Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	apostle_n	law_n	transgression_n	5,619	5	10.4785	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A56601	An appendix to the third part of The friendly debate being a letter of the conformist to the non-conformist : together with a postscript / by the same author.; Friendly debate between a conformist and a non-conformist. Part 3, Appendix	Patrick, Simon, 1626-1707.	1670 (1670)	Wing P746; ESTC R13612	87,282	240

those who despised them Augustus Vespasian Titus had prosperous Successes fortunate Reigns but the poor Christians the great enemies of their Gods were dragged continually by the Hang-man to be butchered suffered the most exquisite torments and for three hundred years together were most miserably harased and barbarously used And thus Parsons I remember disputes against all the Protestants from the unhappie success of those Princes which have in any sort opposed themselves to the See of Rome as you may read at large in his Apologetical Epistle e An. 1601 sect 7. none of which I shall now stand to transcribe This is sufficient to shew what may be expected from this New Undertaker who will appear I doubt not as lame in his other reasonings as he doth in this and prove as unfit to determine Cases of Conscience as to make Observations upon Providence For first he doth not fairly and candidly represent that which I said but accuses me of such Resolutions in matters of Conscience as never came into my thoughts I am beholden to him I confess for some good words and for his favourable opinion of me but I could have been well content to have wanted them on condition he would not have said that I am so unkind and so unconscionably untender as to account that no man who transgresses an Act of Parliament can be a good Christian f In the later end of the first page nor askt Whether indeed I think that every transgression of a Realm is no less then a deadly sin There was no occasion for this Question or for that Censure unless he be of the opinion that all sins are equal so that what a man saith concerning the open breach and contempt of one Law is to be applied to all transgressions whatsoever of any Law I never said that no man can be a good Christian that transgresses an Act of Parliament nor that every transgression of a Statute is a deadly sin These are inventions of his own upon occasion onely of a single instance which I gave of Defiance to a Law wherein some men live mark my words g Friendly Debate p. 3. Edit 1. From whence he draws an universal proposition that he might the better conclude me to be a man of no great depth h P. 3 of his Case that looks not to the bottom of a business which lies before him That may very well be true for it is no easie matter But I will try a little how far I can see into this Case concerning the transgression of humane Laws which as I take it depends upon this single point Whether humane Laws binde the Conscience that is whether we sin if we be not obedient to them In the resolving of which he that findes no di●ficulty may well suspect that he doth not fully understand it For if on the one side we say that Conscience is not concerned I beseech you what is Nothing but our common discretion to keep our selves out of the reach of the Princes Sword whose anger and power we may dread but whose commands we need not care a straw for And if on the other side we say that Conscience is concerned and obliged by their Laws then there may follow great perplexities when any thing is commanded that proves a common and an intolerable grievance More difficulties I need not mention of this nature there being no dispute about commands to do sinful things but immediately apply my discourse to the Question And for all that which was last said since there is no greater mischief then disobedience to Laws and nothing can so certainly secure obedience as a sense of duty we must determine that a man is bound to make a conscience of observing the Laws of his Governours which are not contrary to the Laws of God So the holy Scripture it self teaches us to speak when it requires us and makes it necessary to be subject for conscience sake and not onely for wrath Rom. 13.5 that is out of a sense that we cannot be innocent and preserve a good conscience before God unless we be observant of their Laws where we are not pre-ingaged by a higher Authority then theirs The very same is included in those words which require our submission to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake 1 Pet. 2.13 which if we do not yield it is manifest the disobedience is a violation of a General precept of God exacting our obedience to them Insomuch that to set a mans self in opposition to their Laws is by interpretation to oppose the Almighty according to that of the Apostle Whosoever resisteth the Power resisteth the ordinance of God Yes saith this Casuist but will you pronounce thus without any distinction Doth a man commit a deadly sin every time that he transgresses an Act of Parliament I answer That 's without the limits of the Question We are not speaking of the degrees of sin which are of more or less guilt according as the Law is of greater or lesser concernment and as a mans transgression of it is with modestie or with a high hand nor are we considering when and in what cases a Law may cease to oblige and quite alters its nature but whether while it doth oblige and is in force it lays a tye on the Conscience or no and whether all Laws do so or no. And to this we say Yes Laws while they are obligatory do binde the Conscience because the Scripture saith so and we say so indefinitely because that 's the Scripture-language also But stay a little this Gentleman cannot believe that The Scripture saith the Magistrate is Gods minister to us for good Rom. 13.4 Very true and the Apostle makes that an argument why we should be obedient to him because it is much for our profit and benefit But this Casuist turns the words quite another way and makes them an outlet to disobedience by taking that to include an Exception to the General precept of subjection which is in truth Nothing but a Reason to inforce it To countenance which interpretation he tears a little patch out of Bishop Taylor 's Rule of Conscience and would draw him into confederacie with him who accommodates indeed those words of the Apostle to the illustration of a particular case but never intended any such use of them as this man makes as is apparent from the entire Body of his discourse and shall be touched afterward Now let us hear this mans Exception If the Magistrate saith he command that which is for the peoples Good and welfare they are bound in conscience to obey him otherwise they are not bound in conscience but for wrath sake that is because they dare not do as they would and as they may Very well But who shall judge of that I mean whether a Law be for the Publike good or no His Answer is ready at his tongues end for he need not go deep for it The Magistrate must judge what is

