Selected quad for the lemma: reason_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
reason_n	law_n	sin_n	transgression_n	2,676	5	10.9658	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94081	An essay in defence of the good old cause, or A discourse concerning the rise and extent of the power of the civil magistrate in reference to spiritual affairs. With a præface concerning [brace] the name of the good old cause. An equal common-wealth. A co-ordinate synod. The holy common-wealth published lately by Mr. Richard Baxter. And a vindication of the honourable Sir Henry Vane from the false aspersions of Mr. Baxter. / By Henry Stubbe of Ch. Ch. in Oxon.	Stubbe, Henry, 1632-1676.; Stubbe, Henry, 1632-1676. Vindication of that prudent and honourable knight, Sir Henry Vane, from the lyes and calumnies of Mr. Richard Baxter, minister of Kidderminster.	1659 (1659)	Wing S6045; Thomason E1841_1; ESTC R209626	97,955	192

this triall there is no mention of the Tetragrammaton or sacred name yet the whole assembly unanimously condemns our Saviour for blasphemy against one of the Sacred attributes which is manifestly expressed in the text in the words Sitting at the right hand of power Vid. Selden loco citato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Power or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being by the Jewish Rabbines a thousand times reckoned amongst the attributes of God I am further to observe that the Iewes did not reckon materiall blasphemy such as is wickedness of life or the profession of a religion or way inconsistent with the truth for to be the blasphemy that was to be punished with death Thus the Blind man Ioh. 9. who avowed Christ to be no sinner but a Prophet and of God was not impleaded or condemned as guilty of blasphemy and so to dye but he was excommunicated or excluded from the converse of the Iewes And the Disciples in the Acts. ch 4. 5. though they preached that Iesus was the Christ and that Salvation was to be had onely in his name and that God had exalted him with his RIGHT HAND to be a prince and a Saviour c. yet were not they charged with blasphemy or represented as guilty of death So Paul in his declaration whatever he lay down it was not imputed to him as blasp●emous for then the people would have rent their cloaths instead of casting them off and have said he was guilty of death and not Away with such a fellow from the earth it is not fit that he should live Acts 22. v. 22 23. from whence it may be gathered what opinion the Iewes had of the Messiah that one might avowe himself to be or that another was such yet not be guilty of blasphemy or death for such his assertion yet as a sower of sedition such might be punished with stripes or imprisonment Acts 4. v. 3. Acts 24. v. 5. for if they had taught openly that Christ did sit at the right hand of power or glory as Steven Acts 7. v. 55 56 57. or had said he was the Son of God they would not have spared the Disciples who condemned the Master upon that score and told Pilate We have a law and by our law he ought to dye because he made himself the Son of God Joh. 19.7 It is very considerable how by the same law whereby Christ was condemned for blasphemy by the Iewes in asserting his deity by the same law are the Socinians condemned now for denying his deity We ought then to be very tender in committing the interpretative power of such lawes to any sort of men least analogicall blasphemy retrench upon the truth Formall blasphemy or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 maledictio seu execratio ejusdem reproachfull language or cursing of the Sacred name was counted blasphemy by them and as such prohibited viz. When the Hol●ness Power Verity Quando sanctitas potesias veritas unitas numinis aut convitio ultro ac diserte prosciaditur aut ex professione actuve aliquo palam ac procaciter negari consequenter deprehendi●ur Selden de jur natur l. 2. c. 11. and Unity of God was either reviled willfully and expresly or by some action or declaration in a way of consequence openly and malepertly denyed Of the former sort was the blasphemy of Rabshekah 2. King 8.30 Isai 36.15 And of Shelomith's Son Levit. 24.13 and that of which Naboth was accused 2 King 21. v. 10.13 the Chaldee having it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to blesse or curse according to the foregoing sense Of the second sort or consequentiall blasphemy which was not to depend upon subtile consequences deduced from words or actions innocently spoken and performed and without any evill intention or through errour as any man may prove out of Mr. Selden de jur natur l. 2. c. 11. it was accounted such if any one without lapsing himself into idolatry or embracing strange worships for that was comprised by the Iews under the precept of Idolatry was also reputed a consequential blasphemy did perswade others thereunto or profess the lawfulness equity thereof himself and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an high hand Ex prot●rvia n●n ex ignor●ntia seu disciplinae errore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of malepertnesse not ignorance or mistake in judgment Or if any Israelite did in such manner violate the Law of Moses or a son of Noah living among the Jews under an established politie in Judaea transgress the precepts of N●ah not out of weakness or hasty seductions of natural concupiscence or error but because he peevishly and malepertly refuses to acknowledge his obligation to the contrary or doth not reverence the