Selected quad for the lemma: nature_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
nature_n	evil_a	good_a	indifferent_a	2,973	5	9.5052	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

men can cumber them with till they become stench in the Nostrils of all sober and stayd men and of God himself as with the Church of Rome This is enough to decide the Controversie in hand if justly appliable to our Ceremonies To the Consideration whereof we now proceed III. The Proof of the Negative in all the Particulars Hitherto following the steps of the Rev. Casuist I have proceeded only in Thesi concerning things Inexpedient or purely Indifferent whether they may be imposed or if imposed submitted to in worship and have gathered his Concessions into one view and shewed how far both Parties agree We are now come to the Application of these Concessions in Hypothesi to the Matters of our bitter Contentions at this day And much of my work is done already The Propositions being granted me and proved I shall need only to prove the Assumptions of all my Syllogismes For if our Ceremonies prove such things as the Concessions grant the Conclusions will easily follow that they are unlawful to be either Imposed in Worship or Submitted to I shall now therefore state the Question anew in our particular Case thus Whether our Ceremonies may lawfully by men be Imposed in the Worship of God or if Imposed may lawfully be Submitted Assented and Consented unto The Explication of the Terms is laid down in the beginning and the Probleme containes 3 questions viz. Of the Lawfulness 1. Of the Imposition of them in worship 2. Of the Submission to them 3. Of the Declaration of an unfeigned Assent and Consent unto them To the Particulars I. Of the Imposition of Ceremonies What we and most Learned Divines understand by a Ceremony imposed in worship was discoursed in the Explicatory part at the Entrance of this Dissertation viz. a Sacred Rite of worshipping God intended and instituted to the honouring God in worship whereby it is contra-distinguished to a meer Circumstance of Worship tending to Decency Order and Edification Now that such Ceremonies may not be Imposed the Rev. Casuist doth not explicitly assert that had been dangerous to himself but yet implicitly insinuates so much If Ceremonies significant of the Grace and Favour of God or to be a meanes of receiving any Blessing from God be imposed there is no doubt saies he much danger in it p 145. But what if meer Circumstances be imposed But of this more in that Head of Significancy That it is unlawful for the Church or Magistrate to impose our Ceremonies will appear by Application of all or most of the Concessions above given us by the Reverend Casuist himself In General thus No sinful unlawful thing may by any sort of men be imposed in worship This is yielded by all of any Religion as at Concession 2. But I assume our Ceremonies imposed are sinful and unlawful ergo they ought not to be imposed in Worship The Assumption is proved by the special Concessions 1. All things imposed or used in Worship are either necessary or unlawful and so either Good or Bad But our Ceremonies are not necessary ergo The Minor is constantly and frequently affirmed by the Advocates thereof God was is and may be well yea better served without them The Major is granted in the first Concession Necessary a commanded by God specially or generally Unlawful as forbidden by God either in special or in general If it be said but there are some things Indifferent neither commanded nor forbidden by God as the Division above was Tripartite I Answer There are three things in themselves abstractedly considered which are Indifferent neither morally good nor bad but in Worship nothing Imposed is Indifferent but it is either expedient for Decency and Order and so commanded and necessary or Inexpedient in the use and so forbidden and unlawful It is asserted by our Casuist Case 2. No one Action he might have added no Ceremony in Religious Exercises is of its own nature so Indifferent but that by the Circumstances it easily becomes good or evil Good if it be expedient in or useful to the Worship evil if any waies Inconvenient in its use that is Inexpedient or hurtful to the Worship Of this more in the next 2. Nothing Inexpedient may be imposed in Worship but such are our Ceremonies ergo c. The Major is fully conceded above and proved also by very good Reasons this for one All things indifferent and not expedient are not lawful but sinful If not expedient things that is not useful to the worship be sinful then much more things inexpedient that is hurtful to the worship are sinful In the Explication of this Term Inexpedient it was shewed that as Expedient imports something positive useful helpful to the worship so Inexpedient must in the just opposition signifie something prejudicious hurtful to it Not privatively only which may be taken for some things purely Indifferent but positively as hurtful troublesome burdensome c. The Minor that the Ceremonies in Controversie are inexpedient and hurtful to the worship or worshippers is abundantly