very Second Page of his Book gives you a proof of it where he tells you He humbly conceives that every transgression of an humane Law though but Penal is not so culpable or criminous as is pretended Truly I conceive so too that all Offences are not of equal guilt but I must let him know that as I did not pretend every transgression of a Law to be so culpable as the transgression of that I spoke of so I humbly conceive he pretends to skill in the nature of Laws but Penal which he is utterly ignorant of For both that Law which I mentioned and all those that he instances in are more than Penal as is manifest to every one that hath made the least search into these matters A Law that is but Penal as every ordinary Casuist might have taught him * Instead of all let him consult Dr. Sanderson de oblig conscientiae Prael 82. commands nothing but only exacts a Penalty in case a man think fit to do or not to do some things therein expressed As if a man be chosen Alderman of the City of London and refuse to hold the Place he is by a Law among them to pay a Fine to ●●em Which is called a Law but Penal because it doth not require or bind a man to serve this Office he is at liberty whether he will or no it requires only the payment of such a Sum of Money if he think good not to serve So that here indeed to pay the Money doth ordinarily satisfie the Law because a Law-maker binds us only by declaring his will to Oblige us and he declares nothing as his will to oblige a man in this case but the payment of a Fine Which is called a Penalty in a large sense as it is something which a man would not willingly undergo if it were left to his own choise and is imposed on him in stead of another burden which he refuses viz. that of Government But what is this to the Law which I had occasion to mention Which is not of this sort but a Law Mandatory as I may call it requiring them not to inhabite in such and such places Upon which account it is a Moral Law to regulate mens manners and for that cause it is a vertue to obey it and a vice to disobey it Nor doth the addition of a Penalty to it alter its nature For such Laws are a Rule of life given with an intention to oblige men to obedience there being few that know of themselves what is best and most profitable for common life And the Penalty is not to be undergone in stead of the obedience but is added to contain Subjects in their duty by the fear of it because even they who may know what is best will not otherwise do it So that in conclusion such a Law with a Penalty layes a double obligation upon us both ad poenam and ad culpam as they speak to suffer the punishment and to be sinners if we disobey it There is no doubt of the former and it is as unreasonable to question the latter because the Law contains a Command and Sin is nothing but the transgression of a Command which transgression is greater or less according as the will of the Law-maker is more or less to oblige us and that is to be known very much by the greatness or smalness of the Penalty whereby it is enacted to move us to obedience This he might have learnt of Bishop Taylor whom he quotes directly against his meaning For that Question which this man resolves Affirmatively Is it not enough to satisfie the Law to pay the Mulct or Penalty in such Cases p. 3. he answers Negatively And that within a few lines of that very place which this Apologist alledges to a quite contrary sense You may find it in his Holy Living Chap. 3. Sect. 1. Rule 7. which begins thus Do not believe thou hast kept the Law when thou hast suffered the punishment c. Read the rest at your leisure and do not believe this man who abuses the Bishop and wrests his words as their manner is from their meaning The Rule that he mentions being directed to another purpose and expressed in terms flatly against him As long saith the Bishop as the Law is obligatory so long our obedience is due m Ib. Rule the 4. quoted by this Apol. p. 4. c. If obedience be due then I hope it is not sufficient to suffer the Penalty and then this Writer shamefully perverts the sense of that Rule or else doth not understand it which is no more but this that a fixed Custome abrogates a Law and makes our obedience no longer due to it While the Law is in force we sin if we do not obey it but a fixed Custom makes it not to be in force and then we are free from it This is the sense of the Bishop to which nothing need be added but that whilst the Law-giver constantly declares his will that it should oblige no Custom can be pleaded nor excuse be made for doing contrary to it But you think perhaps that he may find some relief in Mr. Perkins whom he also alledges You may try if you please but if you consult the place you will see he had some reason not to tell you where to find it For first he recites his words imperfectly and doth not let you know that Mr. Perkins declares where the Law-maker intends obedience simply the Statutes are necessary to be kept And again that he doth not excuse men from all blame who break some of the lesser local Statutes but only saith Students may in some sort excuse themselves from the sin of Perjury though not from all fault in breaking some of the lesser local Statutes They are his very words in his Second Book of Cases of Conscience Chap. 13. in the latter end But to pass by this That part of his words which he cites are so far from reaching his purpose that they are against him For first the Law-maker intends obedience simply to the Laws that they break as is manifest to all For secondly they are not Laws meerly for Decency and Order which Mr. Perkins speaks of but for the preservation of the being of Christian Society which is destroyed by separation and division And therefore thirdly the Penalty is not as beneficial to the state of the Society as actual Obedience As for that which follows in the end of his Answer to this Question which he repeats again p. 128. it is altogether impertinent For we do not charge them with a bare omission of what our Governours command but with a direct opposition to it and that to the great scandal of the People and contempt of the Royal Authority All which things considered I think in stead of making an Apology for the Non-Conformists he had better have followed the counsel of Alcibiades to his Uncle when he found him busie about his Accounts which was