Selected quad for the lemma: religion_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
religion_n	great_a	king_n	majesty_n	3,331	5	6.0086	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A39389	To en archy: or, An exercitation upon a momentous question in divinity, and case of conscience viz. whether it be lawfull for any person to act contrary to the opinion of his own consicence, formed from arguments that to him appear very probable, though not necessary or demonstrative. Where the opinions of the papists, Vasquez, Sanches, Azonius, &c. are shewed, as also the opinions of some Protestants, viz. Mr. Hooker, Bp Sanderson, Dr. Fulwood, &c. and compared with the opinions of others; the negative part of the question maintained; the unreasonableness of the popish opinions, and some Protestants, for blind obedience, detected; and many other things discoursed. By a Protestant.	Protestant.; Collinges, John, 1623-1690, attributed name.	1675 (1675)	Wing E718; Wing C5314_CANCELLED; ESTC R214929	62,722	96

desire to talk of Arguments onely in Justification of their own Sullenness or Peevishness as they are maliciously represented by some Modern Doctors far better at Reviling than Disputing Their Arguments in the first Case are many of them in Print as in Mr. Cotton's Discourse against Set-forms many years since Printed but that we know of never Answered as also in Mr. Calderwood's Altare Damas never Answered neither and in divers other Books In the Second Case their Arguments never yet Answered are to be found In Mr. Bradshaw's Discourses about things Indifferent and about Worship and Ceremonies In Dr. Ames his Irish Suit against the Ceremonies In Mr. Calderwood's Altare Damasceum In Mr. Gillespie's Disp against the Engl●sh Ceremonies Upon the 3d. Case divers of their Arguments are in R.A. his Letter to a Friend Printed 1661. And The Serious Review of Presbyters Ordination by Bishops Printed about the same time and in all the other Cases Our Brethren know that Arguments are in Print to prove them unlawful which never yet received any Answer Besides as there is a variety of Mediums so the same sute not every Fancy nor are all produced and the work of them who should undertake to shew the Arguments of all not probable would be almost infinite Sect. 16. What shall be done in this Case by those Superiours who will believe themselves as well as their Inferiours obliged recording to the Apostles Precept To Walk Charitably not laying a stumbling-block before others nor doing as much as in them lyeth to destroy poor Souls for whom Christ dyed We say what can be done by such Superiours in these Cases unless this Either that in the things of God they be very tender and enjoyn no such things as any considerable Number of their Inferiours thus Judge unlawful at least if they Judge them not by God Commanded to be done or to be avoided Or if they Judge it expedient to Command some other things for Splendor or as they Judge Decency which the Inseriours cannot Judge Lawful Indulge them who so cannot Judge of them as themselves do but verily believing them from Arguments which appear to them probable unlawful for them to do which is our present Case For whiles the Superiour in such things as these insisteth upon his Authority he unavoidably forceth them to sin against God who so Judge them unlawful yet through some Fear or out of some Temptation of want or the like will adventure to do them Now no Soul can Justifie it self before God in Commanding another to do what he knows would be sin to him unless it would also be sin in him not to Command or force him And for others who dare Act he forceth them to suffer in which Case because their Consciences so Judging of the things they should sin in doing of them they must suffer to avoid sinning which we are sure is in one sence at least to suffer for Righteousness sake and for what they Judge to use Dr. Ashton's phrase the Exercise of the True Religion and all Sober Persons will so judge in the first sence and whether it be so or no The great day of the Lord must Evidence Both which certainly are Rocks which all Superiours ought to avoid and all Wise Masters and Masters Mates in the great Ships of Kingdoms and Common-wealths will avoid though some less advised Boat-swains passionate Chaplains or ignorant Mariners in those Ships may clamour to take the Advantage of the Wind of Passion and Revenge which blows they think in these Cases fair for the Advantage of their private Lucre but must certainly drive them either upon this Seylla or that Charibdis Every considerate Superiour will Judge the price of Souls purchased with the Blood of him who was the Son of God at another rate Indeed if the Superiour judgeth the things which he Commandeth in their own Nature necessary and what it is the Will of God antecedaneous to his Command that all Men should do whether indeed they be so or no. He is also tyed to the Peace of his own Conscience he is Gods Vice-gerent he must Command and inforce them and the doing of what is plain to him to be the great Creators Will in his place must be attended before the danger of any Creatures Souls and this alone where the