A09365:646
The Whole Treatise of the Cases of Conscience
The whole treatise of the cases of conscience distinguished into three books: the first whereof is revised and corrected in sundry places, and the other two annexed. Taught and delivered by M. W. Perkins in his holy-day lectures, carefully examined by his own briefs, and now published together for the common good, by T. Pickering Bachelor of Divinity. Whereunto is adjoined a twofold table: one of the heads and number of the questions propounded and resolved; another of the principal texts of Scripture which are either explained, or vindicated from corrupt interpretation.The whole treatise of the cases of conscience distinguished into three bookes: the first whereof is revised and corrected in sundrie places, and the other two annexed. Taught and deliuered by M. W. Perkins in his holy-day lectures, carefully examined by his owne briefes, and now published together for the common good, by T. Pickering Bachelour of Diuinitie. Whereunto is adioyned a twofold table: one of the heads and number of the questions propounded and resolued; another of the principall texts of Scripture vvhich are either explaned, or vindicated from corrupt interpretation.
Cambridge: printed by John Legat, 1606Cambridge: printed by Iohn Legat, 1606
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.
Neither may this seem strange: for Christ as he was man, had as much, yea more knowledge then our first parents had in their innocency: and yet he knew not all particulars, in all singular creatures. For, seeing a figtree by the way as he went to Jerusalem, he thought it had borne fruit, and yet coming towards it, he found none thereon. And in like manner, Eve might know the serpentine kind, and yet be ignorant, whether a serpent could speak. Besides that, the naming of the creatures, which argues knowledge of them, was not given to Eve, but to Adam. And therefore it was not so strange, that Eve should be deceived by a serpent, considering that to know that a serpent could speak, or not speak, came by experience, which she then had not.
Neither may this seeme strange: for Christ as he was man, had as much, yea more knowledge then our first parents had in their innocency: and yet he knew not all particulars, in all singular creatures. For, seeing a figtree by the way as he went to Ierusalem, he thought it had borne fruit, and yet comming towards it, he found none thereon. And in like manner, Eue might know the serpentine kind, and yet be ignorant, whether a serpent could speake. Besides that, the naming of the creatures, which argues knowledge of them, was not giuen to Eue, but to Adam. And therefore it was not so strange, that Eue should be deceiued by a serpent, considering that to know that a serpent could speake, or not speake, came by experience, which shee then had not.
I• will be said, that all ignorance is sin: but Eve had no sin: and therefore she could not be ignorant. Answ. Ignorance is twofold; some ignorance 1ariseth of an evil disposition, when as we are ignorant of those things which we are bound to know, and this is sin properly. But there is another ignorance, 2which is no sin, when as we are ignorant of those things, which we are not bound to know. And this was in Christ: for he was ignorant of the fig trees bearing