Selected quad for the lemma: act_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
act_n	command_n	command_v	lawful_a	2,968	5	9.4987	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A54076	Usury stated being a reply to Mr. Jelinger's Usurer cast whereto are adjoyned, some animadversions on Mr. Bolton's and Mr. Capel's discourses, concerning the same subject / written by T.P.	T. P.	1679 (1679)	Wing P122; ESTC R39078	124,005	274

himself De Jure p. 10. This is spoken not by way of check to his power but in that it carries an inconsistency to his will and holy nature I shall borrow somewhat more from the same Author on this Subject The Law of Nature is the dictate of right reason shewing an Act to have either a moral turpitude or moral necessity from its convenience or disconvenience with a rational nature and consequently such an Act to be either forbidden or commanded by God the Author of nature The actions concerning which there is such a dictate extant are lawful or unlawful in themselves and therefore are understood to be necessarily commanded or forbidden by God By which mark this Law differs not only from Mans Law but from the Divine voluntary which doth not command or forbid those things which in themselves and of their own nature are either lawful or unlawful but makes them unlawful by forbidding lawful by commanding Again Yet it sometimes comes to pass p. 4. that in those Acts wherein the light of Nature doth determine somewhat a certain shadow of change deceiveth the Non-observant when in truth the Law of Nature is not changed it being unchangeable but the thing of which the Law of nature doth determine receives some change e. g. If a Creditor c. So if God command any to be slain if what is anothers to be taken away Murder or Theft will not become Lawful these words carrying sinfulness within them but it shall not be murder or theft which is done by the Authority of the supream Lord of Life and Goods Thus far Grotius And indeed how can this be a dispensing with the Law of nature the highest Law of nature it self being that God must be obeyed unless we should imagine one of natures Laws to be contrary to another Lastly There is one difference more to be observed between the instances brought and what they suppose Usury to be for they assert Usury to be In it self and by the Law of nature unlawful such as Adultery Mr. B. p. 47. p. 13. p. 45. Lying and Theft is Again Biting is individual and essential to the nature of it And from the Schoolmen Vsury is a sin not only in it self but according to it self and therefore cannot be made good by any Circumstance Will they say the like of taking away the Goods or Life of another Are these so sinful in themselves and against the Law of nature that they can be made good by no Circumstances We see they were made good by the Command of God we know they may be made good by the Magistrates lawful Warrant And therefore it appears the instances will not reach the mark unless he had instanced in Theft and Murder which carry a natural sinfulness in them but neither of these could be affirmed of Abrahams killing his Son or of the Israelites spoyling the Aegyptians Concerning the latter of these It is commonly taken for granted that the Israelites Fact had been sinful secluding the special Command of God for their so doing and according to this supposition I have formed my Answer foregoing However I think I need not have granted so much but have called in question their supposition I know it was the extraordinary injunction of Jehovah put them upon the fact but doubt whether it were for this end to legitimate that which had been otherwise sinful Let us see what the Israelites did saith our Translation Exod. 12.35 36. They borrowed of the Egyptians Jewels of Silver c. And was not this fact of borrowing in it self lawful After they had thus borrowed the Egyptians were urgent upon them and thrust them out of the Land in haste Gen. 3.22 Presently after this grant saith Diodate the Egyptians moved War against the Israelites and did unjustly assault them so that by right their spoils belonged to the Victors who were assaulted which was brought to pass by Gods secret providence to recompence his people for the slavery they had endured in Egypt The word translated to borrow is Shaal which primarily signifies to ask so rendred by Diodate so by Junius and Tremelius God bad the People ask of the Egyptians Instruments of Silver and Gold and Raiment was not the thing in it self lawful even antecedent to the special Command from God if you say they asked with a promise of restoring that cannot be proved and that had been a lye in them and therein they had gone beyond the Command if it be urged the Egyptians designed to lend only and not to give neither can that be proved They gave to them asking dederunt eis petentibus say Jun. and Trem. Exod. 12.36 neither is it likely they should deliver these Jewels c. with such an intent when the Israelites were just upon taking their farewel of them If it be demanded how came it to pass that the Egyptians were so free and liberal The Scripture it self will remove this scruple The Lord gave the People favour in the sight of the Egyptians so that they gave them what they asked The Lord inclined the hearts of the Egyptians to be thus free and bountiful if it be again urged that they are said to spoil the Egyptians that is but spoken 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and relates to the event rather than to the action spoiling properly signifying a hostile forcible taking away of anothers Goods which in this case was not but this may receive some farther light by comparing it with Gen. 31.9 Thus God said Jacob hath taken away the Cattle of your father and given them to me If it be again inquired what was Gods intent in putting the Israelites upon this demanding instruments of Silver c. I answer God had then the building of his Sanctuary in his eye whereto much of the things they received proved serviceable and was after consecrated for all was not cast away upon the Golden-Calf Having spoken of that Question that concerned the Israelites borrowing what I thought requisite to remove that rub out of the way I return to attend Mr. B. Mr. B. God appointed his People to destroy the Canaanites and it was fittest by little and little usurie was therefore a fit Consumption so to eat them out Reply 1. Believe it he that can I can call this no other than a groundless furmise as having no footing on reason or Scripture the latter not affording the least discovery that any of the Cursed Nations were eaten out by this means 2. Neither will the conjecture receive any help from Reason Suppose a Command given to the English to shew no kindness to any of their neighbour Nations but to destroy them utterly and root them out would any think that this Command were obeyed by lending to them upon Usury or that this were a likely means to effect it 3. If you look to the end of the Command for extirpation seems it likely that the Jews might lawfully exercise converse with the Cursed Nations in