Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
work_n	conscience_n	dead_a	purge_v	5,027	5	9.3264	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A32857	The religion of Protestants a safe way to salvation, or, An answer to a book entituled, Mercy and truth, or, Charity maintain'd by Catholiques, which pretends to prove the contrary to which is added in this third impression The apostolical institution of episcopacy : as also IX sermons ... / by William Chillingworth ...	Chillingworth, William, 1602-1644.; Chillingworth, William, 1602-1644. Apostolical institution of episcopacy.; Chillingworth, William, 1602-1644. Sermons. Selections.	1664 (1664)	Wing C3890; Wing C3884A_PARTIAL; ESTC R20665	761,347	567

Heb. 10.10 which consisted in meats and drinks and divers washings and carnal ordinances imposed on them till the time of reformation in which also were offered gifts and sacrifices yet with all these Ceremonies and Formalities they could enter no deeper than the flesh V. 9. they could not make him which did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience That is for example those Expiatory Sacrifices which were to be offered for him which had transgressed they absolved him indeed from a civil carnal punishment but they could not reach to the conscience that remained still as guilty and defiled before God as ever it was And can it be imagined that a man so qualified with such an accusing condemning conscience could with any hope or confidence appear before God as expecting to be freed from the danger of Hell for the cost or ceremony of a Sacrifice Those Sacrifices therefore and Ceremonies V. 13. the bloud of bulls and of goats and the ashes of an heyfer sprinkling the unclean might sanctifie a man to the purifying of the flesh and that is all they could do and so fa● they could sanctifie even the most profane person or the veriest Hypocrite in the world But it must be only the bloud of Christ V. 14. who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot unto God that is able to purge our consciences from dead works to serve the living God 19. But it may be objected Obj. The Baptizing and washing of us Christians and our Commemoration of the true Sacrifice are powerful and effectual even to the sanctification of the soul and spirit And why should not the water of Jordan have as much virtue in it during Moses his Law as it has had since or as ours has now Why should not their pre-figuration of the true Sacrifice by typical sacrifices be as much worth as our post-commemoration thereof for Christ was the same yesterday and to day and for ever I answer that Baptism and the Eucharist Sol. are proper instruments whereby the Sacrifice of Christ is applied and made beneficial unto us and were instituted for that and no other end whereas the proper and direct end of Moses his Leiturgy and Ceremonies were only civil carnal immunities and though it be true that the Legal Sacrifices were very apt and commodious to shadow forth the Oblation and satisfaction of Christ yet this use of them was so mystical and reserved so impossible to be collected out of the Letter of the Law that without a special Revelation from God the eyes of the Israelites were too weak to serve them to pierce through those dark clouds and shadows and to carry their observation to the substance so that I conceive those sacrifices of the Law in this respect are a great deal more beneficial to us Christians for there is a great difference between Sacraments and Types Types are only useful after the Antitype is discovered for the confirmation of their Faith that follow As for example Abraham's offering of Isaac by faith did lively represent the real Oblation of Christ but in that respect was of little or no use till Christ was indeed crucified it being impossible to make that history a ground-work of their Faith in Christ The like may be said of the Legal Sacrifices 20. My second Argument shall be taken out of those words of S. Paul Act. 13.38 where speaking of Christ he saith Act. 13.38 By him all that believe are justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the Law of Moses From which I inferr that since there were many sins for which the Law of Moses allowed no Sacrifice no Redemption no Satisfaction no Commutation in what a fearful desperate case would a person that should commit fuch sins be if he were to expect Justification before God by the Law of Moses for that must needs lead him to despair It could shew him no refuge no Sanctuary to fly unto nothing would remain unto such a person but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation to consume Gods Adversary And therefore no marvail if the same Apostle Heb. 7.17 18. saith Heb. 7.17 18. That the former Law for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof i. e. to Justification was to be disannull'd since it could make nothing perfect 21. The last Argument shall be inferr'd from that saying of the Apostle Heb. 8.6 Heb. 8.6 where speaking of the New-Covenant of Grace he saith It was established on better promises namely than the Jewish Covenant was For all the happiness which was to be expected from Moses his Law was only an exemption from the inconveniences and curses of this life long days and peaceable enrich'd with worldly content and prosperity Whereas the blessings which attend the performance of the New-Covenant or the Gospel are unspeakable and glorious Such as eye hath not seen nor indeed as long as it is mortal can see neither can the heart of man conceive them being eternal in the Heavens Neither will the ordinary evasion serve the turn as if these temporal blessings or plagues and curses mentioned in Moses his writings should purposely signifie the blessed estate of glorified Saints or woes of the damned for then St. Paul's Argument would fall to the ground and indeed that whole Epistle to the Hebrews would be rendred inconcluding as might easily be demonstrated if the time and throng of matter which follows would permit 22. I would not now have you so conceive me as if I would exclude the Jews of the Old-Testament from being partakers of the Promises of the Gospel No God forbid But that which I have said is this that they attain'd not unto them by performing Moses his Law but by the very same means by which we hope to be partakers of them namely by performing the substance of those duties which are clearly delivered unto us in the Gospel and may be found sprinkled in several