Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
cause_n case_n civil_a law_n 1,412 5 4.9298 4 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A31198 The case of usury further debated, in a letter to the author of usury stated. T. P. 1684 (1684) Wing C1192; ESTC R213538 29,746 40

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

as warrantable in point of Conscience but forbids taking more than six per Gent. Yea the very Act of the 13th of Q. Eliz. concerning Usury begins thus Forasmuch as all Vsury forbidden by God is Sin and detestable c. And in the Statute of Jac. 21. there is this Proviso which you make reply to Pag. 109. Provided that no words in this Law contained shall be construed or expounded to allow the practice of Vsury in point of Religion or Conscience And the Import of your Reply to it I conceive to be this That tho the Law do not allow the practice of Usury in point of Religion or Conscience 't is sufficient that it doth allow it in civil Commerce and that it appertained not to a Civil Court as the Parliament is to determine whether a Man may practise it in point of Conscience or no To which you add If the Civil Law forbids Flesh in Lent the use thereof at that time in point of Conscience remains lawful as before Pray consider how well you have follow'd your own Argument and whether to apply your way of managing it to the case in hand the Consequence of it must not be this That altho the Law allow the practice of Usury in civil Commerce the thing however in point of Conscience is the same as it was before notwithstanding what the Law says of it either one way or other And yet you seem to put a great Stress upon the Law in this matter of Usury as if Conscience might be influenc'd and satisfy'd thereby and there were no difference between Legitimum and Licitum particularly p. 105. Let it be consider'd forasmuch as Propriety receives its limitation and application from humane Laws whether any Man hath not the same Right to Six per Cent. in this Land that lends his Money as any one has to his Lands and Tenements or any Goods he enjoys by virtue of the Laws You may be pleased to remember that the Question Whether Gain covenanted for Loan be lawful or no is not to be understood whether it be lawful by Human but by Divine Law And you say with reference to the Law which forbids Flesh in Lent that the use thereof at that time in point of Conscience remains lawful as before What Obligation human Laws have on the Conscience needs not here to be disputed for the Law does not command any Man to take Use But to return to your Instance If the Law forbidding Flesh in Lent don't alter that case in point of Conscience how comes it to pass that it should have such an Influence here in point of Conscience You say Pag. 106. It appertains to these Laws to state and appoint as at what rate Gold and Silver shall be valuable so also what rate Money lent shall bear I would grant what you say if there had been no more declar'd in Scripture concerning lending of Money than there is at what rate Gold and Silver shall be valu'd What you quote Dr. Hammond for Pag. 1●5 respects another Case far different from this sc That Christ's Kingdom is not of this World that he came not to interpose in Secular Affairs such as are the Proprieties of Men but disclaimed having any thing to do to be a Judg or Divider among Men. Are there no Rules then and Laws in Scripture that concern human Contracts Does God's Word no where interpose in Secular Affairs but leave all to Man's Determination Our Saviour while he was here would not be a Judg but keep to his own Calling doth it thence follow that the Law of God doth not interpose in Secular Affairs These Words of Dr. Hammond are applied by him to confute those who do found all Propriety in Grace so as to justify all their Rapins and Invasions on the Estates of those whom they did look upon to be wicked depriving them of their most lawful Rights and Possessions meerly upon this pretence because they were unholy and laying claim thereto themselves as being gracious Persons and thereby priviledg'd to enter upon and take Possession of any carnal Man's Inheritance How little does this agree to the purpose you produce it for And yet this same Argument you urge again Pag. 247. and would prove it by this of Dr. Hammond Do you think that there are not such Laws in some Countries or that there may not be such a Law as will allow of unjust Gain I mean such Gain as is forbidden by God's Word And will not such Gain remain sinful and unwarrantable still notwithstanding any human Law concerning it If so then this is no certain Rule that a Man may safely take all that the Law will permit him to take Yea Dr. Ames himself who holds Usury lawful to which purpose you have quoted him in divers places yet among his Cautions lays down this That it is the safest Course for him that puts out his Money not to require all that he may by Law but to keep within that which the Law permits And Bp Taylor whose Authority you have made use of as a Favourer of your Cause in his Ductor dubitantium lib. 3. cap. 3. pag. 571. on Quest 5. Whether is to be obeyed the Prince or the Bishop if they happen to command contrary things says The latter is to be obeyed in case what the Civil Law enacts be only a Permission and not a Sanction and Command As where the Ecclesiastical Laws forbid Marriage in a certain degree and the Civil Power permits it then the Subject may more safely obey the Power Ecclesiastical for the Civil Power does not command to marry in a certain degree So it is in such things which are permitted for the Hardness of Mens Hearts or the publick Necessity The Permission of the Prince is no Absolution from the Authority of the Church Supposing Usury to be unlawful as it is certain many kinds and Instances of it are highly criminal yet the Civil Laws permit it and the Church forbids it In this case the Canons are to be preferr'd for tho it be permitted yet by the Laws no Man is compell'd to be an Usurer and therefore Men must pay that Reverence and Obedience which is otherwise due to them that have the Rule over them in the conduct of their Souls And whereas you plead Pag. 103. That you can't be perswaded that Men may take so much upon them as to tolerate or permit that which is in it self unlawful since 't would be a virtual Dispensation for the breach of a Divine Law I shall not presume to offer my Thoughts in the Case whether they do well or no in tolerating it is not that which I take to be the Question we are principally concerned to inquire after but whether we shall do well in practising it However I shall give you the Opinion of this same great and eminent Casuist in the same Book Pag. 285. The Common-wealth may promise not to punish Vsury tho of it self it were uncharitable and consequently