our conscience, but yet he commands us not to sin; because his commanding us to follow our conscience supposes our conscience instructed by the Word of God and right reason, and God had appointed sufficient means it should be: but that conscience offers a sin to the obedience, is wholly the man's fault, and besides the intention of God. God hath not made us to sin, but hath committed us to the conduct of conscience, which, by prevaricating its instructions, hath betrayed us.

By this it appears what manner of obligation is passed upon us by an erring conscience; the conscience always hath the same commission as being the same faculty, the same guide: but because itself is bound to the laws of God and right reason, so far as it follows them, so far it binds. But because when it is in error, it also pretends them, by them it still binds, till the illusion be discovered. Durandus expressed this by a distinction of words, in which himself only made the difference. " Ligat, sed non obligat:" so he. That is, it hath not the same power that is in a right conscience. But it binds us so, that we cannot proceed to good. A right conscience directly and finally binds us to the action itself: an erring conscience cannot do that, because the action it offers is criminal, but it makes us take that instead of what it ought to bind us to; that is, it hath the same authority, but an evil exercise of it; the formal obligation is the same, but when it comes to be instanced, it binds us to that in which it hath no power. For though it hath power over us, yet it hath no direct power in that particular matter.

Cordubensis and Vasquez contradict this expression of Durandus, affirming that an erring conscience does "ligare et obligare;" I cannot well translate the words into a distinction, but their meaning is this, that we are not bound positively to follow the error, but yet so that we must not do the contrary.' Which, indeed, is the same thing; and they going to reprove Durandus' distinction, that hath no difference, they do it by a contradiction that hath in it no opposition. For to say that an erring conscience does so bind us that we must not contradict it, is to say that it positively binds us to follow it. For if it commands us to follow it, and we must not go against that command, is it not notorious and evident that we must positively follow it? But for the

establishing the measures of obedience in the present case, these following rules are the best proportions.

The Measures of Obedience due to an erring Conscience.

1. If an erring conscience commands a thing that is of itself indifferent, we are bound to follow it, and we may do it without sin. Because, if it be indifferent, it is therefore lawful, and it cannot cease in itself to be lawful, by being supposed to be necessary. Indeed, if a governor commands us to do a thing indifferent, and says it is necessary, we may not do it under that compliance; that is, we may not betray our Christian liberty, and accept that as simply necessary which Christ hath left under liberty. We must do the thing, but not own the necessity. But if an erring conscience bid us do an indifferent, and represent it as a necessary action, though it may be a sin to believe it necessary, yet it is no sin to do the action; for nothing that supervenes, can alter the nature of the thing, and a new personal necessity introduced by an erring conscience, by making it seem necessary to him, changes it not from being lawful in itself. But then it infers this also, that as it may be done without sin, so without a sin it cannot be left undone: because the error hath made it sonally necessary, and the truth of God hath made it lawful really.

per

2. If an erring conscience dictate a thing to be good which is not good, not to follow that dictate, and not to do that thing, is no sin; because every good is not necessary, and it may be good, or seem so; and yet to omit it in certain circumstances, may be equally good or better.

3. If an erring conscience affirm that which is good, or which is indifferent, to be evil and vicious; as if it says, it is a sin to spit upon the pavement of a church, or that it is superstition to serve the poor in an hospital, it is no sin to omit that indifferent or that commendable action; because here is no command of God to countermand the resolution of conscience, and therefore the error may become a snare and a hinderance, but no direct cause of sin; because such actions in themselves not being necessary, it cannot be criminal upon a less reason to omit them. But upon the same account it is a sin to do them, because they are not of faith, and the con

science being persuaded against them, they are sins. For any deficiency of a necessary ingredient makes a sin.

4. If an erring conscience say that such an action is lawful only, when of itself it is good and laudable,' we sin not if we do it, or if we do it not. For in this case, neither is there any direct obligation from God, nor any indirect obligation from conscience, and therefore the man is wholly permitted to his liberty: although it may be a pious action to pray kneeling on the ground with bare knees, or prostrate on our faces, yet if conscience says it is in no sense laudable, but that it is lawful only, we may safely do it; but then there is no other effect of such an action, than there is of scratching a man's head with one finger: and it cannot be commendable in him to do an action, in which he believes there is no worthiness.

