A09364:51
The first part of The cases of conscience Wherein specially, three main questions concerning…The first part of The cases of conscience Wherein specially, three maine questions concerning…
The first part of The cases of conscience Wherein specially, three main questions concerning man, simply considered in himself, are propounded and resolved, according to the word of God. Taught and delivered, by M. William Perkins in his Holy-day lectures, by himself revised before his death, and now published for the benefit of the Church.The first part of The cases of conscience Wherein specially, three maine questions concerning man, simply considered in himselfe, are propounded and resolued, according to the word of God. Taught and deliuered, by M. William Perkins in his Holy-day lectures, by himselfe revised before his death, and now published for the benefit of the Church.
Cambridge: printed by John Legat, 1604Cambridge: printed by Iohn Legat, 1604
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Again, Ignorance is twofold: of the aLaw, or of the thing the Law requireth. Ignorance of the Law is, when a man knows not the law of God written, nor the law of nature. This ignorance may somewhat lessen the sin, but it excuseth no man: because it is natural, and every man is bound to know the Law. Ignorance of the thing the law requireth, is the ignorance of the bfact: and that is either with the fault of the doer, or without the fault. Faulty ignorance, is the ignorance of a fact, which he might have prevented. As when a man ⟨p. 18⟩in his drunkenness killeth another: in this fact, not knowing what he doth, he also knoweth not that he hath offended: and yet because he might have prevented his drunkenness, therefore he is faulty, and sinneth. Faultless ignorance is, when a fact is done, which could not be either known, or avoided before hand. For example: if a man be lopping a tree, and his axe head fall from the helve, out of his hand, and kills another passing by; here is indeed manslaughter, but no voluntary murder: because it was a thing that could not be avoided, and did not fall out through his default. And this ignorance is excusable.
Againe, Ignorance is twofold: of the aLaw, or of the thing the Law requireth. Ignorance of the Law is, when a man knowes not the law of God written, nor the law of nature. This ignorance may somewhat lessen the sinne, but it excuseth no man: because it is naturall, and euery man is bound to know the Law. Ignorance of the thing the law requireth, is the ignorance of the bfact: and that is either with the fault of the doer, or without the fault. Faultie ignorance, is the ignorance of a fact, which he might haue preuented. As whē a man ⟨p. 18⟩in his drunkennes killeth another: in this fact, not knowing what he doth, he also knoweth not that he hath offended: and yet because he might haue preuented his drunkennes, therefore he is faultie, and sinneth. Faultlesse ignorance is, when a fact is done, which could not be either knowne, or auoided before hand. For example: if a man be lopping a tree, and his axe head fall from the helue, out of his hand, and kills another passing by; here is indeede manslaughter, but no voluntarie murther: because it was a thing that could not be auoided, and did not fall out through his default. And this ignorance is excusable.