Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	commandment_n	law_n	moral_a	3,008	5	9.5759	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A29237	The XXIV cases concerning things indifferent in religious worship considered, or, The resolver better resolved by his own principles, and non-conformists more confirmed also, the grand case touching ministers conformity, with the double supplement thereunto annexed, briefly discussed.	Bagshaw, Edward, 1629-1671.; Bagshaw, Edward, 1629-1671. Great question concerning things indifferent in religious worship briefly stated.	1663 (1663)	Wing B427; ESTC R12512	53,178	68

prohibited in general are not a violation of a special Law of God but of a general p. 145. And such may be lawfully submitted to or I know not what to make of his words To say that things prohibited by a general Law are not a violation of a special Law is a vulgar truth and not beseeming the R. Casuists Learning And to say things evil and unlawful either by a special or general Law are not sinful will less beseem his Wisdom for that is a contradiction Things sinful such are all prohibited by any Law of God are not sinful 2. If he apply his Distinction to the Minor it must I suppose be thus Things Inexpedient are of two sorrs either such as are prohibited by a special or by a general Comandment the first sort are sinful and not to be submitted to but the latter may Will he stand to this May any sinful thing in Worship be submitted to Hath he not asserted the contrary in the case of sinful things imposed Besides this Distinction comes here too late being necessary to have been used before he gave us that universal Proposition All Indifferent things not-expedient are not lawful but sinful And now belike some not-expedient things are not sinful but lawful in Worship 3. Or if he shall say by Inexpedient he meanes only things Inconvenient burdensom perhaps but not sinful the first may be submitted to not the second He saies true but then he equivocates with us in both his Tracts in the sense of the word Inexpedient having told us that all Inexpedient things in Worship were sinful and not to be done and so slips a genere in gemes 4. He told us also some things were sinful in themselves and some by Inconveniency in their use p. 68. But both are sinful and can either of them be lawfully submitted to 5. His Instances of things prohibited in genere are Indecencies and Disorders and the like in Worship But this is a great Mistake in a Divine in a Casuist For there are as special Lawes against them either in Nature or Scripture and as Moral as against Murder or Theft viz. either the Second or Third Commandments as Additions to the Worship or prophanation of it and consequently a taking of Gods Name in vain or by 1 Cor. 14.40 where specially forbidden Yea they seem prohibited by a Law of Nature A standing Law said he never to be crossed by any Authority under Heaven yea the God of Heaven being the God of Order will never reverse it c. p. 43. of the other Cases If not imposed nor may they be submitted to The Reason is the same for both because they are sinful in their use or by the circumstance of the time when used in Worship being now Inexpedient and for that reason both unlawful to be imposed or if imposed to be submitted to p. 34. Hereupon it seemes strange to me which here he saies If the Inexpediency of such a thing for which alone it is prohibited be either separated from it or overballanced it becomes repugnant to no Law at all c. For 1. This is as if he should say separate the sin from it and it is not sinful What is the sin of a thing inexpedient in Worship but the use of it in Worship Separate the use of such a thing from Worship and it may be lawfully used out of Worship e. g. a Surplice and the Sign of the Cross used in Worship as Symbolical Rites or Ceremonies we say are sinful but out of Worship the one may be lawfully used by a Groom or Porter the other for a Sign of a dwelling house c. But in worship the sin and the thing used are inseparable 2. Neither can the sinful Inexpediency be overballanced by any external temporal Expediencies An evil of sin may not be done to prevent the greatest poenal evil or to procure the greatest temporal good And here he secretly flides from one kind of evil to another Calvins Testimony is not to the purpose for he speakes of Civil usages or Customes of the place and not of Religious Rites or Ceremonies The like Mistakes are in the next That which by reason of Circumstances only is evil or unlawful is so accidentally and may be not immutably so The first part is true but a thing which is accidentally evil may be immutably so in its use in worship as an Indecency or Disorder in Worship is alwaies evil sinfully evil as was confessed 2. That which is evil by accident in one respect may be good yea better than another True also if he speak of things poenally evil But if the thing be sinfully evil though but in the use in Worship all the respects in the world cannot make it good much less better to be done in Worship 3. Hence the thing that seemed and was sinfully Inexpedient can by no Circumstances penally evil be made as he saies expedient much less lawful and necessary for so we may yea must do evil that good may come thereby Polanus his Rule is Golden and good in civil things penally evil there the greater and more expediencies must overballance the lesser and fewer but is a Leaden Rule when sinful and penal evils meet together the first must be left undone whatever becomes of the other We must not do evil to obtain good He returnes to this Yet we must do good to prevent evil though the thing be good for nothing else I pray what is the meaning of the Apostles Rule We must not do the least sinful evil to obtain the greatest temporal good But he by evil understands some poenal evil not moral or sinful when he saies we must do good to prevent evil What good Morally good That 's true but then he secretly begs the Question that Inexpedient things are morally good in worship or if otherwise then he allowes us to sin to prevent some penal evil And what means he by evil which we must prevent If only penal he permits us to do a sinful evil to prevent some penal evil or if sinful then he allows us to prevent one sin by doing another For such we take things Inexpedient in worship to be But by the way this is but an ill Character of the good he intends that it is good for nothing else but to prevent the evil of suffering I leave him to apply it I shall not now stand to answer what he saies of the Apostles making of some inconvenient things necessary It will come again more fitly and fully to be considered in the next Case All I say now is but this That if Expediency will make a thing good necessary and our duty to do as he asserts then it may seem reasonable at least in worship that Inexpediency should render a thing evil and unlawful and make it ones Duty not to do it The Testimonies of Cypr. Ambrose August are easily answered in a few words They speak not of Mystical Rites or significant Ceremonies but

