Selected quad for the lemma: conscience_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A59899
|
A vindication of both parts of the Preservative against popery in an answer to the cavils of Lewis Sabran, Jesuit / by William Sherlock ...
|
Sherlock, William, 1641?-1707.
|
1688
(1688)
|
Wing S3370; ESTC R21011
|
87,156
|
120
|
Answer the Question and if there be a Dispute depending which of them contradicts St. Paul's Doctrine I would desire him to tell me How we shall know which of them does it without examining them When we know these Books which contradict St Paul's Doctrine we will reject them with an Anathema and for that reason we reject the Council of Trent whose Authority we think to be inferior to an Angels and that shews that we do not think rejecting and yet reading such Books to make void common Sense for though we reject the Council of Trent yet we read it as they find to their cost His next Question or else I cannot make three of them is By what Text doth God deliver this Injunction viz of reading Heretical Books which in his Sense of Heretical Books is a very senseless Question for no man pretends that God commands us to read Books which we know to be Heretical though a man who is inquiring after Truth must read such Books as the several divided Sects of Christians may call Heretical But his killing Question is to come I asked further How standing to the first Principles of Common Sense a Church which declares all men bound to judge for themselves could countenance Laws which exact of Dissenters that they stand not to that their Iudgment but comply against it and that constrain their liberty of judging by the dread of Excommunications Sequestrations Imprisonments c. which is to make it Death not to act against a strict Duty of Conscience acknowledged by the Persecutors to be such But what is this to reading Heretical Books Is there any Law in the Church of England thus to punish men for reading Heretical Books There is we know in the Church of Rome where besides other Heretical Books to have and to read the Bible in the vulgar Tongue without License which is rarely granted and ought not to be at all brings a man in danger of the Inquisition which one word signifies more than any man can tell but he who has felt it witness the late account of the Inquisition of Goa Well but to allow a liberty of Judging and not to suffer men to stand to their Judgment is contrary to Common Sense It is so but who gives a liberty of Judging and forbids men to stand to their own Judgment I am sure the Church of England accounts any man a Knave who contradicts his own Judgment and Conscience There is no Inquisition for mens private Opinions no ransacking Consciences in the Church of England as we know where there is Yes We constrain this liberty of Iudging by the dread of Excommunications Sequestrations Imprisonments Exclusion from the chiefest Properties of free born Subjects even by Hanging and Quartering which is to make it Death not to act against a strict Duty of Conscience acknowledged by the Persecutors to be such It is a blessed time for these Jesuits who like that no body should be able to Persecute but themselves to rail at Persecution but let that pass It seems then it is contrary to Common Sense to allow a liberty of Judging and to deny a liberty of Practice for God suppose to allow men to choose their Religion and to Damn them if they choose wrong That is to say a Natural liberty of Judgment and by the same reason the Natural liberty of Will is inconsistent with all Government in Church and State If this were so it would indeed make Persecution as he calls it in a free-judging Church very absurd but it is very reconcileable to Common Sense for a Church which denies this liberty of Judging to Persecute too and this justifies the Persecutions of the Church of Rome Let Protestants here see if such Jesuits could rule the Roast what it will cost them to part with their liberty of Judging they loose their Argument against Persecution for an Infallible Church which will not suffer men to Judge may with good Reason Persecute them if they do that all men who like Liberty of Conscience are concerned to oppose Popery which it seems is the only Religion that can make it reasonable to Persecute nay which makes it unreasonable not to Persecute for it is as much against Common Sense for a Church which denies a liberty of Judging to allow a liberty of Conscience as for a Church to deny Liberty of Conscience which allows a liberty of Judging Thus far the Preservative is safe and let his following Harangue against the liberty of Judging shift for it self that is not my business at present His next Quarrel is that Preser p. 4 5. I advise Protestants not to dispute with Papists till they disown Infallibility I own the charge and repeat it again that it is a ridiculous thing to dispute with Papists till they renounce Infallibility as that is opposed to a lâ—berty of Judging for so the whole Sentence runs Here then let our Protestant fix his Foot and not stir an inch till they disown Infallibility and confess that every man must Iudge for himself in Matters of Religion according to the Proofs that are offered to him This the Jesuit either designedly concealed or did not understand though it is the whole design of that Discourse For the plain state of the Case is this The Church of Rome pretends to be Infallible and upon this pretence she requires us to submit to her Authority and to receive all the Doctrines she teaches upon her bare Word without Examination for we must not Judge for our selves but learn from an Infallible Church Now I say it is a ridiculous thing for such men to pretend to Dispuâ—e with us about Religion when they will not allow that we can judge what is true or false for it is to no purpose to Dispute unless we can Judge and therefore a Protestant before he Disputes with them ought to exact this Confession from them that every man must Judge for himself and ought not to be over-ruled by the pretended Infallible Authority of the Church against his own Sense and Reason and this is to make them disown Infallibility as far as that is Matter of Controversie between us and the Church of Rome to disown Infallibility as that is opposed to a liberty of Judging If it be absurd to Dispute with a man who denies me a liberty of Judging then I must make him allow me this liberty before I Dispute and then he must disown the over-ruling Authority of an Infallible Judge which is a contradiction to such a Liberty By this time I suppose he sees to what little purpose his Objections are that to require such a disowning of Infallibility is to say 'T is impossible to convince a man that in Reason he ought to submit his Iudgment to any other though Infallible No Sir but 't is to say that I cannot make use of my Reason in any thing till I am delivered from the Usurping Authority of such an Infallible Judge who will not suffer me to use my