Authority Power Vnity and Verity of God so commanding or prohibiting that is he denies it all in very deed willingly wilfully and with an high hand and despises it This is the doctrine of the Jews and to this doth that precept referre Numb 15.30 The soul that shall do with an high hand 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proudly and insolently the Chaldee hath it with an uncovered head 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether he be home-born or stranger the same reproacheth or blasphemeth Jehovah and that soul shall be cut off from among his people By all this that hath been alleadged as the doctrine of the Jews together with their practice in our Saviours time this Law of Blasphemy and Idolatry is particular to the Jews living under their proper polity in the land God gave them and extends coercively no farther nor therein to any consequential or figurative remote Idolatry and blasphemy proceeding from probable reasons or weaknesse of judgement or the like so that for ought I can see since neither the Scripture nor Jewish Doctors inform us what a Supream Magistrate over the sons of Noah ought to do in such cases and since in dubious matters it is best to be cautious I believe notwithstanding all this Law a Toleration must necessarily be granted But to give a punctual answer to these Laws It is evident that they are part of the Political Law of Moses and not comprized in the Moral Law I mean as to the punishment inflicted upon the Transgressor for the Moral Law It is the opinion of many Iews and also of Theodoret that the first part of one text in controversie viz. Levi● 24.15 Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin that by this text even Idolaters were prohibited to blaspheme their gods Which interpretation as it is highly probable and conformable to reason and usage so it shews that there may be a rule to evidence a transgression yet not inferre a temporal punishment for none of them prove any punishment to have been inflicted thereupon but that the offender should hear his sin The like in stances may be brought from several Laws the breach whereof was

was not nor is now changed The Petition of right and other laws in being had already deposed Monarchy and we were onely to improve not create a Republick They who manage these objections had reduced us to that posture as a very little alteration in an invidious name and some other circumstances might secure the people in those Privile●ges and immunities from which they would not recede Whereas it is said further That the Soveraignty being mixed or distributed into the Hands of King Lords and Commons no part had Authority to change the Constitution I shall not aske these men How the Commons came to be admitted to share in that mixture of Government But to me it is indubitable that since the end of the establishing a King and Lords was the welfare of the people and Commons whatever distribution of Government may have been enacted yet it is the end that regulates the meanes and renders them useless and rejectaneous upon occasion and hereof either the Commons must be Judges who feele the Pressing inconveniences of the meanes controverted or else they who reape advantages by such deviations and grievances and who are too much interessed to determine aright If Pharaoah may judge he will say the Israelites are idle rather then oppressed with burdens If there be any yet so obstinately perverse as to explode the Title upon this account yet cannot any deny but that it is an Old as well as Good cause in opposition to the Instrument and that most non-sensicall paper called the petition and advise of such a juncto as must never be reputed of hereafter but with the infamy of Parlamentum indoctorum or a Parliament that lacked learning and wit or Honesty and it is so farre from impossibility that it is not abfur'd for the same thing in a different respect to be New and Old I shall illustrate this by something which if it be in it 's own nature lesse convincing yet it is not to be rejected by our most implacable Adversaries How often have our Parliaments declared this or that to be a fundamentall right and the birth-right of the subject which yet is not to be found established or bottomed upon any thing but that claim antecedent to our constituted laws whereunto Nature doth imbolden us That which the Parliament under the first acknowledged cause did avowe as the fundamentall constitution of this Kingdom that the Soveraignety thereof was mixed in a King and two Houses of Lords and Commons with severall other things of the like nature cannot be justifyed but by such a defence since the Monarchy is supposed to be founded at the Conquest or if we will rise higher yet will no enquiry direct us to a mixture of Soveraignety such as the Commons fundamentally share in there being no such order of Estates if I may so call it untill Henry the first and for their power it may be better disputed then proved by any other way then what will evince Our Cause to be Old as well as their priviledges c. Fundamentall I cannot informe my self of any other manner whereby to justify that Protestation of the Commons which is recorded by Dr. H●ylin in his Ad●e●t sement on the History of the Reigne of K. James And Rushworth in his collections The protestation of the Commons Jac. 19. 