Selected quad for the lemma: conscience_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
conscience_n good_a pure_a unfeigned_a 2,187 5 10.9762 5 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A30855 Religion and reason adjusted and accorded, or, A discourse wherein divine revelation is made appear to be a congruous and connatural way of affording proper means for making man eternally happy through the perfecting of his rational nature with an appendix of objections from divers as well as philosophers as divines and their respective answers. Banks, R. R. (Richard R.) 1688 (1688) Wing B671; ESTC R23639 152,402 381

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

ὰγαπῶν τὸν ἕτερον hath fulfilled the Law Rom. 13. 8. And therefore Charity as it is taken for the sincere Love of God above all things doth not alone justifie Solut. One and the same Word ὰγάπῶν is used in Scripture for God's Love to Man for Man's Love to God and one Man's Love another so that no Argument can be drawn from the bare Word αγάπη Love or Charity for it is rendred both ways in Holy Writ to make it clearly out in what Love or Charity Righteousness is placed And therefore although it be infallibly true that he that loveth another ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἕτερον hath fulfilled the Law yet the Reason thereof is not that the Love of ones Neighbour doth formally justifie but because it is impossible for any man to love his Neighbour as he ought to do until and by reason he loveth God in sincerity of heart above all things Sect. 18. Par. 7 8 9 10. by which he is formally justified And alike impossible it is for him that loveth God with sincerity of Affection but that he should also love his Neighbour as himself Sect. 11. Solut. of Obj. 2. and sect 18. par 9 10. consonant whereunto are the Words of the Beloved Disciple If a Man say I love God and hateth his Brother he is a liar 1 John 4. 20. It is no wonder then that he that loveth his Neighbour is said to have fulfilled the Law albeit the Love of God alone be that which formally justifies sect 11. par 6 7 8. Object 2. No man in this Life can love God with all his heart with all his Soul with all his strength and with all his mind therefore no man alive is justified by Charity Solut. Because no man can so love God in this Life by reason of the Frailty of the Flesh 't will rightly follow that none is perfectly justified or clear from all impurity while he breaths a mortal Life But there is an imperfect Righteousness or a state of Grace here consisting in sincere Charity sect 11. par 6 7 8. which is plainly held forth by Scripture The End of the Commandment is Charity out of a pure Heart and of a good Conscience and of Faith unfeigned 1 Tim. 1. 5. And such Charity or Righteousness is attainable in this Life There is no Condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the Flesh but after the Spirit Rom. 8. 1. Neither Fornicators nor Idolaters nor Adulterers nor Effeminate nor Abusers of themselves with Mankind nor Thieves nor Covetous nor Drunkards nor Revilers nor Extortioners shall inherit the Kingdom of God and such were some of you but ye are washed but ye are sanctified but ye are justified in the Name of our Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God 1 Cor. 6. v. 9 10 11. In a word the love of the World and the false Pleasures thereof are so diametrically opposed to the Love of God and the solid Delight of the same that they cannot habitually possess on individual Soul at once Love not the world neither the things that are in the world I● any man love the World the love of the Father is not in him For all that is in the world the lust of the Flesh the lust of the Eyes and the pride of Life is not of the Father but is of the world 1 John 2. v. 15 16. The Love therefore of the one always excludes and expels the Love of the other and their Ends are as distant as Heaven and Hell the Result of the Love of the World being eternal Misery and the Consequent of the Love of God everlasting Bliss as was proved Sect. 7 11 12. whereunto the Holy Scripture so fully agrees for confirmation of its truth that it would be superfluous to produce any particular Texts to that end Which Bliss that Mankind might attain unto by a Way suitable to their Rational Nature is the great Design of the Gospel of Christ the Christian Religion being evidently if the preceding Treatise be true a Divine Art for making Man eternally blessed or a Method instituted by God the best and most connatural that could be for the perfecting of Human Nature by duly preparing it for the enjoyment of the Beatific Vision The like Assertion to which I meet with in a most pious and highly valued Author by all I will only add for an Accomplishment and Confirmation to my Discourse these his excellent Words whether we take Christianity in its whole complex or in its several and distinct Branches 't is certainly the most excellent the most compendious ART of happy living its very Tasks are Rewards and its Precepts are nothing but a divine sort of Alchimy to sublime at once our Natures and our Pleasures Art of Contentment sect 1. par 2. If in this Treatise or in the Appendix to it there be any Assertion of mine which is repugnant to Catholic and Apostolic Faith I do hereby as in duty bound heartily revoke the same and for ever renounce it as an Erorur to be detested by me and every good Christian whatsoever FINIS AN APPENDIX OF OBJECTIONS TO Several Things Asserted in the preceding Treatise With their Respective ANSWERS Objection 1. IT is said sect 1. par 3. That an actual infinite Series of things is impossible which Assertion if it were true then could not the Omniscient comprehend at once all the Thoughts which the Glorified Saints and Angels shall have to Eternity Answer The Omniscient knows at once all the Thoughts which Men and Angels shall ever have but their number is not infinite For when Christ has delivered up the Kingdom to his Father there will be no more Change but whatever the present state of the Blessed shall then be 't will never admit of any alteration afterward so that the Thoughts of the glorified Saints and Angels will be perpetually the same without any succession of new Conceptions incident to them For if after they have obtained their utmost Perfection in the full Fruition of God their chiefest Good they should receive a Change especially in their Thoughts wherein the Prime of their Felicity consists such Change to whatever it were would of necessity be for the worse and so they should depart thereby from the Perfection and Fulness of Bliss enjoyed by them which is impossible sect 4. par 14. Objection 2. God you say is one pure essential Act and simple Being sec 1. par 9 10. and yet you put two essential Acts in God viz. Knowing and Loving sec 2 par 2 9. Answer I do not say in the cited places that Knowing and Loving are two essential Acts in God I say there and no where else to the contrary that they are God himself differently related or relatively opposed to himself so that in my sense the Trinity of Persons in the Vnity of Essence is the very self-same pure essential Act and simple Being under distinct Relations to it self in the manner set forth