Superiours Conscience is fixed in an Error necessarily causeth a Persecution Sect. 17. This appeareth to us so clear both from Scripture and the Concurrent Judgment of all Protestant Divines for a Man 's not Acting contrary to the Opinion of his own Conscience that we cannot be so Charitable but we must think that those Divines who indeed are Protestants and are for the upholding these impositions and against any Indulgence to those that dissent because of them and are Authors to Magistrates to inforce the things by Penalties are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Condemned by their own Consciences For they cannot but know that the Dissenters thus Opining must sin should they do the things and if they Suffer they must Suffer that they might avoid sinning And for the Interpretation of that What it is for a Superiour not contrained in his own Conscience from the express revealed Will of God to make his Inferiours Suffer because they will not do what they cannot do without running the hazard of their Souls by wilful sinning We shall onely say Let the Interpretation be to them that hate our King and to the Enemies of all English Nobility or Gentry Sect. 18. To Conclude then this we Judge enough to demonstrate the exceeding Reasonableness and great Religion of a Gracious Liberty to which His most Sacred Majesty hath Declared his Willingness and the Perfecting of which hath once and again been under the Deliberation of the High and Honourable Assembly of Parliament as to those whose Suffering by it is obviated because they cannot do what they Charitably believe their Superiours would not have willed them to do had they not Judged them in themselves Lawful But yet themselves will not say are necessary otherwise than as they are pleaded to be so made by their Command but they who are their Inferiours do bonâ fide and ex animo Judge them Unlawful and that from Arguments which they will not call necessary indubitable and demonstrative for they confess themselves not Infallible but which appear to them very highly probable such as they cannot Answer nor find Answered by others so as to give them any Satisfaction FINIS

as we shewed Dr. Sanderson did when he speaketh of Doubting he must either say nothing to the purpose for he knows his Adversaries have given him Arguments which appear to them very probable why they Judge the things required unlawful Or else he must mean that if a Man hath any doubt and be not fully perswaded that the Action is unlawful though he hath never so many Arguments which make it appear to him probably such Notwithstanding them he is bound to do the thing Now if this be his Sence he saith that which is not to be made good by any but Mr. Hooker's Principles before spoken to and that which I will think never any Protestant spake before him For his Rule of Tene certum relinque incertum besides that it must be understood of the two parts of the same Proposition not of two distinct Propositions as he wrings it By his leave that is not uncertain of which we are Morally certain Nor 3. Is it certain or can be to any Soul either by Faith or Mathematically or Morally That the Superiour is in all things to be Obeyed Nay the contrary is certain Nor is it certain that he is to be Obeyed in things which the Inferiour upon Arguments which he judgeth very probable Judgeth unlawful for him to do For his confounding the Notions of Disputable and uncertain it is ridiculous for if all things disputable be therefore uncertain because they are disputed and that by some Learned Men too whether the particular Soul dispute them or no. There 's hardly an Article of our Faith will be left us certain or indeed any thing else but onely this That we must Obey our Superiours In the mean time Reader Observe whither these Modern Casuists are driving 1. There are few Actions he might have added Propositions too that are not Disputable Freeman p. 33. 2. In Disputable Actions we must Obey Superiours Commands ibid. p. 15. 3. Yea we must Obey though we doubt i. e. though upon Arguments which to us appear very probable we think the things unlawful to be done because it is certain saith Freeman That Superiours are to be Obeyed in things Lawful and in disputable things it is uncertain that what is required is unlawful 4. Ergo. There are very few Actions but if we be Commanded this or that part let our Consciences say what they will we must do as we are commanded § 19. These now are Doctrines not fit to be openly and plainly asserted in this Noon-day of Truth Therefore the particular Judgments of Private Persons Founded on Arguments which to them seem very probable and inferr a Moral certainty must be confounded with the Notions of Doubts Scruples Fears Jealousies Let this Doctrine obtain a little and let the World Judge if the exploded brutish odious Doctrine of Blind Obedience the Pillar and Basis of Popery be not by slight of hand established The Consequence of this Doctrine if true would be this That Men need no more look to Scripture to see whether an Action were Lawful or no but look upon it as the Will of God to believe as the Church believeth and do as their Superiours command