Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A88829
|
An examination of the political part of Mr. Hobbs his Leviathan. By George Lawson, rector of More in the county of Salop.
|
Lawson, George, d. 1678.
|
1657
(1657)
|
Wing L706; Thomason E1591_3; Thomason E1723_2; ESTC R208842
|
108,639
|
222
|
civil penalties of man yet not from the judgement of God if that Religion be against the Laws of God No Laws of man can bind above much less against the Laws of God and this all rational men will confess Austine denies the perfection and according to Tullies definition the very being of a Common-wealth to the Roman State because it commanded subjection unto and worship of Devils By what this Author hath delivered Christ and the Apostles are made guilty because they required obedience to the positive Laws of the Gospel seeing they were contrary to all civil Laws of the world Upon this account the Rulers of the Jews heathen Princes and the Roman Emperours who persecuted the Christians are justifiable as all such who received the Christian Religion contrary to their own Laws are condemnable but of this you will hear more hereafter For he makes it indifferent what Religion any man professeth if it be agreeable to the Laws of the State where he lives T. H. There is also another distinction of Laws into fundamental and not fundamental but I could never see in any Author what a fundamental Law signifieth c. A fundamental Law is that by which the subjects are bound to uphold whatsoever power is given unto the Soveraign c. G. L. This doth argue his ignorance in Politicks For fundamental Laws in every State are those which concern the constitution not fundamental such as are made immediately to regulate the administration The former are such as cannot be altered without taking asunder and disjoynting the very frame and form of Government the latter may be altered and yet the essential frame may stand The former are the foundation of a State the latter are but superstructions The former determine the Soveraign who he is and what his power and also define the bounds of the liberty and subjection of the subject The golden Bull is said to contain the fundamental Laws of the German Empire as the Salick or as some call it the Gallick of excluding females from succession to the Crown is said to be one of the fundamentals of France T. H. I find lex civilis jus civile promiscuously used for the same thing even in the most learned Authors which nevertheless ought not to be For Jus is Liberty Lex is Obligation G. L. That they are often taken for the same and in learned Authors is certain and that without any errour But yet Jus doth not properly signifie the liberty left unto us by the Law but id quod Justum est and ought to be the matter of the Law And when the Civilians take Jura and Leges to be the same they understand by Jus not Jus vagum but Jus à lege determinatum For the Laws determine what is right and what is wrong and in this sense Jus cannot be liberty as he doth fondly imagine but must either be or at least imply an Obligation CAP. XI Of the Second Part. The 27. of the Book Of crimes excuses and extenuation THE Author in this Chapter is methodical and cannot much be charged with errours or misprisions as in the former The proper place for crimes excuses extenuations and aggravations is next to that of Laws For as the Apostle teacheth us Where there is no Law there is no transgression And herein the Authors of Politicks seem to be defective because though they treat of Laws and Jurisdiction yet they say little or nothing of Crimes Yet the Civilians in this particular have done their part He doth distinguish betwixt sins and crimes and his distinction may be allowed though hardly in Politicks Yet the word Crime in Learned Authors is not alwaies taken as here it is for an offence as it is an object or matter of Judgement And sometimes causes judicial are distinguished into civil criminal capital In which distinction criminals are onely one sort of mules That which we call Sin in Divinity is nothing but disobedience to a Law in general though it be strictly taken for disobedience to divine Law Disobedience being an anomy presupposeth a Law and a Law must have a Soveraign and a Law-giver and there can be no violation of a Law without wrong unto the Law-giver And those offences are most hainous which directly oppose and wrong the power of the Soveraign lawfully constituted because the tend to the rasing of the very foundation and constitution of the Government it self Such are denying of the supreme power resisting it and revolting from it so as to be Soveraigns our selves or independent or subject to another The first law God gave was for to secure his Soveraignty Thou shalt have no other Gods but me as the Septuagint do well and truly turn it And this by Philo is said to be the Commandment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the supreme power of one God All other offences are against the Laws of administration which though they may be hainous yet are not so hainous as those former against the institution These offences of disobedience may be considered either with reference to the Laws antecedent as violated or to Jurisdiction following in which sense the Author handles them and calls them crimes And these may be reduced unto certain heads as they have been by Civilians and also by the Lawyers of particular States yet this is most exactly done by the Common-Law of England which was entire before the Conquest and followed the order of the ten Commandments of the moral Law of God Thus some Antiquaries in Law do inform us The Author acquits all motions of the soul antecedent to a deliberate consent resolution and intention from being sins yet this I cannot do It s certain that to understand know and remember that which is evil and unjust cannot be sin because God doth so and all this may be done with a detestation of it yet to like approve incline unto delight in evil thus known and remembered though we never yield a deliberate or any formal consent must needs argue some imperfection if not corruption in the heart of man which should never think of evil but with hatred The rest of the Chapter is rational if rightly understood the greatest part whereof is taken up in that of aggravations wherein he hath done better then others yet he is far short of some who have both more largely and also accurately handled that point out of Scriptures It s a common theme of Casuists and Civilians and might have been much improved The original of all crimes and offences are either from the understanding or the will not the passions as he affirms From the understanding either not apprehending or not judging aright from the will averse or enclined another way by reason of corruption Ignorance and error are from defect or negligence or wilfulness severally or joyntly And here it s to be observed That the more of meer will there is in any offence the more hainous it is The highest degree of wilfulness is in obstinacy resisting all