5. If an erring conscience commands what is simply evil, or forbids to do that which is absolutely commanded, the man sins, whether he obeys or obeys not. In one case he sins against his rule, and in the other against his guide, and any one miscarriage is enough to introduce a sin. But this will be the matter of the next rule. The use of these rules is not at all effective upon erring consciences, while the error remains: for the advices supposing the error are not applicable to them, who will not suppose themselves in error. But they are applicable to consciences recovered from their error, and are useful in the conduct of their repentance, because they describe the respective measure of sin and innocence, and what obligations of sorrow and amends are left behind when the error is gone.

To these may be added those rules which I have already given, concerning the changes which can be made in moral actions, by the persuasion and force of conscience.

Ch. 2. Rule 9.

RULE III.

A Conscience erring vincibly or culpably is an unavoidable Cause of Sin, whether it be resisted or complied with.

WHEN the error proceeds of malice or negligence, the man is guilty according to the venom of the ingredient; there is a sin in the principle, and this leads to an action materially evil. He that makes assemblies against his prelate, and thinks he may lawfully do it, does an action for which, by the laws, he is punishable; but to God he is to answer besides the action, for the sin that led him to that error.

Quest. But if it be inquired, whether that also be a sin which is an obedience to his conscience, that is, whether the instance of the action be a sin, beside the malice of the principle, and so every such action become a double sin,-I answer, that it is according as the instance is.

1. If it be against a prime principle, in which we are naturally, or any way greatly instructed, then the error is culpable in that manner that it remains voluntary all the way; and then not only the introduction or first principle, but the effect also is a sin. The man hath only put a blind before his eyes, and in every reflex action it is discovered, and he knows it habitually all the way. And therefore, in this case, the conscience ought not to be obeyed. For the conscience is but imperfect and equivocal, violent and artificial. It is persuaded in the act, and convinced of the evil in the habit or reflex act, and is no otherwise deceived than a man is blind that wears a hood upon his eye.

2. If the conscience be possessed with a damnable error, and in a great matter, and this possession is a dereliction and a punishment from God for other crimes,—it is no matter whether we call the consequent action a sin or no; for the man is in a state of reprobation, and the whole order of things and actions in that state are criminal, formally or equivalently. His prayers are abomination; and if so, then the actions that are materially evil, are much worse, and in estimation are prosecutions of the state of sin. Of this sort are they that are

a Castropal. tom. 1. dis. 1. punct. 6. n. 3.

given over to believe a lie; all the consequent actions are sins, just as the envies and blasphemies of damned people are sins, or as the acts of devils are imputed: they are consigned to death, and all the consequent actions are symbolical; and it will be always so, unless they can return to a state of repentance.

3. If the conscience be abused in a deduction, consequence, or less certain proposition, by evil arts and prejudice, by interest and partiality, there is so much evil in the whole determination, as there was in the introducing cause of the error, and no more. For if the action consequent to the persuasion were also a sin, then it ought not to be done; but because in this case the conscience ought to be obeyed, though in the whole affair there is a sin, and it is unavoidable,- yet the sin is antecedent to the action and determination, but no proper appendage or qualification of it. And since the object in the present case transmits honesty and equity into the action, not according to what it is in the thing, but according to what it is in reason, it must needs be that we are obliged according to what we find it to be in conscience. For in this case we know not what it is in itself, and therefore by it we cannot be guided to choose or to refuse; but, because we must be guided by something, it must be wholly by opinion and conscience.

4. If the conscience be weakly and innocently misguided, there is no sin either in the error, or in the consequent action. Because no man is bound to do better than his best; and if he hath no sin in the principle of his error, it is certain he did his best, that is, he did all his duty; and then to proceed by the best light he hath, is agreeable to right reason and to religion.

Upon the ground of these conclusions we may easily infer, that though an erring conscience is to be followed (as it is above explained), and yet that God also is entirely to be followed, and that therefore a man, by accident and by his own fault, may be entangled "in nervis testiculorum leviathan" (as St. Gregory's expression is, out of Job), in the infoldings of sin and Satan, and cannot escape innocently so long as he remains in that condition; yet, because he need not remain in that condition, but either by suspecting himself, or being admonished by another, by inquiry and by prayer he