without any regard to the command of God Of this more anon § 20. The Advantage of this Doctrine pretended is Peace by which they can mean no more than an outward Harmony in Action 2. The stretching the bounds of Morality For if two successive Superiours Command me the two contradictory parts of the same Proposition One Commands me to go to Church Another to tarry at home and I am bound to Obey in things disputable it must follow that all things in the World that are disputable are indifferent Now there being as Mr. Freeman saith few actions not Disputable It must follow that there are few Practical Propositions but a Man as to them may do what he list take what part he pleaseth so all things shall become Lawful But now the woful dis-advantage of it is that he who practiseth according to these Principles 1. Shall be sure to have no Peace in his Conscience but a continual regret within himself 2. He will be at last damned For saith the Apostle he that doubteth is damned if he eateth Rom. 14. Except somebody can prove what hath been impudently enough said That Superiours must another day answer to God for all the sinful actions which their Inferiours have done at their command a Doctrine no Superiour hath cause to thank them for Nor is there any way to avoid the first unless it were possible for Men to perswade themselves as Mr. Hooker would have them That it is the Will of God that in Litigious and controverted cases of such Quality Men should submit to the judgment of final decision though in their private Opinions they Judge it utterly to swerve from that which is right as to which we have said enough We therefore stick to the Protestant Doctrine That it is not Lawful under any circumstance of Command to act against an Opining Conscience CHAP. IV. The Question stated It is proved that it is not Lawful to Act contrary to the Opinion of a Mans particular Conscience by five Arguments because the particular Conscience is the Proximate Rule of Action granted by all Divines Because of that Text Rom. 14.23 Because it Subjects a Man to continual Terrors of Conscience The contrary Principle over-throws the Natural Order of the Souls Operation and plucks up a great Pillar of the Protestant Religion and would make the Scriptures and Argumentative Books of little Vse but to Torment Men. § 1. WE come now to assert our Proposition That it is not Lawful for any Person to act against an Opining Conscience i. e. as we have largely opened That supposing a Person though he hath not demonstrative Arguments to prove this or that unlawful which he is required to do Yet if he hath formed up a particular Judgment of Conscience from Arguments which seem to him very probable so as he cannot Answer them nor rest satisfied in the Answers of others while he so judgeth it is sin and wickedness in him especially in Matters which concern the Worship of God to do that Action however required of him This we shall make good by several Arguments § 2.1 To swerve from what God hath made the Proximate Rule of our actions is sinful But to act contrary to the Opinion of our own Consciences is to swerve from what God bath made the Proximate Rule of our Actions Therefore it is sinful The Major can with no Modesty be denyed for what is sin but a Transgression of or deviation from the Rule of our actions The Minor is as Evident It is granted by all Divines we have met with both Popish and Protestant that the Practical Conscience is the Proximate Rule of our Actions nor did we ever meet with it denyed by any Learned Man And indeed it must be so For That Gods Word and Law is the Remote Rule must be owned

Foundations of the Protestant Religion as it stands disting●●●●d from Popery This is that which Divines call The Judgment of Private and Practical Discretion Divines say there is 〈◊〉 ●●●●fold Judgment concerning Propositions of Truth 1. The first is Authoritative or Nomothetick This belongeth onely to God all the Men in the World all their Opinions and Arguments cannot add a Cubit to the stature of Truth nor make an hair of its Head either white or black 2. The Second is Ministerial and Declarative This belongs to the Church in the Scriptural Notion of it The Apostle therefore calls her the Pillar and ground of Truth She keeps the Sacred Records and when there is a doubt about any portion of them Ministerially declareth what is the Truth 3. The third Divines call The Judgment of Private and Practical Discretion This Protestants say belongs to every private Christian who by his own Conscience using the best means first which he can for the Information of it is to determine as to his own belief and Practice what is true and Lawful And indeed here lyes the great difference betwixt the Religion of Papists and Protestants The Papists will not allow the Private Christian to Judge of Truth with reference to his own Practice but Obligeth People To believe as the Church believeth and defendeth Blind Obedience to Superiours as Christians Duty They make it Lawful for Men contrary to their own Judgment and the Dictate of their Conscience from intrinsick Arguments to Practice according to the Opinion of one or more Doctors and