by some Sayings of the Fathers that after the guilt of sin is forgiven there remains an obligation to undergo punishment but these have been answered often enough and are no Answer to the Argument of the Preservative and therefore I am not concerned about them I asked farther why they call Purgatory which is a place of punishment in the other World a temporal punishment which is an abuse of the Language of Scripture which makes this World temporal and the next World eternal The things which are seen are temporal but the things which are not seen are eternal and therefore temporal punishments signifie the punishments of this World but the unseen punishments as well as the unseen rewards of the next World are eternal which is a demonstration that there is no Purgatory unless it be eternal This he thus repeats p. 69. The things which are seen that is of this World are temporal but the things which are not seen that is of the next World are eternal This is a demonstration that there is no Purgatory which is both to conceal the force of the Argument and to pervert it for he should at least have added there is no Purgatory unless it be eternal But his answer to this is extremely pleasant p. 76. St. Paul never taught that all things that are not seen or of another World are eternal or else God would be eternally judging and so never rewarding his Servants or punishing his Enemies But it is plain the Apostle by things that are seen or not seen signifies things which are to be enjoyed or suffered by us not any transient Acts of God or Creatures and thus if there be any such thing as Purgatory in the other World it must be eternal To this I added The state of the next World is called either life or death eternal life or eternal death Those who believe in Christ shall never die Now I desire to know the difference between living and dying and perishing in the next World. For bad men do not cease to be nor lose all sense in the next World no more than good men and therefore life can only signifie a state of happiness and death a state of misery Now if good men must not perish must not die in the next World they must not go to Purgatory which is as much perishing as much dying as Hell though not so long This he thus recites p. 69. Who believes in Christ shall never die therefore good men must not go to Purgatory which is as much perishing and dying as Hell but not so long Which you see is still to conceal the force of the Argument but the comfort is he says nothing against it unless his repeating it must pass for a confutation But he immediately adds as if it were in the same period otherwise Purgatory may be everlasting life for all I know and so the pains of it eternal But this is several periods off In summing up this Argument I inquired how a Papist who believes a Purgatory-fire wherein he shall be tormented God knows how long for his sins can prove that a penitent sinner shall not be damned for his sins After other proofs which I thought it was reasonable for them to urge and I am sure they can urge no better I alledged this in their behalf that Christ has promised that those who believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life and that proves that the pains of Purgatory cannot be for ever for then Christ could not perform his promise of bestowing everlasting life on them To this I answer So I confess one would think and so I should have thought also that when Christ promised that such believers should not perish and should never die that he meant that such men should not go to Purgatory but if falling into Purgatory he not perishing and not dying it may 〈◊〉 â—verlasting life too for ought I know and then the pains of Purgatory may be eternal I hope the Reader is by this time sensible how easie it is to render any Discourse ridiculous by taking half Sentences and joyning those passages together which have no connexion and dependance I observed farther That the Doctrine of Purgatory destroys our hope and confidence in the mediation of Christ as it represents him less merciful and compassionate or less powerful than the necessities of sinners require him to be 1. As for his Compassion It is no great sign of tenderness and compassion to leave his Members in Purgatory-fire which burns as hot as Hell. Could I believe this of our Saviour I should have very mean thoughts of his kindness and not much rely on him for any thing it is a wonderful thing to me that when a merciful man cannot see a Beast in torment without relieving it it should be thought consistent with the mercy and compassion of our Saviour to see us burn in Purgatory for Years and Ages Part of this he repeats and I suppose thought all the World would take it for an ill saying and therefore leaves it as he found it but I shall stand to it till he confutes it 2. If it be not want of Compassion it must be want of Power in our Saviour to help us and if he want Power to deliver from Purgatory I should more question his Power to deliver from Hell for that is the harder of the two if his Blood could not expiate for the temporal punishment of sin which the Merits of some supererâ—gating Saints or the Pope's Indulgencies or the Priests Masses can redeâ—m us from how câ—uld it make expiation for eternal punishment iâ— hâ—s intâ—râ—st in the Court of Heaven cannot do the less how can 〈◊〉 do the greater This he calls a Misrepresentation and truly as he has recited it it is a very great one P. 68. That the Blood of Christ could not expiate for the temporal punishment of sin which the Merits of some supererogating Saints or the Priest's Masses or Pope's Indulgencies can redeem us from how then can that Blood make expiation for eternal punishment I say if it cannot do one which is the greater muâ—h less can it do the other which is the less he makes me say that it cannot do one which is the less and therefore cannot do the greater This is Popish Liberty of Conscience with a witness From the Doctrine of Purgatory I proceeded to the Invocation of Saints and Angels 〈◊〉 our Mediators whether this does not also disparage the Graâ—â— of the Gospel the Love of God and of our Mediator and Advocate Jesus Christ to penitent sinners Now I observed 1. with respect to God That no man can believe that God is so very gracious to sinners for the sake of Christ who seeks to so many Advocates and Mediators to intercede for him with God. To imagine that we want any Mediator with God but only our High-Priest who mediates in vertue of his Sacrifice is a reproach to the Divine Goodness This the Jesuite