for Breach of Laws were purely vindicative and intended as satisfaction or just recompeuce for the violation of them For since in strictness there 's no equality or proportion between the Member of a Man's Body and the Goods of Fortune it were unequal and un●●● to recompense the loss of any Limb with a pecuniary Mulct and yet we see 't is generally so done by Christians who nevertheless maintain the perpetual obligation of the Law of Nature Yea the Learned Bodin tells us upon no slight ground that the Lex Talionis in the commonly received Notion of it was never in practice among the very Jews his Words in the English Translation are these To requite like with like is indeed nothing else but to punish Offences with Punishments answerable to them that is to say great Offences with great Punishments mean with mean and so little Offences also lightly which they also meant when they said a Hand for a Hand a Tooth for a Tooth and an Eye for an Eye And so the ancient Hebrews the best Interpreters of God's Law have understood it expounded it practised it as it is in their Pandects to be seen in the Title of Penalties Yea Rabbi Kanan denieth the Law of like Punishment to have any where in the Cities of the Hebrews taken place in such sort as that he should have an Eye put out who had put out another man's Eye but the estimation of an Eye put out was usually by the discretion of the Judges in money valued For proof whereof let it be that before the Law of like Punishment there was a Law viz. Exod. 21. whereby it was ordained that if two men fighting one of them should hurt the other but not yet unto Death he which had done the hurt should pay the Physician for healing thereof But to what end should he so pay the Physician if he which did the hurt were in like sort to be himself wounded It should also thereof follow more absurdly that many delicate and tender Persons in receiving of such Wounds as they had given to others should thereof themselves die and perish Besides that also he who had the harm done him having lost his I Hand where with he should get his Living if the others Hand were also for the same cut off he so wanting his Hand wherewith he should get his his Living might haply so starve Wherefore such literal Exposition of the Law of like Punishment by Aristotle and Favorine is but vain and deceitful Bodin of a Common-weal Book 6. page 781. 9. I 'le conclude this Point with one only Argument more for the confirmation of what has been said which is this to inflict Punishment as dolorous and painful without regard had to a farther End to be obtained by the doing of it is to do direct Evil because that Punishment which has no Tendency to the procuring of something which has as much or more good in it than the pain has harm for Pain simply in it self considered is Evil as being offensive to Nature and a thing occasioned by Sin is purum putum Malum meer Evil which for any Law to design would argue the Makers of it to be void of Reason and Humanity Obj. 1. If the Breach of a Law be not an Offence and punishable as it only stands in opposition to the Will of the Law-giver without regard had to the Public Good presumed to be included in it then are not men obliged in Conscience to obey a bad Law or which tends not to the Common Good But men are obliged in Conscience to obey the Laws of the Land where they live although in that respect bad as not tending at all to the Public Good Ergo the Breach of the Law is an Offence and punishable as it only stands in opposition to the Will of the Law-giver without regard had to the public Good presumed to be included in it Solut. In answer first to the Major I return that if it were so that a private Person could certainly know that a certain Law had no manner of Tendency to the Public Weal yet would he be obliged in Conscience to give Obedience to it provided it were not against the Moral or some Positive Divine Law because in disobeying he might be an occasion to others of slighting or contemning the Governour and Government which is a Mischief of most dangerous Consequence to a Nation But Secondly I answer to the Minor that no Law which is not repugnant to some part of the Law of God who by reason of his inerrable Wisdom never commands but what is good ought by private Persons to be judge bad For every Legislator among Men whatever way he acquires a Right to the Legislative Power doth necessarily receive with it the Sovereign or Supreme Judgment and Will both these being so inseparable Ingredients of the Legislative Power that it cannot subsist without them For whoso has not the Supreme Judgment or a Right invested in him to give final Judgment and Determination what is requisite and convenient to be enacted for procuring the Publick Good he wants the Knowing part of a Law-giver or that which legally enables one finally to judge and determine what will be a proper Means for the Consecution of the Common Good. And whoever has not the Supreme Will or a Right appropriated to him of enacting what is finally adjudged and determined to be good for the Common-weal he is destitute of the commanding part of a Law-giver or that which legally empowers one to pass what is determinately adjudged requisite for procuring the general Good into a Law. Which things being presupposed to be true the Inference from them will be necessarily this That no Law enacted by a Sovereign Power can in Reason be said by any private Person to be bad or not tending to the Public Good if it be not manifestly contrary to his Law whose Judgment is infallible For in that he has the Legislative Power he is of necessity supposed to have the Supreme Judgment so that no inferior Judgment as the Judgment of every Subject there being but one Supreme in one Government necessarily is can without manifest Contradiction to Reason judge that he judges amiss Object 2. If Laws be therefore obliging because presumed to be good since it is certain that no Command can be good which is opposite to Gods Law it would follow that no manner of Obedience either Active or Passive is due to the Commands of Sovereigns which are against the Moral or a Divine Positive Law. Solut. If to do a thing commanded because commanded to be done be to obey a Command then to refuse to do a thing commanded is to disobey a Command and how a Man should at the same time both obey and disobey the same Command I understand not Actively you 'l say he cannot do both at once but may he not refuse to give an active Obedience to an unjust Command and yet at the same Instant be