Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	church_n	faith_n	hold_v	3,740	5	6.0925	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A95414	The scriptures sufficiency to determine all matters of faith, made good against the Papist: or, That a Christian may be infallibly certain of his faith and religion by the Holy Scriptures. By that great and famous light of Gods Church, William Twisse D.D. and prolocutor of the late assembly of divines.	Twisse, William, 1578?-1646.	1656 (1656)	Wing T3424; Thomason E1698_2; ESTC R209446	47,921	167

Religions there were amongst them he might as well profess that the Papists amongst themselves the Lutherans amongst themselves and the Calvinists amongst themselves are of different Religions 3. We acknowledge different opinions between Lutherans and Calvinians so no doubt there are different opinions among the Lutherans themselves and the Calvinians themselves but we utterly deny there are different Religions The Lutherans we hold to be true Churches agreeing with us in the fundamental points of faith and likewise in being free from Idolatry for albeit they have Images in their Churches which we conceive to be a very dangerous thing yet they doe not worship them and although they hold reall Presence in the Sacrament yet they do not adore it So that albeit we think some of their opinions are contrary to the Scripture and they think the like of some of ours yet neither we say of their Religion nor they of ours I trow that it is contrary to the Scripture much less that it is condemned in Scripture But come we to the main scope of this Authors Discourse which is to prove that the Scriptures are obscure and from thence to infer that we can have no assurance of the true meaning of it To this we answer 1. By denying the consequence which is this Divines differ in the interpretation of Scripture therefore the Scripture is obscure And I prove the absurdity and untruth and weakness of it 1. It is weak for at the uttermost it proves that it is obscure but in some places For this difference of interpretation is but of some places as I have shewed and the force of the proposition I have shewed to be no greater than the force of a particular 2. It is absurd for by the same reason I may proue that the Scripture is clear thus That Scripture is clear in the interpretation wherein men of different opinions and different Religions doe agree But men of different opinions and Religions do agree in the interpretation of divine Scripture therefore the divine Scripture is clear and indeed it will be found that we agree in the interpretation not of some onely but of many places of holy Scripture Now what absurd a course is it for a Disputant so to dispute as that his Argument may be retorted with as good force against him yea and much more For when men of different opinions are found to differ about the interpretation of a Scripture it may be this ariseth from the love of their own opinions which makes the Scripture seem to sound the same way but when they agree in the interpretation of Scripture notwithstanding their other differences this argues the Scripture to be clear enough Nay we know Bellarmine will dislike an opinion and Maldonate an interpretation of Scripture for Calvins sake striving to differ from such as they hate though without all just cause and to wrest the Scriptures to serve their turns 3. Lastly the Consequence is as untrue as it is weak and absurd for the cause of this difference may be in the darkness of their understanding who take upon them to interpret it rather than in the darkness of the Scripture it self which whether we consider the Law or the Gospell each of them is termed light by the Spirit of God Thy Law is a Lanthorn to my feet and a light unto my pathes saith David Psal 119. And of the Gospell our Saviour speaks Light came into the world but men loved darkness rather than light Joh. 3. the greater will be their condemnation And as for the instance proposed to prove the Consequence of two Physicians 1. The particular proposed is most inficete and a meer fiction without all colour 2. Yet I doubt not but Galen and Hipocrates in divers places may admit different interpretations Therefore I answer 1. This also may arise not so much from the obscurity of the Text as from the fault of the Interpreter 2. It is a most alien course to compare the Word of God and the word of Man together for man may contradict himself God cannot man may forget one time what he delivered at another God cannot 3. There is a vast difference between the things of men and the things of God so that whereas naturall reason and naturall instruction may be sufficient to inable a man to understand the writing of another man yet onely supernaturall illumination is sufficient to inable a man to discern the things of God yet I confess on this particular some judicious reader may think to find a flaw yet I presume that upon serious consideration that attempt will prove but vain and none but a Socinian will oppose in this who denies all fides infusa and acknowledgeth none but acquisita faith naturall and shrewd suspicions that way are betrayed by Mr. Chillingsworth as if he acknowledged no faith but faith naturall 2. But be it granted that the Scripture is obscure 1. Consider the force of this proposition it is but an indefinite and the matter is apparently contingent for undoubtedly it was at the good pleasure of God to speak after what manner he thought good Hence it followeth that the force hereof is but the force of a particular proposition as much as to say that the Scripture in some places is obscure or some places of Scripture are obscure And indeed Gregory of old hath professed that the holy Scripture is like unto a ford wherein a Lamb may wade and an Elephant may swim and before him S. Paul tells us that it contains both milk for babes and strong meat for men there is enough and that plain enough to satisfie the hungry and there is also enough and that obscure enough to prevent non-sealing especially in the Prophecies for the times to come The first promise of the Covenant of Grace was this the seed of the woman shall break the Serpents head Here is a double mystery in general notions carried the one the mystery of Christs Person expressed by the seed of the woman but implied to be somewhat more yea much more even such a one as should break the Serpents head the other the mystery of his Office carried onely in this generall notion of breaking the Serpents head In this time of grace we know this to have been brought to pass by his dying for our sins and his rising again for our justification Had this been known to Satan as now it is to us is it credible that hee would have perswaded Judas as he did to contract with the high Priests to betray him into their hands that were Judas like after he had betrayed his Master to goe forth and hang himself For we know that upon the Cross he spoiled Principalities and Powers and made a shew of them openly and triumphed over them The day of Christs Resurrection undoubtly was a day of extreme confusion to the Devill and all his Angells of darkness So the Jewes had they known this mystery of his Person they would not have crucified the