Yf he had fayth how then could his fayth be said to sleepe Agayne the Nature of true fayth requireth that ●● should be euer l Galat. 5. Working with Charity and that without workes it is m Iacob ● dead Yf Dauid hath not fayth at that time then is that grated which I demanded to wit that Dauid in the murther of Vrias lost his fayth and consequently was not assured of his Iustification Thus you see that this yours euasion is nothing els then a poore begging of the point as granted which is still in controuersy to wit that Dauid still kept his fayth at the tyme h●● killed Vrias Now to that other last kind of Answere to wit that at one and the same ●yme Dauid sinned and sinned not I ●uch wonder that it did euer fall from ● learned mans pen so phantasticall ●explicable and indeed absurd it is But to proceed this Answere implies ●hat Dauid sinned let it be in what ●espect soeuer the Author of this Answere will haue Yf then Dauid sinned ●hen Dauid by such his Sinne was the ●eruant of sinne and of the Diuell for we reade that n Iohn 8. He that committeth ●inne is the seruant of Sinne. And againe He that committeth Sinne is of the o 1. Iohn ● Deuill And thus far touching this Demonstration Enthusiastus I grant indeed that this your Argument drawne from the example of Dauid is most strong and I now well ●erceaue how sleightly my Answere ●hereto was wouen vpon seuerall ●reeds but all to illaqueate ensnare weake iudgment But Arminius you ●auing now finished as I take it all our proofes for the disprouing of the certainty of mans Iustification 〈◊〉 Methode requireth that you 〈◊〉 take the like labour touching the 〈◊〉 prouing the certainty of 〈◊〉 though I cannot but grant 〈◊〉 the impugning of this later 〈◊〉 vertually inuolued in the 〈◊〉 of the firster For let vs once grant 〈◊〉 man resteth vncertayne of his 〈◊〉 it then ineuitably from thence 〈◊〉 be inferred as your selfe aboue did i●timate that he also resteth vncerta●● of his Election and Predestination 〈◊〉 Iustification is a necessary Medi●● Election and Predestination for no 〈◊〉 are elected or predestinated by God 〈◊〉 such as are finally iustifyed Yet n●●withstanding this most necessary ●●terueniency of these two points 〈◊〉 would willingly heare your particul●● proofes for the particular point of t●● vncertainty of Election o● Predestinati●● Arminius I will satisfy your desire 〈◊〉 first not to lose tyme I will keep● 〈◊〉 former Methode in producing of 〈◊〉 proofes And therefore for the 〈◊〉 of Election and Predestinati●● 〈◊〉 ●●gin with Arguments drawne ●rom Reason Of which my first Ar●ument is this The knowledge by Fayth of a mans present Iustice is more 〈◊〉 then the knowledge by fayth of eternall