Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A46860
|
The Jesuites plea In ansvver to a letter written by a minister, entituled, Lying allowable with papists to deceive Protestants.
|
|
1679
(1679)
|
Wing J722; ESTC R216571
|
7,275
|
15
|
knows not that when by the Prophet 't was declared to David that his Sin was forgiven him yet he was not so innocent but that God punished him afterwards temporally for it as in Scripture is declared and who knows with such certainty as is requisite for an Oath whether he had a due Disposition necessary to Absolution No Man knows whether he be worthy of Love or Hatred from God is the sense of the Scripture and Doctrine of the Catholick Church and that we must work our Salvation with fear and trembling with Christian humility and not presumptive confidence Moreover should it be granted that Absolution before hand might justifie that expression of being as innocent as the Child unborn yet could it not justifie Mr. Whitebread saying that to pray to God to bless his Majesty is all the harm that he ever intended or imagined against him and that he never did learn teach or believe that it is Lawful upon any occasion or practice whatsoever to design or contrive the death of his Majesty or any hurt to his person Mr. Harcourt saying We hold it in all Cases unlawful to Kill or Murther any person whatsoever much more our lawful King Mr. Gavan I do attest that I never in my life did machine or contrive either the deposition or death of the King Mr. Turner I never accus'd my self in confession of any thing that I am charged with Mr. Fenwick I know nothing of it viz. Of plotting the Kings death but what I have learned from Mr. Oates and his Companions and what comes originally from them Mr. Langhorn I neither am nor ever was at any time or times guilty so much as in my most secret thoughts of any Treason or misprision of Treason whatsoever These sayings even supposing a Revelation that Absolution has taken away all guilt so as to render them as innocent as the Child unborn cannot be allowed without having been ever innocent of the fact charged against them for even the absolute power of God cannot effect that not to have been which was nor could their Absolution take away their memory or allow them to declare they knew not that which was in their memory But say you If they sinned in that their declaration of Innocency yet they might safely do it having a power to absolve each other just as they were going out of the World as I believe they did when they laid their heads together Sir Give me leave to teach you again what is the Catholick Doctrine for I find you have very gross mistakes therein Observe then Sir That there is not one Catholick nor Christian Author I believe extant in the World that holds it sufficient to have the words of Absolution pronounced over him but that then is requisite in the Penitent a real aversion detestation or turning away in his heart from sin and conversion to God to render him a fit or disposed subject to receive the effect of Absolution Is it then likely that any Christia should be so presumptive at the hour of his death as wilfully to sin upon confidence of such disposition immediately after knowing that his sorrow must be from a supernatural motive and not in his power but by the grace of God whom he then offends this is certainly the highest presumption imaginable and not to be paralled What Sinner knowing he had but three Moments to live would make use of two to offend God upon confidence of the last Who can think so meanly of God as to imagine him so subservient to Man as that he as it were may lure down from Heaven supernatural grace at his will and pleasure who has that faculty to love and hate the same thing so immediately as if the one were a disposition to the other its contrary and not Sin the punishment of preceding Sins but grace as aâ— reward How stands this with that place of Scripture Neque volentis neque currentis sed miserentis est dei What more absurd and wicked than such proceeding or more nonsensical and uncharitable to suppose it not only in any learned Christian but even in any illiterate Mahometan this is to bid farewell to all Charity Religion Reason Prudence and Common sense But say you If to Rob Spoil kill Protestants burn their Cities and depose Kings be no sin but good and lawful then they might declare themselves innocent though never so guilty for Romanists tell us 't is no sin to take from those they count Haereticks all they have For this you cite the Lateran Councel sub Innoc. 2. and Sylocâ—ter N. 23. Q. 3. Cap. 1. First in Answer to it we must distinguish betwixt the Articles of Faith declared in Councels and the Constitutions of Government or Laws The first are unalterable infallible and irresistable the other fallible alterable and resistable and may be suspended and abrogated and are so upon sundry occasions For example the Counsel of the Apostles Condemned that Doctrine holding Circumcision necessary this Article of Faith can never be opposed but the Decree they made against eating of strangled meats and blood became quickly of no force and is now wholly abrogated Secondly The Canon Laws so farr forth as they relate to temporals oblige or are in force only there where they are received or approved by the temporal Authority of the Kingdom Principality or State and where do you find the Three States of England the antient and present Government of this Kingdom consenting to depose Kings for Haeresie or to dispose of their Lands c. and such Canons must be formally promulged there by the Governing Authority in due method otherwise they are of no validity this is seen by the Councel of Trent which though it be received throughout the Catholick World as to its Decrees concerning Belief or Articles of Faith yet as to in other Canons or Constitutions of Government is in some places wholly rejected in other places in part received in others wholly And this Kingdom when Catholick in part rejected the Canons of the Third Councel of Lateran for making Children legitimate after Marriage born before saying Noluâ—â—s leges Anglia mutari So that upon the whole matter it implies no more then to say that any King Prince or State may make or agree to such penal Laws against Dissenters in Religion as they in prudence shall think fit and so may either take or reject the advice of Pope or Councel Thirdly That Canon of the Lateran Counsel was made against the Subordinate and Fuditary Princes of Germany and France as the Prince of Berne Earl Cominge the Earl of Foix and the Earl of Tholous who then countenanced and abetted the Albigenses the Emperors of the East and West the King of France and most Kings thereto consenting by their Ambassadors and their Authority used to suppress those Albigenses and to prevent dissention and rebellion in the Empire of France and other Kingdoms this was the motive of that Canon which begins Si Dominus terrae