Selected quad for the lemma: conscience_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
conscience_n	humane_a	law_n	obligation_n	1,134	5	9.8189	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A76988	The arraignment of errour: or, A discourse serving as a curb to restrain the wantonnesse of mens spirits in the entertainment of opinions; and as a compasse, whereby we may sail in the search and finding of truth; distributed into six main questions. Quest. 1. How it may stand with Gods, with Satans, with a mans own ends, that there should be erroneous opinions? Quest. 2. What are the grounds of abounding errours? Quest. 3. Why so many are carried away with errour? Quest. 4. Who those are that are in danger? Quest. 5. What are the examens, or the trials of opinions, and characters of truth? Quest. 6. What waies God hath left in his Word for the suppressing of errour, and reducing of erroneous persons? Under which generall questions, many other necessary and profitable queries are comprized, discussed, and resolved. And in conclusion of all; some motives, and means, conducing to an happy accommodation of our present differences, are subjoyned. / By Samuel Bolton minister of the Word of God at Saviours-Southwark.	Bolton, Samuel, 1606-1654.	1646 (1646)	Wing B3517; Thomason E318_1; ESTC R200547	325,527	388

obedience An opinion which as abominable in it self so hath it been justly opposed and as fully confuted by our famously learned and godly writers 2. A second opinion which is questioned to give too little is that which denies all jurisdiction unto Synods and Councels and saith Though God hath afforded further means of suppressing errour and reducing erroneous persons then a particular Congregation yet hath he not afforded any further jurisdiction 3. A third opinion saith That God hath given to a Synod a power of jurisdiction yet that not absolute but ministerial not privative any way robbing and depriving of particular Congregations of their just rights and power but cumulative to strengthen and uphold particular Congregations in their power and priviledges they take not the power out of their hands but strengthen and direct them in the use of it I shall not speak to all these separately The first of these is justly exploded and cast out the second and third are controverted one is thought to give too much the other is reputed to attribute too little It sutes not with my Discourse nor yet with my purpose to examine and dispute them here That which I intend to pursue is to lay down such evident grants of power as may happily suggest some mediums of reconciliation in this difference First then a power there is that is granted on both hands but what that power is what are the limits and bounds of it there is the controversie There is potestas arrepta potestas data a power given a power usurped a power truly granted and a power falsly claimed But what that is which is exercised under a false claim there is the dispute Thus far we agree in the negative What their power is not 1. A Synod or a Councel hath no civil power they have no power either to make or impose civil laws or to punish the breach of them nor have they power to enforce any laws upon men upon any civil mul●ts or penalties what ever the power they have is of a spirituall not a civil nature it doth not reach to the bodies estates liberties priviledges of men the object of it is their spirits their souls Chamier Tom. 3. l. 15. c. 8. s ct 5. 6 7 8 9. 2. In this we agree also That a Synod hath no absolute but only a Ministeriall power The Word of God is both the rule and limits of their power they can doe nothing against the Law of Christ they may ordain nothing Bez. de ecclesia c. 5. p. 125. D●ven de judic nor c. 27. Whit. cont 3. q. 6. p. 612 c. Etiam con 4 q. 7. p. 884. but by warrant from Christ It doth not belong to Synods saith Beza to make new Articles of Religion nor to bring any thing into Gods house which he hath not commanded in his Word Another saith Ministers are stewards whose duty is not to prescribe new laws unto the family but faithfully to keep the laws of the housholder and to doe every thing according to his command The power of a Synod is not magisteriall but ministeriall not absolute but limited by the word and will of Christ 3. In this we agree also * Cōs Whit. contr 3. c. 2 q. 6. Daven de jud nor fid c. 22 24 p 133 142. Ruthers 3●4 335. Due Right of Presb par ● That a Synod hath no infallible power Synods and Councels may erre and therefore their decrees are to be examined and not to be received further then they are consonant to the Word of God 4. In this we agree That a Synod hath no power to make things indifferent necessary I say they have no power to make things in their own nature indifferent necessary The Papists indeed infer from Act. 15.28 29. That it is in the power of a Councel or Synod to alter and change the nature of things indifferent and to make those things which are indifferent in themselves by their authority to become necessary we have had such doctrine preached but this is to give power to Synods and Councels over and above the Scripture they have no power to alter and change the nature of things and make those things necessary which are indifferent no more the● to make those things indifferent which are necessary * Adverte nè intelligas haec necessaria una endē ratione recessitatis nam ra●io necessario vitandi fornicat●on●m divini juris est ra●io a●●ē abstinendi ab esu sanguinū c. Est ut ●morem geratis ijs quibus vivitis ●udaeis Cajet Indeed the Apostle there calls those things imposed necessary things but they were not all alike necessary some were simply and absolutely necessary at all times viz. this of abstaining from fornication but the three other were only extrinsecally and accidentally necessary in respect of the present occasion nor were they necessary because they commanded them but because they were necessary therefore they commanded them * Chamie tom 2. l 15 c. 8. sect 5 6 7 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut Chrysost vid Cham. tom 3 l 15. c. 10 sect 4 Besides these were no new laws imposed as the Papists contend but only old Laws repealed repeated for a time Donec absque scandalo penitus omitti queant till without scandall they might be left off * Ex ege ●ec dicunt ve●era retinere longe aliu● est quam nova instituere Cham ibid And there is much difference between the retaining of an old law and instituting of a new 5. In this we also agree That no act of a Synod as theirs is binding to the conscience Conscience is under no bonds or obligations save Gods onely It can neither be enforced nor can it be engaged by any ties or bonds of men There is no power on earth that can properly and immediately reach the consciences of men Conscience is a thing out of mans jurisdiction it will neither be beholding to man for it's liberty nor is it capable of his restraint it is out of the reach of all humane power Indeed the matter of the things decreed or commanded may reach the conscience but not as they are impositions of men but as the commands of God conscience is bound to observe and obey such things as are commanded according to the Word but yet not by vertue of any humane decree but divine ordinance or the law of God who alone can lay the obligation on conscience Indeed the Papists doe urge from these decrees of the Apostles imposed on the Churches that the decrees and acts of a Synod or Councell doe in themselves and because imposed binde the consciences of men Against which I need to produce no more then what Chamier urgeth in the fore-going place where he laies down three Arguments out of Calvin to prove that these decrees of the Apostles were not imposed as necessary and binding to the conscience