places even in Moses his writings and no question but were more fully and compleatly delivered unto them by Tradition from their Fathers And hereupon I suppose it is that when any were converted to the knowledg and worship of the true God in those times they who made them Proselytes were not curious to enforce upon them the Observation of Moses his Ordinances and Ceremonies as we find in the behaviour of Elisha to Naaman the Assyrian of Jonah to the Ninevites of Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar and of the rest of the Prophets to the Tyrians Moabites Aegyptians to whom they writ and whose conversion they sought None of which urged upon them the Observation of the Mosaical Liturgy as a thing necessary or needful to be observ'd by them Indeed those who were content to live amongst the Jews and enjoy their priviledges and immunities were bound to undergo the burden and costliness of the Offerings and Sacrifices which as St. Paul saith was so great that they were both to themselves and

faith between the Lutherans the rigid Calvinists and Protestants of England So that if Luther were in the right those other Protestants who invented Doctrins far different from his and divided themselues from him must be reputed Schismatiques and the like argument may proportionably be aplyed to their further divisions and subdivisions Which reason I yet urge more strongly out of D. Potter (g) Pag. 20. who affirmes that to him and to such as are convicted in conscience of the errors of the Roman Church a reconciliation is impossible and damnable And yet he teacheth that their differnce from the Roman Church is not in Fundamental Points Now since among Protestants there is such diversity of belief that one denieth what the other affirmeth they must be convicted in conscience that one part is in error at least not Fundamental and if D. Potter will speak consequently that a reconciliation between them is impossible and damnable and what greater division or Schism can there be than when one part must judge a reconciliation with the other to be impossible and damnable 39. Out of all which premisses this Conclusion followes That Luther and his followers were Schismatiques from the universal visible Church from the Pope Christs vicar on earth and Successour to S. Peter from the particular Diocess in which they received Baptism from the Country or Nation to which they belonged from the Bishop under whom they lived many of them from the Religious O●der in which they were professed from one another And Lastly from a mans self as much as is possible because the self-same Protestant to day is convicted in conscience that his yesterday's Opinion was an error as D. Potter knows a man in the world who from a Puritan was turned to a moderate Protestant with whom therefore a reconciliation according to D. Potter's grounds is both impossible and damnable 40. It seems D. Potters last refuge to excuse himself and his Brethren from Schism is because they proceeded according to their conscience dictating an obligation under damnation to forsake the errors maintained by the Church of Rome His words are Although we confess the (h) Pag. 81. Church of Rome to be in some sense a true Church and her errours to some men not damnable yet for us who are convinced in conscience that she erres in many things a necessity lies upon us even under pain of damnation to forsake her in those errors 41. I answer It is very strange that you judge us extreamly Uncharitable in saying Protestants cannot be saved while your self avouch the same of all learned Catholiques whom ignorance cannot excuse If this your pretence of conscience may serve what Schi●matique in the Church what popular seditious brain in a Kingdom may not alledge the dictamen of conscience to free themselves from Schism or Sedition No man wishes them to do any thing against their conscience but we say that they may and ought to rectifie and depose such a conscience which is easie for them to do even according to your own affirmation that we Catholiques want no means necessary to Salvation Easie to do Nay not to do so to any man in his right wits must seem impossible For how can these two apprehensions stand together In the Roman Church I enjoy all means necessary to Salvation and yet I cannot hope to be saved in that Church or Who can enjoyn in one brain not crackt these Assertions After due examination I judge the Roman errors not to be in themselves fundamental or damnable and yet I judge that according to true reason it is damnable to hold them I say according to true reason For if you grant your conscience to be erroneous in judging that you cannot be saved in the Roman Church by reason of her errours there is no other remedy but that you must rectifie your erring conscience by your other judgment that her errors are not fundamental nor damnable And this is no more Charity than you daily afford to such other Protestants as you term Brethren whom you cannot deny to be in some errors unless you will hold That of contradictory Propositions both may be true and yet you do not judge it damnable to live in their Communion because you hold their errors not to be fundamental You ought to know that according to the Doctrin of all Divines there is great difference between a speculative perswasion and a practical dictamen of conscience And therefore although they had in speculation conceived the visible Church to err in some doctrins of themselves not damnable yet with that speculative judgment they might and ought to have entertained this practical dictamen that for Points nor substantial to Faith they neither were bound nor lawfully could break the bond of Charity by breaking unity in God's Church You say that hay and stubble (i) Pag. 155. and such unprofitable stuffe as are corruptions in Points not fundamental laid on the roof destroyes not the house whilst the main pillars are standing on the foundation And you would think him a mad man who to be rid of such stuffe would set his house on fire that so he might walk in the light as you teach that Luther was obliged to forsake the house of God for an unnecessary light not without a combustion formidable to the whole Christian world rather than bear with some errors which did not destroy the foundation of Faith And as for others who entred in at the breach first made by Luther they might and ought to have guided their consciences by that most reasonable rule of Vincentius Lyrinensis