1621. THe Commons now assembled in Parliament being justly occasioned thereunto concerning sundry Liberties Franchises and Priviledges of Parliament among others here mentioned do make this Protestation following That the Liberties Franchises Priviledges and Jurisdiction of Parliament are the ancient and undoubted Birth-right and inheritance of the Subjects of England and that the arduous and urgent affaires concerning the King state and defense of the Realme and of the Church of England and the maintenance and making of Laws and redresse of mischief and grievances which daily happen within this Realme are proper subjects and matter of Counsell and debate in Parliament And that in the handling and proceeding of those businesses every member of Parliament hath and of right ought to have Freedom of Speech to propound treat reason and bring to conclusion the same And that the Commons in Parliament have likewise Liberty and Freedom to treat of the matters in such order as in their judgment shall seem fittest and that every member of the said house hath like Freedom from all impeachment imprisonment and molestation other then by censure of the House it self for or concerning any speaking reasoning or declaring any matter or matters touching the Parliament or Parliament businesse And that if any of the said Members be complained of and questioned for any thing done or said in Parliament the same is to be shewed to the King by the Advise and assent of all the Commons assembled in Parliament before the King give credence to any priv●te Information This and many other Parliamentary expressions though True In the Civil Law he wh● was mode compleatly fere and one of the ingenui though his Mother had been and were a Servant or bond-woman and his birth Servile yet upon such his enfranchisement he was said natalibus restitui to be restored to his BIRTH-RIGHT that is not to such as he was borne to by his immediate parentage but such as appertained to him by descendence from Adam L. 2. D. de natalib restituend as it is cited by Selden de jur natur l. 2. c. 4. p. 163. just and equitable in former and later days can in my judgment be no better verifyed then the Old cause when most disadvantageously looked upon as being no otherwise Laws Priviledges and undoubted Birth-rights then that they should and ought to be so But to proceed I often communing with my own soul in private use to parallell our bondage under the Norman yoak and our deliverance there from to the continuance of the children of Israell in Egypt and their escape at last from that sla●ish condition and as the severall providences attending them in their journey into the land of promise have created in me thoughts of resembling mercies and distractions that have befallen us in our progresse to Freedom so particularly the late dispute about the Good Old cause did cause in me some reflexions upon the course which Moses tooke to disengage the people of the Lord in those days from their servitude God tells Moses that he would bring the Israelites out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Can●anites to dwell there Exod. 3. v. 10 16 17 18. And this Message he was to impart unto the Elders of Israel Yet withall as Philo Judeus saith and the circumstances of the text render it certain he is commanded he and the Elders of Israel to say unto the King of Egypt the Lord God of the Hebrews hath met with us and now let us go we beseech thee three days journey into the wildernesse that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God Exod. 4. v. 29. So Moses gathered together all the Elders of

yea he himself was in part an Eutychian of the Aphthartodocitae Justinian made an edict in the behalf of the Eat●●h ans a●●●tle before he dyed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophanes nor can the most favourable Historian tell what to make of him whether he were ever real or not in his governing setting up Anthinius then pulling him down aagin at the instance of Agapetus Bishop of Rome whom yet when he reproved him he told He was Emperour and might do what he pleased All which is acknowledged by Jos Simlerus in his Collection of those that wrote against Eutyches fol. 8. The same Emperour hath abused the World vilely in his Collections of old Lawes for he left out many good ones Vide Cont. lect suoser l. 1. c. 9. inserted many bad and notwithstanding Protestations to the contrary imposed upon his predecessours such lawes as they never made yea the contrary whereof they enacted and then decreed none should quote any of such lawes but out of his compilations upon pain of being prosecuted as a falsifier of such imperiall lawes as he had basely miscited and they might disprove out of the Codex Gregorianus Hermogenianus and Theodosianus of the two former Codes we have now so little knowledg that we ignore whence they had their names both are lost together with above half of the Code of Theodosius none being willing to transcribe them which they could not alledg for their adantage nor so curious in an age not too inquisitive as to preserve them for meer antiquity-sake And this is the reason why we have no more lawes recorded nor no better account of things then we have yea so many falsifications of lawes men being as good at that as at scattering false Creeds and Gospels and Epistles that I shall not value what can be produced in opposition to what I have laid down though some should publish more then Pamelius the Papist hath wrote against Toleration Shall I trust him in the great affaires of Christianity and self-interest who cosens me de stillicidiis c. Shall I suppose him honest where he had the highest motives possible to cheat and yet know