proved by others and evident by Experience as violating most of his 7 Rules given for regulating the Imposition of Indifferent things in worship Case 8. Take the Particulars briefly 1. They break the Peace of the Church which ought primarily to be regarded in Imposition of such things The Casuist proceeds excellently and boldly in the Vindication of his second Rule for Publick Peace I wish the Imposers of our Ceremonies would read or hear his words and seriously lay them to heart God is the God of Peace and Order of Peace as well as Order And as the Order so the Peace of the Church without which there is no Order is precious with him and with all that have the Spirit of God and any care of his Church Should any thing give way to Peace and should not things Indifferent Are not these Indifferent Is not Peace necessary in many respects See the Place Who knows not that as the first Breach of the Publick Peace of the Church was about a Ceremony or thing Indifferent so these Ceremonies imposed have for many years broken the peace of our Church and now worst of all I shall add a few more of the Reverend Casuists words Who can think it wisdom to force any thing that is but indifferent to the endangering so necessary a thing as peace or the dividing of the Church of God or provoking any considerable part thereof to separate from us But I forbear 2. They are offensive to weak Brethren who as he well though weak are not to be thrown to the wals without any regard yea the Scripture reasons us to a greater tenderness to the weaker part of the Church And more to this purpose Things inexpedient of this nature are described by our Rev. Casuist to be such as are troublesom to good Consciences burdensom c. telling us Ceremonies of the Church ought not to be hurtful to the Church troublesom c. pag. 49. The Apostles had a special care of

favour this is either a tergiversation or perverting of the Question especially in respect of the second part our submission to them for though it be true that some things inconvenient ought not to be imposed in worship yet such things if imposed may in some cases be lawfully submitted to and in that No●ion have been submitted to by some Learned and Pious Nonconformists For the Inconvenience may be only in a circumstance of Worship as at an unseasonable time or unconvenient place and the like And if no other will be allowed submission to them may be lawful rather then not to enjoy the publick Ordinances But if inexpedient as Ceremonies i. e hurtful to the Worship as before the Question is altered and some new Distinctions must be used of which more perhaps hereafter 3. Things purely indifferent What is meant by things Indifferent he resolved us in his first Case A middle between necessary as commanded unlawful things as forbidden morally neither good nor bad in themselves but may be either by some circumstance And these seem to some to be of two sorts 1. Such as may be some circumstance be made good or bad 2. Such as when used in Worship are at least not good whether not bad is a Question if Imposed and used in Worship These our Casuist cals purely Indifferent others meerly Indifferent or quatenus Indifferent Case 6. What those purely indifferent things are he discovers not either by a description of them or any one Instance in particular Indeed at Case 12. He gives us the same description of a thing Indifferent as at first and applies it to a thing purely indifferent A middle place it holds between things necessary and things sinful between things expedient and things inexpedient c. but in all regards purely indifferent And then tels us The Question is not whether there be any such things or no but hoc supposito that such things there are and that they are commanded by Lawful Authority But did it not concern him to give one Instance of such a thing as is purely Indifferent not in its Nature and in it self for there are enough in that kind but when Imposed in Worship That 's the Case and Question What 's to be done by private persons when things purely indifferent are required in Religious Exercises Now if there be no such things as purely Indifferent in worship the Case is vain and idle Speak Sir to our Ceremonies Are our Ceremonies as the Surplice or Cross in Baptism a thing purely Indifferent in worship You durst not say so for that had reflected upon the Church imposing as a crime you having formerly affirmed it unlawful to impose such things upon several good Reasons Case 6. Therefore you had rather suppose such a case should be then propose an Instance when it is so Cautè si non castè But Sir by things purely Indifferent my self and some Readers understood you to mean things that were no way useful in worship but like Herb-John in the Pot if they do no good they do no harm as differencing them from things Inexpedient as less evil And this at last you give us to be the sense but when you thought this question and your former sense of it Case 12. was forgotten see Pag. 147. your own true description of a thing purely indifferent viz. as to be of no use or service that is in worship Affirming nothing so