necessary to Obey all the Decrees of the Popes and the Commands of Superiours if things be not apparently and demonstratively unlawful It may be one Adrianus or another or two may enter their dissent to this Brutish Doctrine but they do generally agree it and this is Fons Origo mali The very first thing to be taught their Prosilytes as silence was in the School of Pythagoras Hence their vernacular Bibles are burnt and all their other Doctrines are easily swallowed The necessity of an Infallible Judge is Concluded c. § 15. On the other side it is essential to a Protestant to be free and in Bondage to no Man nor as to his Practice to be guided by any but God alone and his own Conscience and his Superiours Commanding him what his own Conscience first perswades him to be necessary or at least Lawful He who denyeth this and pretendeth to hate Popery doth but abhor Idols and commit Sacriledge Nay he doth indeed but deny that in words which he owneth chuseth and preferreth nor is it possible there should be greater Factors for Popery in any place than those that perswade Men that it is Lawful for them under what Circumstances they can Imagine to Act contrary to the Opinion of their own Conscience and do what from which to them seem very probable seems utterly to swerve from that which is right to use Mr. Hooker's Phrase § 16. Now let any pluck up this Flood-gate of Private and Practical Discretion and tell us what should hinder most of the absurd Doctrines of Popery coming in upon us like an overflowing Flood if ever we should be so miserable which is not a thing impossible as in Future Ages to have a Superiour that shall Command the receiving of them or Practice according to them As to the falshood of most of them we have but a Moral certainty at least our perswasion must be Judged no more according to the Modern Divinity for how can we be Infallibly and demonstratively certain in things as to which so great a part of the World is of another mind and so many such Learned Men as Bellarmine Stapleton and an hundred more who dissent from us Besides as we shewed before we are told that in Disputable things we can have but an Opinion of one part And this we take to be a Meditation worthy of those Honourable Persons amongst the Nobility and Gentry of England who have shewed their Zeal so much of late against that Religious Pageantry of Rome If any doubt whether Christians have such a Priviledge given them by God as this of Private and Practical Discretion let them consider those Texts 1 Thes 5.21 1 John 3.1 usually quoted for it and but Read what Bishop Davenant in his most Learned Treatise De Judice Normâ fidei and all other Protestant Writers have said for it Whoever plucks up this Hedge we understand not if he doth not feel the Romish Serpent quickly biting him by the heel and we cannot but think that Man will be Cursed that goes about to remove this Land-mark of all Protestants and cry out to our Superiours in the words of Solomon Prov. 22.28 Remove not the Ancient Land-mark which our Fathers have set § 17. We might further add that the admission of this absurd and brutish principle that if a thing be not apparently and demonstratively sinful it is Lawful for Men to Act contrary to the Opinion of their own Consiciences representing it to them from Arguments which seem to them very probable unlawful All Books of Topicks as to Matters of practice all Argumentative Books in Divinity would be of no Use at all but noxious and mischievous rather Yea the Holy Scriptures themselves would be of very little or no use for the use of Argumentative Discourses in any Science or Discipline is to make a proposition either Demonstrative or Probable to us Yea this is the use of the Holy Scriptures as they inform us of Truth Things are Demonstrable to us upon the Evidence of Revelation Sense or Reason indeed the first is improper for the certainty arising from Divine Revelation is called Faith not Demonstration or Demonstrative certainty but it is quiddam majus what is certain to us upon a certainty of Faith or Demonstrative Reason is not so Ordinarily in a moment This Certainty is Ordinarily hatched out of Topicks and most Propositions even of Divine Truth usually at first appear to the Soul probable before they appear indubitably certain The Gray hairs of that other certainty which is distinguished from Moral Certainty rarely grow up in a Night This being granted which every one experienceth Suppose but a Convocation or a Colledge of Superiours to determine de Omnibus agendis of all things to be Religiously Observed and done To what purpose should any read or study any Books for the disquisition of Truth as to any part of a Proposition for when he hath done so long as the thing to be done appears to him but probably Lawful or probably unlawful which it must do before it appears to him indubitably and out of all Question the one or the other he is according to this Opinion bound in Conscience if he be by Superiours Commanded to do quite contrary to what he Judgeth Lawful if he be not indubitably certain it is unlawful What need he Read and study the Scriptures as to Matter of Practice When he hath found