delivered in these words Indeed it is a matter of great (k) Adv. haeres c. 27. moment and both most profitable to be learned and necessary to be remembred and which we ought again and again to illustrate and inculcate with weighty heaps of examples that almost all Catholiques may know that they ought to receive the Doctors with the Church and not forsake the Faith of the Church with the Doctors And much less should they forsake the Faith of the Church to follow Luther Calvin and such other Novellists Moreover though your first Reformers had conceived their own opinions to be true yet they might and ought to have doubted whether they were certain because your self affirm That Infallibility was not promised to any particular Persons or Churches And since in cases of uncertainties we are not to leave our Superiour nor cast off his obedience or publiquely oppose his Decrees your Reformers might easily have found a safe way to satisfie their zealous conscience without a publique breach especially if with this their uncertainty we call to minde the peaceable possession and prescription which by the confession of your own Brethren the Church and Pope of Rome did for many Ages enjoy I wish you would examine the works of your Brethren by the words your self set down to free S. Cyprian from Schism every syllable of which words convinceth Luther and his

possibly by any sure Mark discern whether their Faith be Divine or humane or if you have any certain signe whereby they may discern whether they believe your Churches infallibility with Divine or only with humane faith I pray produce it for perhaps it may serve us to shew that our faith is divine as well as yours Moreover in affirming that Baptism in act is necessary for Infants and for men only in desire You seem to me in the later to destroy the foundation of the former For if a desire of Baptism will serve men in stead of Baptism then those words of our Saviour Unless a man be born again of water c. are not to be understood literally and rigidly of external Baptism for a desire of Baptism is not Baptism and so your foundation of the absolute necessity of Baptism is destroyed And if you may gloss the Text so far as that men may be saved by the desire without Baptism it self because they cannot have it Why should you not gloss it a litle farther that there may be some hope of the salvation of unbaptized infants to whom it was more impossible to have a desire of Baptism than for the former to have the thing it self Lastly for your Sacrament of Confession we know none such nor any such absolute necessity of it They that confess their sins and forsake them shall find mercy though they confess them to God only and not to men They that confess them both to God and men if they do not effectually and in time forsake them shall not find mercy 3. Whereas you fay that supposing these means once appointed as absolutely necessary to salvation there cannot but arise an obligation of procuring to have them you must suppose I hope that we know them to be so appointed and that it is in our power to procure them otherwise though it may be our ill fortune to fail of the end for want of the means certainly we cannot be obliged to procure them For the rule of the Law is also the dictate of common reason and equity That no man can be obliged to what is impossible We can be obliged to nothing but by vertue of some command now it is impossible that God should command in earnest any thing which he knows to be impossible For to command in earnest is to command with an intent to be obeyed which is not possible he should do when he knows the thing commanded to be impossible Lastly whosoever is obliged to do any thing and does it not commits a fault but Infants commit no fault in not procuring to have Baptism therefore no obligation lies upon them to procure it 4. Whereas you say that if Protestants dissent from you in the point of the necessity of Baptism for infants it cannot be denyed but that our disagreement it in a point fundamental If you mean a point esteemed so by you this indeed cannot be denyed But if you mean a point that indeed is fundamental this may certainly be denyed for I deny it and say that it doth not appear to me any way necessary to Salvation to hold the truth or not to hold an errour touching the condition of these Infants This is certain and we must believe that God will not deal unjustly with them but how in particular he will deal with them concernes not us and therefore we need not much regard it 5. Whereas you say the like of your Sacrament of Penance you only say so but your proofs are wanting Lastly whereas you say This rigour ought not to seem strange or unjust in God but that we are rather to bless him for ordaining us to Salvation by any means I answer that it is true we are not to question the known will of God of injustice yet whether that which you pretend to be Gods will be so indeed or only your presumption this I hope may be question'd lawfully and without presumption and if we have occasion we may safely put you in mind of Ezechiel's commination against all those who say Thus saith the Lord when they have no certain warrant or authority from him to do so 8. Ad § 4. In the fourth Paragraph you deliver this false and wicked Doctrin that for the procuring our own salvation we are alwaies boundunder pain of mortal sin to take the safest way but for avoyding sin we are not bound to do so but may follow the opinion of any probable Doctors though the contrary way be certainly free from sin and theirs be doubtfull Which doctrin in the former part of it is apparently false For though wisdom and Charity to our selves would perswade us alwaies 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 fly 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 bretheren in the faith choose to stand out the storm and endure the fiery trial 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 bretheren 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 judgement a resolution to avoid sin to the uttermost of your 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 commandements Therein you directly cross S. Pauls doctrin who though he were a very probable Doctor and had delivered his judgement 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 sheuld sin and be condemn'd 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 examin'd will appear to make your selves and your own functions necessary but obedience to