purely indifferent ought to be imposed And in this sense I take a thing purely indifferent in worship is a thing useless needless unnecessary c. And in this notion if you do not take it you will never fully resolve the present Controversie As on the other side if you take inexpedient only privatively for not useful or only inconvenient and unfit your Cases are coincident if not the same this of purely indifferent and that of things inexpedient But I pass on in my Explication 4. May be imposed lawfully by men This deserves to be explained a little 1. To manifest where the Poyson lies of most of humane Traditions applied to worship viz. in the Imposers sometimes only alwaies chiefly For their Imposition entrenches most upon the Wisdom and Soveraignty of God and the Kingly Office of Christ in appointing waies and meanes of his worship 2. To distinguish between the Imposers and Submitters in point of Lawfulness For some inconvenient things may lawfully be submitted to if they be imposed which may not but sinfully be imposed As if a meer circumstance unfit or inconvenient in the Casuists language be commanded in worship without the Observation whereof there can be no publick worship it 's granted by him to be unlawful to command such a circumstance but strongly pleaded to be lawful and expedient to obey it 3. I adde By men For God may by his Soveraignty command what indifferent or to us seeming inconvenient things in worship he pleases as water in Baptism to signifie and operate the Grace of Regeneration because he hath power to work Grace by any means but men as they have no Authority to institute any means of Worship so neither have they power to render them effectual to them that use them 5. In the Worship of God For in civil things ther 's a Latitude or Liberty both to Superiours to impose things inconvenient or inexpedient both privatively if not unfit or positively as hurtful and for people to obey without sin but not so generally in Worship for there both may sin the one in commanding the other in submitting to unlawful things Unlawful I say either in their own nature or by some Accident or circumstance becoming sinful in Worship Of which hereafter more 6. Or if Imposed may lawfully be submitted to This brings us to the second question concerning Submission to things inexpedient or purely indifferent in Worship For 1. That they may not lawfully be imposed is asserted often by the Casuist The submission to them is now considerable 2. This submission may respect either the Minister who is to act them by active obedience or the People who in some things are or may be only passively obedient by presence at them when they are done without any assent or consent unto them yea with manifested dissent from and dislike of them Of which in another Place and Time 7. Assented and Consented unto And this leads us to the third and last question We have thus proceeded 1. That some things inconvenient may not be imposed in Worship 2. That yet some such things if imposed may be barely submitted to and also lawfully in a Case 3. We are now to go the last step whether they may be submitted to with an unfeigned assent and consent The Explication is only here intended in three words 1. Assent hath respect to the truth of a thing and is an act of the Vnderstanding 2. Consent is an Act of the Will respecting the Goodness of a thing 3. Vnfeigned implies the sincerity and fulness of that Assent

into Errour and Superstition without any delay and with great Authority they may be destroyed by Posterity But Superstition being not in the things used or required but in the persons that superstitiously require or use them grounded in the false Doctrine and Superstitious Opinion which persons have of them how shall we come to know when things are superstitiously abused And then how can we charge our Ceremonies with Superstition Our Rev. Casuist hath given us some rules to try them by pag. 130 c. which we shall apply to the case in hand as we go Only premising these two things 1. That we limit not our Discourse only to the 3 Ceremonies Surplice Cross and Kneeling but enlarge it to any other Rites and Ceremonies Imposed and used in the Publick Worship even to the Liturgy it self which being the Form of divine Service as it is called may be stiled a Grand Ceremony 2. That it must not be expected that all the Rules of Discovery should be applied to every particular Ceremony to prove it superstitious but any one may suffice if rightly applied And now I proceed 1. The first way of Discovery of Superstition is by the 4 Characters thereof given by Learned Divines An Opinion of Merit of Worship of Perfection of Necessity Any one of these found in our Ceremonies will testifie the persons that so use them to be Superstitious 1. Of Merit When to take his own words we think God is bound to reward our Inventions and that by our Purses or Labours we purchase his favour this is Superstition And does not a great Rabbi of our Church whose Learning and Books are not only applauded and admired as Oracles but approved as Orthodox by our Rulers profess openly and confidently