and third Commandments and 1 Cor. 14.40 c. 2. God may dispense with his own Lawes yea seemingly and in part Moral Lawes As to the Israelites to take the Goods of the Egyptians and to Abraham to kill his own Son The reason is partly his Soveraignty over all Creatures to dispose of them as his own as he pleases Psal 50. And partly and chiefly because all men are Delinquents guilty of many sins and Forfeitures of all their Enjoyments and God may justly punish them with loss of Goods or Life and make what hands he pleases his Executioners as in Jobs case But no power on earth may command what he forbids nor forbid what he commands and therefore none may forbear to do what he commands though men forbid nor submit to do what he forbids though men command 3. The things instanced in at least some of them as the Priests killing Sacrifices were never sinful in the intention of the Law of the Sabbath being Gods works not our own but commanded by a special Law and so their Duty to do as being also a part of sanctifying the Day in that Ceremonial Worship And in such a case they are the Casuists own words it is not sinful not to fulfill a particular Command but rather a clear Obedience to God who in the instance takes off the force of the particular in his more general Law But can he shew us any general or special Law for our unnecessary Ceremonies If not what Necessity can make them expedient lawful or necessary But we say they are sinful and so saies he by consequence being so many waies Inexpedient hurtful to the Worship and Worshippers as is proved on his former Tract 4. Those Inftances were only in cases of Necessity and that also of Gods making either by his special Command or by a way of Providence casting men into some necessity And then doubtless his own words again the general warrant of the more general Law of Necessity gave a Supersedeas against particular Obligation as will appear upon review of the Particulars But I pray what Necessity is there for the things in question either by way of Divine Command or of his Providence What necessity to command them what to obey them especially if Inexpediently sinful If there be any it is of mans making either on the Commanders whom the R. Cas hath excluded from Imposing them or on the Submitters part for fear of punishment loss of Livings c. And if such Necessity may make Submission necessary the 3 Children as called knew not their Liberty they might have saved their Lives by obedience to the Kings Command I shall put him a Case or two to resolve There was a particular Law that a Jew might eat no Swines-flesh Two Cases of Necessity might happen to enforce him to eat it Extremity of Famine or the Command of a Tyrant I suppose the Casuist will grant that it was lawful yea necessary in the first case to eat it rather than starve but not in the second Or else those Brethren suffered death foolishly when commanded by the Tyrant to eat it He may easily understand my meaning and apply it I come to his Particulars 1. That of the Priests is answered already I only add another Case Suppose Saul had commanded Butchers to kill Beasts on the Sabbath under some great penalty Here was his Necessity to do it or suffer Let him resolve the Case 2. It was by a special Law enjoyned that none might eat the Shew-bread but the Priests Suppose again Saul had commanded David and his men in no necessity of hunger to eat it with a sharp penalty upon refusal Here was his Necessity again Might they eat it or not Yet in a Case of Providential Necessity of hunger they might eat it and are justified by our Saviour The Reason of this Difference is because in the one case Life is more necessary to be preserved than a Ceremonial Command in the other Obedience even to a Ceremonial Commandment of God is more necessary than Life 3. For Solomons Offering upon an Altar not commanded our Divines give these Answers 1. That he did it by Divine Direction as he did many other things 2. That it was in a Case of Necessity in such abundance of Sacrifices and other the like Reasons See D. A. ubisupra P. 328. But there is neither Direction from God nor any Necessity for our Ceremonies more than for many more at Rome 4. Hezekiahs admission of the Legally unclean to the Passeover fome perhaps will plead Necessity but under favour I should rather say Hezekiah did not well Which appears by Gods striking of the people which he would not have done if they had not transgressed some Law or if Necessity would have excused the matter Yea Hezekiah had forgotten the Case determined by Moses that if a man were unclean or in a Journey at the just time of the Passeover he might be excused if he did observe it the 14th day of the next Moneth 5. Pauls Case was this Life is more worth more necessary than meat than Corn in such a Condition And therefore his cautelous Distinction betwixt things that are naturally internally materially evil and such as are unlawfull only by some positive Prohibitions in Scripture is here little helpful to him For we tell him that the things in question some if not all are naturally internally evil and some become materially evil by some evil Circumstance if a Prohibition will make a thing materially evil as he seems to allow and as against some special Lawes the Second or Third Commandments and that special Law of Nature 1 Cor. 14.40 Which in his own Judgment is a Law of Nature which the God of Nature will not reverse and so immutably such Things Inexpedient in Worship though but Inconvenient in their use are as naturally internally evil as is any other thing prohibited by a Moral Law and therefore not to be submitted to for any external humane Necessiry That Law of Indulgence of God I will have Mercy to men or Beasts rather than Sacrifice deserves his and our wonder and astonishment But little to his present purpose For it is applyable only in Cases of emergent and Providential Necessity and then also but when compared with Sacrifice the external and Ceremonial parts of Worship as himself speaks e. gr An House is on fire a Man or Beast is fallen into a Pit on the Sabbath day in time of publick Worship in danger to perish Here God will have Mercy and not Sacrifice as Paul left off Pre●ching to recover the man fallen down dead The reason is evident because to preserve Life and Goods are Moral Commandments and the external Exercises of Religion are in a kind Ceremonial And besides these may be delayed and made good another time but the other will perish if not speedily succoured The positive sayes he well must yield to the Natural and Moral Duty the less Necessity to the more necessary