his forgeries in cases of little or no moment Ad populum phaleras Besides it is considerable that no Emperour can be alledged for persecutions who did not make his decrees as Authentique as the word of God so that their Lawes are called Oracles Sacred decrees c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nostrae majestatis oracula divales litterae nostrum numen perennitas divinitas and a thousand such like elogies do they assume and Ecclesiasticall writers give them as may be seen in the Theodosian Code Mallela c. On the other side I hope I shall not be troubled to give any character of the Emperours I have insisted on out of the writers of those dayes they areall called Divi or Saints as you may see in Onuphrius's fasti Constantine is called the Divine and Faithfull c. Jovianus the most Christian Valentinian the Orthodox c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mallela 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mallela 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mallela 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Id. yea the most divine the most just and most severe The latter whereof is his constant elogie in Mallela so Valens the most Divine though my Author confesse him to have been an Arian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gratian the most pious Theodosius the most Divine and Religious I could produce much more full testimonies in their behalf if I thought any were so ignorant as to demand it If any shall reply that those were but the complyances of Christians in a necessitous condition and not being able to suppresse the Heathen they did permit them I doubt not but they who are most ready to object thus will be no lesse forward to affirme that they ought not to engage into a sinfull complyance and such must this of theirs have been since the laws made are enforced with reasons sundry of them it was their declared judgement both under persecution and after when they had gained the Superiority and Empire I shall once again repeat the Testimony of Tertullian ad Scapulam It is our property humane equity naturall right to allowe each man to worship what he thinkes fit Tamen humani ●uris naturalis potestatis unicuique quod pu●averit colere nec al●i obest aut prodesi alterius religio sed nec religi●nis est cogere religionem quae sp●nte suscipi debeat non vi cum hostiae ab animo libenti ●ae os●ul●ntúr Ita eis● nos compul ritis ad secrificandum nihil prae●t bi●is diis vest●is ab invi● t is enim Sacrificia non desiderabunt nisi si contentiosi sunt contentiosus autem Deus non est no man can receive benefit or prejudice by the religion of another Besides it is not consistent with Religion to force men thereunto since that ought to be embraced voluntarily and not by compulsion even sacrifices are not acceptable if not tendered by a willing mind Thus though you should compell us to Sacrifice to your Gods yet will you do them no service for they will not require Sacrifices from the unwilling unlesse they be contentious and if they are contentious they are no Gods Is this the language of a man who intends a bare complyance Are these reasons suiting with the designes of one who would suppresse the Heathen as soon as he should have power and opportunity Were they Pagan-Gods onely which required sincerity of heart and reall affections with their oblations Is it that religion only which excludes compulsion Must those Deities only be destroyed if they are contentious Either what Tertullian said is to be understood absolutely and universally or he did very ill in refusing to sacrifice to false Gods and yet violating his obedience to the true one by such notorious prevarication After that they came to the Soveraignty and that those Christians who before if we may believe Tertullians's rant were in a posture to dispute their sufferings with them which persecuted them had now gained Authority on their side and a fair accessionall of strength did they then meerly comply when they might and my adversaries will say ought to have suppressed the Pagans surely Lactantius who lived to see the Christians afflicted under Diocletian and flourishing under Constantine to whose son Crispus he was Tutour and to which Emperour he dedicated particularly his Book de justitiâ in the twentieth chapter whereof after you have observed with Xystus Betullius in his notes that the Roman Pont●fices seu minores sou maxim flamines augures item reges sacrificuli Non est opus vi in●uria quia religio co●i non potes v●rb●s poti us qu●m verberibus res agend● est ut s●● luntas Quid ergo saeviunt ut

punished with excision or cutting off or the Law of Nature may lead us to condemn what it doth not enjoyn us to punish at least not this or that particular way This is evident as to the case in hand from the practise of sundry Nations and even that commandment which taught the Iew to keep the Sabbath and to condemn its breakers did not teach them what punishment they should inflict upon them Thus he that had gathered sticks upon that day was put in ward because it was not declared what should be done unto him Philo Judaeus de vita Mosis lib. 3. And the Lord said unto Moses The man shall surely be put to death all the Congregation shall stone him Numb 15.34 35. So the Blasphemer son of Shelomith though he had sinned against the Law delivered in the Mount Exod. 20.7 yet was he put in ward that the minde of the Lord might be shewed them and God commanded he should be stoned Levit. 