It is his Doctrine that Will-worship his Free-will-Offerings are more commendable more acceptable and more rewardable with God then commanded Duties Amongst which Free will Oblations the Liturgy is one great one the only Form of Divine Service as it is called by some and do not the vulgar and many higher persons esteem it to be most commendable most acceptable and consequently most rewardable Service of God and if not with their Purses yet by the labour of their Lips in bearing a part in that Service to purchase his Favour And is not this Superstition If it be rewardable it must be either by some Promise but there is none such in Scripture Or of due Debt Rom. 4. but that is plain Merit there 's no third way to ground the Reward on 2. Of Worship When things are required as parts or of the Essence of Divine Worship or so used this is Superstition But the Liturgy it self is by the Rulers made and called the Form of Divine Worship not a part only but the whole Essence and Substance thereof 2. Ceremonies are esteemed by all Religions Rites of Worship Ceremonial worship and so parts of worship as was proved above 3. They are made by the Imposers Religious not civil Ceremonies and so parts of Religion that is of Worship and so used by many Certainly Kneeling at Sacrament is a part of external worship and so esteemed and used by most 3. Of Perfection When we conceive the true Beauty of the Church and the Perfection of Christianity consisteth in things of humane Invention This is Superstition And do not some on this side Rome place the Perfection of Christianity and the beauty of Religion in Pompous Ceremonies Glorious Temples Sweet and melodious Musick Gawdy Priestly Garments a compleated Liturgy c. And do not many think the Service undecent without a Surplice the Baptism imperfect without the Cross the Sacrament irreverently received without Kneeling Is not this gross superstition 4. Of Necessity When such things are required and so used as simply necessary in their Nature being but things Indifferent This is also Superstition And I pray hath not a Learned Doctor a Late Bishop pleaded the Liturgy to be so necessary that without it there can be no Religion no honesty no Allegiance And do not the Late Commissioners plead a Precept of Scripture for their Ceremonies Not an Allowance only but a Command to institute Ceremonies And is not that necessary In a word does not the Late Act make them so necessary as far as they can that the commanded worship must rather be omitted then any of their humane divine Service omitted that men must not worship God without observation of their Ceremonies Wear a Surplice or pray not preach not Cross the Child or baptize not Kneel or receive not the other Sacrament And for the ordinary users of them it is observable that humane Inventions added to the Worship of God as they are more strictly observed then the prescribed Worship of God Micah 6. ult so after long continuance they are esteemed necessary as falsly supposed to be of Divine Original These are the ordinary Characters of Superstition which I could wish were not too visible spots in the face of our Church But I believe there are more and other waies to discover Superstition then these As 1. To put Holiness in things times places 2. To put vertue efficacy in things which they have not neither in their Natures nor by Divine Institution 3. To put significations upon Ceremonies in Divine Worship Of which more by and by 2. The next Rule is when upon evident and undeniable grounds of General Practise it appears to the sober and unbyassed sort of men that a thing is used superstitiously in any of the former Respects then no doubt there is an appearance of Superstition Now first the Cenerality of our Nation are proved afore to be superstitious in the use of our Liturgy and Ceremonies And for the Learned that conform to them some are known to be Popishly superstitious in Bowing Crossing c. Some are by assed by Profits or Preferments that are gotten or lost thereby Only some few Sober Learned and unbyassed persons are free from the guilt of Superstition sticking to the simplicity of Gospel-worship 3. A third Rule given and most undoubted is Look to the Doctrine of the Church whence the Grounds of Imposition and Practise are drawn If they be false and superstitious then there is an appearance of evil to be avoyded We joyn issue in this also and apply it to the Case in hand 1. The Doctrine of the Church though found in most of the 39 Articles hath yet been scrupled at by Nonconformists in the Institution of Ceremonies and the Doctrine and Power given questioned The Church hath power to Impose Ceremonies see the Article and this is asserted by that great Advocate of this Church cited above and more confidently by a Late Bishop Upon this Principle and bottom are all our Ceremonies and all those at Rome founded and is most certainly false as is proved elsewhere 2. They are held forth in practise as Moral means to excite Devotion and teach and provoke to Duty the Surplice to Purity the Cross to Constancy

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