A second cause of weakning and dissolving a State are certain Doctrines The first That every private man is Judge of good and evil actions G. L. Judgement is publick or private publick no private man can pass private he may and that both of his own actions and others too The acts of others are private or publick of both these he may Judge Publick acts of the Governors are Laws Judgements Execution Even of Laws he may he must within himself so far as they are a rule and bind him enquire examine and determine whether good or evil Otherwise he can perform but only a blind obedience to the best and if he conform unto the unjust he in obeying man disobeys God which no good man will do In other acts which are apparently just we may judge of them truly as they are and no otherwise Yet this must not be done to palliate our disobedience to that which is just or raise sedition or rebel but we may complain to God and by our humble prayers seek redress T. H. A second Doctrine That whatsoever a man doth against conscience is sin The conscience may be erroneous and he that is subject to no Civil Law sins in all he acts against his conscience Yet to him that is in a Common-wealth the Law is the publick conscience by which he hath undertaken to be guided G. L. Conscience is a mans knowledge of his own acts as agreeable or disagreeable to the Law of God It s not a faculty but an act of the soul and an act not of the will but understanding and the same as practical The proper act is knowledge the object is his own acts and these acts not any way but as agreeable or disagreeable to the Law of God For as Aquinas saith there must be applicatio facti ad legem Otherwise a mans understanding cannot judge of it as conformable or not unto the Law of God These acts may be considered as to be done or done In the former respect conscience binds as a Law though it be not the Law but presupposeth or includeth the knowledge of the Law In the latter respect it judgeth and is a kind of judge of himself in some sort as superiour to himself But before the tribunal of God it is a witness and doth accuse or excuse The great Question so much vexed by the Casuists is whether an erroneous conscience doth bind But let them determine what they please an erroneous conscience in proper sense is no conscience For an errour is no knowledge but a defect of knowledge or rather a plain want of knowledge and also an act contrary to knowledge Conscience is a knowledge in proper sense and knowledge is true and certain and it s a knowledge of a mans own act or acts as agreeable to the Law of God this an erroneous conscience cannot be That conscience is such a knowledge is made evident by the Apostle saying That when the Gentiles not having the Law do the things contained in the Law they having not the Law are a Law unto themselves who shew the work of the Law written in their heart by their conscience witnessing c. Rom. 12.14 15. Where we may observe 1. That the conscience could not witness accuse or excuse except there were something to be accused or excused 2. The thing accused as evil or excused as good must be something conformable or contrary to the Law of God 3. The conscience could not accuse or excuse any thing as good or evil without knowledge both of the Law and of the act that was contrary or consentaneous to that Law 4. Therefore the Apostle before he makes mention of the conscience affirmeth 1. That they did the things contained in the Law 2. They were a Law unto themselves 3. That they did by their conscience witnessing prove or demonstrate the work of the Law that is the work which the Law did command written in their heart To have the work of the Law written in their heart is to have a certain true knowledge of it not an erroneous mistake But to return to the Author Conscience in proper sense doth bind yet not as it is knowledge nor as knowledge of a mans proper act nor as knowledge of the Law in general but by vertue of the Law known as a rule of his particular act For man being subject unto God and under his Laws cannot bind himself and be his own Law-giver but the Law of God not an errour truly understood by him doth bind him But let the erroneous judgement of the practical understanding be called conscience as by a Trope it may because there may be something of conscience in it yet whether can it bind or no I answer it cannot bind for an errour of the understanding cannot be a binding rule to command the will of man neither can it be a rule at all Again an erroneous judgement especially practical is a sin and against the Law of God therefore it can no waies bind only thus far most Casuists do grant that by it a man is so far bound as not to act against it yet this it doth only per accidens for per se he is bound to act otherwise then it doth dictate For because God hath made a mans reason his guide he must needs be much depraved in his will that will act contrary unto his reason And he that will not seruple to act against his erroneous judgement will be bold to act against his judgement rightly informed But the full debate of this I refer to another occasion And these things premised I return unto Mr. Hobbs that of the Apostle Whatsoever is not of faith is sin and therefore whosoever acts againt saith and conscience properly so taken sinneth and for him to affirm that the true Doctrine of God revealed in the Scripture should be either false or destructive of eivil States and Governments is no waies tolerable Whereas he alledgeth that the Law of the Common-wealth is the publick conscience by which the subject hath bound himself to be guided it s too loose and fallacious if examined For 1. The Law is not the publick conscience but the publick rule of conscience in matters civil 2. It s a rule of the subjects obedience not as its a Law of the Common-wealth but as it is agreeable and not contrary to an higher Law the Law of God For the Laws civil do not immediately bind the conscience and immortal soul as the civil Soveraign hath no power to punish it for his sword cannot reach that spiritual substance Secondarily and by consequence they may oblige the soul 3. No subject may or ought to make the Law of the State his absolute guide For the Law may be against the Law of God and then how can the subject undertake to obey it and make it his rule and not offend God 4. Every subject is first bound and subject unto God before he be subjected to civil powers and is first