Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	king_n	power_n	supremacy_n	2,252	5	10.5244	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A03516	Usury is injury Cleared in an examination of its best apologie, alleaged by a countrey minister, out of Doctor Ames, in his Cases of conscience, as a party and patron of that apologie. Both answered here, by Nath: Holmes, Dr. in Divinity.	Homes, Nathanael, 1599-1678.	1640 (1640)	STC 13638; ESTC S104177	30,514	54

repealed them Then God hath much more that power The third particular reply is That in the judgement of most learned men the reason of this dispensation viz. the leave the Jewes had to slay the Canaanites doth the more shew the vilenesse and cruelty of Vsury First let us heare Master Capel that we may knit this to that which was but quoted of him that he may the better cleare himselfe The thing is saith Master Capel There was a Law to kill the Canaanite and yet I hope that killing was not murther No more was that Vsury a sinne to them Next let us heare Master Willet backing himselfe with the judgements and reasons of the Fathers if it be objected saith Master Willet that God permitted the Hebrewes to take Vsury of the Gentiles therefore it was not simply unlawfull To this saith he it may be answered that they were those seven Nations of the Canaanites of whom they might take Vsury which Nations they were commanded to destroy and so by this meanes they might weaken their estate and impoverish them Whereupon saith Master Willet Ambrose inferreth Ab hoc Vsuram exige quem non sit crimen occidere r And cui jure inferuntur arma huic legitima indicuntur Vsura And so saith he Augustine also concludeth Non minus crudelis qui pauperem trucidat f●nore quam qui eripit diviti Adde to these Simler Vbi jus belli ibi jus Vsurae Si enim omnis Vsura esset intrinsecè ac suâ naturâ mala D. Ames tum non potuere Iudaei à gentibus accipere Vsuras sine scandalo gravi quo gentes averterentur à religione ac lege Iudaeorum quae admitteret rem illicitam tanquam licitam i.e. For if all Vsury intrinsecally and in its owne nature were evill then the Jewes could not have taken Vsury of the Gentiles without great scandall to the averting of the Gentiles from the religion and law of the Jewes tolerating a thing unlawfull By the same reason we may say Replicatio If theft had beene intrinsecally and in its owne nature unlawfull then the Jewes could not have borrowed of the Egyptians jewels not repaying them without great scandall whereby the Egyptians might be turned away from the religion and Law of the Jewes which did admit of a thing unlawfull in the opinion of the Egyptians to be as lawfull But we know that theft was simply and in its owne nature unlawfull notwithstanding this dispensation So was Usury notwithstanding that permission For 〈◊〉 this borrowing of jewels as that lending upon Usury was an act of distributive justice to justly punish male factors as enemies of the common state of the Church not belonging to commutative justice of trading and trafficking borrowing lending c. 2 We are not to examine Gods Lawes by the uncertaine rule of scandall taken by gracelesse men ſ For the Gospel and the liberty thereof was a scandall to the Iewes foolishnesse to the Gentiles 1 Cor. 1. but rather by the holinesse and uprightnesse of Gods will which we know to be so perfect that the lawes and dispensations it dictates cannot be condemned of scandall-giving 3 We know murther was simply unlawfull And no doubt but the Canaanites would take great offence at Jew Jewish religion if the Jews invading their Kingdomes would kill any of the Canaanites yet neither of these reasons made it unlawfull or inconvenient God giving them this liberty to kill destroy all Jericho and Ay c So nor the law against theft nor offence that might be taken by the Gentile made it unlawfull or inconvenient for the Jew to pick the Cannaanites pocket by Usury seeing they might doe more by divine dispensation viz. cut their throats as an act of just war The Kings law is still current that murther and robbing is felony and death though he sends his officer to take away the life and goods of one that is not to be owned for a free Denison but rather standing under a forraine power denying the Kings Supremacy as Jesuites c. So the Canaanites denied the Israelites to have any right to Canaan or authority over them and therefore the Jewes took their lives or goods or both as forfeited without prejudice to the simple unlawfulnesse of murther theft Usury c. 4 This toleration in stead of taking offence might probably bring in the Canaanites to turne to the Jewish Religion For when they saw no Jewes life or goods in jeopardy by war and Usury but the Cananites they might reason within themselves who would be a Canaanite and not a Jew Seeing that which is simply illicitum unlawfull among the Jewes and their confederates is counted as a lawfull act and execution of common justice upon a Canaanite to take away his goods by Usury nay Neshech biting Usury and his life by warre For so in Deut. 23.19 Of thy brother thou shalt not take 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Neshech but vers 20. extraneo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tashich foenerabis which Tashich is of the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to take Neshech biting Usury which Doctor Ames condemned as simply unlawfull Huc etiam referri potest D. Ames quod maximè probabile sit ex parabola illa de Talentis Matth. 25.27 Non tantum in vulgari usu fuisse apud Iudaeos mensariorum aliquod foenus sed etiam à Domino non fuisse improbatum quia sub illa similitudine exigit officium spirituale sine ulla infinuatione alicujus improbationis qualem in aliis parabolis quae ab usu improbato officium illustrabant solebat adhibere Luc. 16.8 i. e. Thither may be referred that likely conjecture out of the Parable Matth. 25.27 viz. that not only there was a certaine Usury among the Jewes commonly used by the money-changers but also that it was not disallowed of the Lord because under that similitude he requireth a spirituall duty without any intimation of disallowing it which he was wont to expresse in other parables illustrating a duty from or by some disallowable act Luk. 16.8 Replicatio As for the Parable of the Talents I never heard any learned Divine or any other Christian urge it but those that are Usurers in the behalfe of Usury For if the Text be well weighed the comparison smites Usury For this comparison was not used but upon a speciall occasion of retortion The man of one Talent alleageth for his idlenesse the unreasonablenesse of th● Master that he reaped where he sowed not Why then saith the Master if thou hadst thought so indeed or if I had beene so indeed thou shouldst and wouldst have runne upon unreasonable wages of bringing in advantage to me even to have put my money to Use to give me content but because thou didst not doe so it is evident that thou didst not take me for a cruell Master but rather presumedst on my clemencie and so didst not by honest gaine peruse my