A17384:3151
A commentary
A commentary: or, sermons upon the second chapter of the first epistle of Saint Peter wherein method, sense, doctrine, and use, is, with great variety of matter, profitably handled; and sundry heads of divinity largely discussed. By Nicholas Byfield, late preacher of God's Word at Isle-worth in Middlesex.A commentary: or, sermons vpon the second chapter of the first epistle of Saint Peter vvherein method, sense, doctrine, and vse, is, with great variety of matter, profitably handled; and sundry heads of diuinity largely discussed. By Nicholas Byfield, late preacher of God's Word at Isle-worth in Middlesex.
London: printed by Humphrey Lownes for George Latham, 1623London: printed by Humfrey Lownes for George Latham, 1623
Title page typeset from the transcription.
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.
I say, it is a faculty, to note that it is more then the act or the habit of the mind, judging or determining. For acts and habits may be lost, but conscience cannot. Besides, the Scriptures show that conscience doth act, as it excuseth or accuseth, and therefore must be a faculty it self, and not the act of a faculty. I say, a faculty in the soul, because I dare not assign it or confine it to any part of the soul, as they do, that make it a part of the understanding; for the understanding hath no parts properly: and to make it a part Analogically, is not to be borne in a definition, as Logicians know.
I say, it is a faculty, to note that it is more then the act or the habit of the minde, iudging or determining. For acts and habits may be lost, but conscience cannot. Besides, the Scriptures shew that conscience doth act, as it excuseth or accuseth, and therfore must be a faculty it selfe, and not the act of a faculty. I say, a faculty in the soule, because I dare not assigne it or confine it to any part of the soule, as they doe, that make it a part of the vnderstanding; for the vnderstanding hath no parts properly: and to make it a part Analogically, is not to bee borne in a definition, as Logicians know.
I say moreover, it is in all reasonable creatures; to note, that beasts, that have only a sensitive soul, have no conscience. And whereas God also is no creature; therefore he hath not conscience. For God being holiness it self, needs no faculties to govern himself by, nor any conscience to witness, or prompt him. And I say it is in all, that none might imagine, that some men have a conscience, and some have none: For every man hath a conscience either good, or bad.
I say moreouer, it is in all reasonable creatures; to note, that beasts, that haue onely a sensitiue soule, haue no conscience. And whereas God also is no creature; therefore hee hath not conscience. For God beeing holines it selfe, needes no faculties to gouern himselfe by, nor any conscience to witnes, or prompt him. And I say it is in all, that none might imagine, that some men haue a conscience, and some haue none: For euery man hath a conscience either good, or bad.