24.12.16 Nor doth the example of God so punishing inferre that we ought to do in the like manner God by Moses punished Theft which is a breach of the Moral Law with a four-fold restitution amongst the Iews Exod. 22. v. 1. Luc. 19.8 Yet Mr. Selden shews how the strangers in Israel were punished for thievery with death as also amongst us they are Nor do I finde the usage to be condemned though every pettit transgression of the Sabbath we do not punish with death This then being a Political Law it cannot oblige us but upon the account of common equity and not as a part of the Iewish Polity for then all the judicial Law would be introduced into Christianity and since common equity nor the example of God doth not determine necessarily of the greatness and manner of the punishment I conceive a moderation requisite lest for the uncertain satisfying of one Law we run the certain hazard of breaking another which is that of committing no murther This will much more appear if we consider that the prohibition Exod. 22. v. 20. Is directly against Sacrificing which he that shall expound to be any sort of worship which is commanded not to be appayed to other Gods but Jehovah It is very hard measure and a Zeal not according to knowledge that because the law may without retre●ching upon impossibility be expounded so therefore the man must dye speaks more then is in the Text or can be necessarily deduced from any other places of Scripture wherein if it be sometimes used for worship in generall it doth not follow that it is alwayes so used and consequently that it must but that it may be so here The whole is a fallacious arguing from the punishment of one determinate species or kind of transgression with death to the punishment of all that agree therewith in a more large and genericall relation Adultery may be and is by our lawes punished more severely then fornication yet are both forbidden by the same commandement As for the place in Deut. c. 13. it is directed against prophets and dreamers things not to be heard of in our dayes in which those delusions as well as gifts are ceased and that of Deut 17. v. 2. c. is a punishment of corporall adorations and service paid to the Sun Moon and host of Heaven of which I know not nor do I hear of any among us However since this text thus urged maketh against Paganisme and its toleration I desire that not onely the practise of the Jewes but of the primitive Christian Emperours be considered and it will be evident how they did not think themselves concluded thereby It is no good argument which doth not weigh all circumstances the opponent must prove that all Common-wealths must be as to this point like unto that of Israel that their Magistrates have the same duty incumbent upon them though by the way to destroy Idolaters and seducers thereunto Hebraeorum meribus Hebraeus a Deo Dei lege deficiens aut ducem se ad f●lsos cultus praeb●ns Deut 13. ● illico a quovis homine poterat interfici Judicium Z●l● id vocabant Hebraei quod a Phinea primo exercitum aiunt Num. 25. inde ablisse in morem Sic Jud●um quendam Graecis se polluentem ritibus occidit Matthias 2 Maccab. 24. Sic trecen●i alii Judaei a p●pularibus suis occisi reseruntur libro qui vulgo dicitur Maccabaeorum tertius Nec alio obtentu instituta lapidatio in Stephanum Act. 7.57 conjuratio in Paulum Act. 23.13 multaque alia exempla eiusmo●i ex●ant apud Philonem apud I osephum Grotius de iur bell l. 2. c. 20. §. 8. was no Magistraticall act and what wonder is it if Jehu Josiah and Elijah do that which any member of that politicall constitution might doe And that the same power not only ought to be but is actually enstated in them And when they shall have proved this we shall grant them liberty of extirpating their Idolatrous subjects In the mean while I desire it may be observed that though it be argued out of the Text Deut. 13. v. 10 11. that the precept is urged with a perpetuall reason therefore its force is everlasting Cur ob eum finem perlata lex dicitur que perpetuò valere debet Sic enim scribitur in extrema lege Vt omnes Israelitae audiant timeant nè deinceps rem adeò nefandam designent Beza de pun haeret Thou shalt stone him with stones that he dye because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God And all Israell shall hear and fear and shall do no more any such wickednesse as this is among you The latter part of which words however Beza would make them to be a reason for the Action yet from the words I can gather no more then that God to whom nothing is hid saith that by way of event it shall happen that such exemplary punishments shall be attended with the consequent of Israel's obedience nor will collation of texts help us to any more full and also necessary deduction And as for the former part because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God though I should grant the reason to be perpetuall yet doth not it therefore in Scripture ratiocination follow that the law is to be perpetual Such is the case of abstaining from blood Levit 17. v. 10 11 13 14. not to instance in other laws is not that of the Sabbath enforced with a perpetuall reason as to the determinat day and yet do not Divines absolve us from the obligation thereof Is it not now as true as ever that in Six dayes the Lord made Heaven and Earth and rested the seventh day wherefore he blessed the Seventh day and hallowed it As for Mysticall or Figurative Idolatry I understand not how this text can with any pretense be urged against it unlesse they will find out some Analogicall punishment