Selected quad for the lemma: christian_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
christian_n	day_n	law_n	sabbath_n	2,914	5	9.8028	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41301	A discourse whether it may be lawful to take use for money written by Sir Robert Filmer ; and published by Sir Roger Twisden, with his preface to it.	Filmer, Robert, Sir, d. 1653.	1678 (1678)	Wing F911; ESTC R23742	54,512	168

free lending is not Judicial but Moral for the same law which commandeth the affirmative forbiddeth the Negative Answ 1. Dr. Downam mistakes in thinking free lending and lending for gain to be termes of affirmation and negation Lending and not lending which are Contradictorily opposed are only Affirmative and Negative terms Lending freely or for gain are only several sorts of lending and differing in qualities and though their qualities differ yet they are both positive and affirmative for it is an axiome Contrariorum utrumque membrum est positivum In Contradictions and Privations one term is always negative but it is not so in Contraries Secondly let me retort Dr. Downams argument in a stronger Case The law which commandeth resting on the Sabbath is not Judiciall but Moral therefore the law which forbiddeth Kindling a fire on the Sabbath day is Moral for the law which Commandeth the affirmative forbiddeth the negative what will Dr. Downam answer to this his own argument here is affirmation and negation Resting and not Resting in the kindling of a fire not Contraries only but Contradictories yet I presume Dr. Downam will not conclude that kindling a fire on the Sabbath day is a breach of the Moral law Dr. Fenton is of opinion that if God doth forbid biting and oppressing Vsury only by his law that then the law must needs be Moral and not Judicial except we will give liberty to Christians to oppress and bite their Brethren pag. 44. The answer is The Equity of the law is still in force the Rigor of it is abrogated or thus that the poor should not be oppressed is Moral that they should not be oppressed by Vsury is Judicial To make the meaning of this distinction clear we must know that all Judicial laws were made for that hedging in or enclosing of the Moral law and whereas the Morall law was delivered either in General affirmative commandements or negative prohibitions the Judiciall comes after and gives some particular politick directions in the observation of them for example the Moral law saith in general thou shalt Sanctifie the Sabbath then comes the Judicial and saith Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the Sabbath day Exod. 35. 3. so the Moral law tells us thou shalt not steal the Judicial adds if a man steal an oxe or a sheep he should pay five or four fold for it and in most cases but double Exod 22. 1. 4. So then there is a general equity in all Judicials which is Moral and eternal There is a law Levit. 25. 23. the land shall not be sold for ever whereby selling of inheritance is forbidden and this law did bind Naboth 1 Kings 21. 3. that he would not sell his inheritance to king Ahab The equity of this law which binds all men even infidels to preserve or procure an inheritance or estate for their posterity remaines still in force yet absolutely not to sell any land is esteemed no otherwise than a Judicial law fitted for the Common-wealth of the Jews so the perpetual equity of Sanctifying the Sabbath and of not Stealing abides although the kindling of a fire on that day is now arbitrary and the Compensation of stealing is left to the positive laws of each nation The same law that forbids us to steal bids us to relieve the poor and so doth the equity of the law of Vsury It is sufficient that the general equity of this law be observed and the poor relieved but that in particular they must be relieved by the not taking Vsury of them is not necessary It was a sin in any Jew to take Vsury of his poor although he did relieve him otherways because God did restrain him to that particular manner of relieving the poor But with us it is otherwise if by any other meanes we do sufficiently relieve the poor then even the taking of Vsury of them is no sin nor oppression Concerning the Judicials of Moses we must also observe that they were not so particular but that many things were left to the Ordinance of the Magistrate or high Priest and humane ordinances as Mr. Hooker doth observe are many times presupposed as grounds in the statutes of God Deut. 24. 10 There is a Judicial Law which ordereth only the manner how a pledge must be taken this necessarily doth presuppose some former humane law that did order that pledges might be taken Even that ill law or Custome of divorce Deut. 24. 1. is regulated by a Judicial law that it might thereby be made less hurtful The reason why I note these things is because the law of God concerning Vsury did presuppose and was grounded on a former law or custom of the Jews which was then in use and practice And the speciall caution for the Poor might leave the Rich to the customs and laws of the Magistrates which did always regulate all sorts of contracts And wheras the law of Moses did allow Vsury only to Strangers It doth not follow but that others that were neither Poor nor Strangers were left to the ordinary laws of the Country No Magistrate could give a dispensation for Vsury towards the Poor nor a Prohibition for it towards Strangers so much as God ordered no humane laws might alter as for other cases not specified they were left to the ordinary policy of the State For we must not think that God provided all the civil laws of Israel His especial care was to ordain laws for the reformation of such sins as had been learnt by his people of the Egyptians or for the prevention of such as might be taught them by the Canaanites I know that Dr. Fenton doth inferre that the law which prohibits Vsury is Moral pag. 45. because the allowance of it to strangers is only a Judicial for unless it had been a sin what needs a toleration since lawful things have no need of a permission Answ 1. If the allowing of Vsury to strangers be no Law at all but only an Exception or proviso annexed to a former law then it can be no Judicial all laws do Command or forbid something but this if it be an exception doth neither because it leaves the thing indifferent as it is the nature of all such provisoes in statutes But if they will have it to be a Law then it must bind affirmatively and not only that one May but that one Must take Vsury of a stranger for in the Original it is thou shalt lend upon Usury or shalt cause to bite And the Hebrews understand this to be a Commandement and not a Permission only Secondly whereas they Compare the allowance of Vsury to the permission of Divorce they erre notoriously for the difference between allowing and permitting is most manifest as Dr. Downam confesseth pag. 298. We allow those things only which we suppose to be good or at least indifferent But we permit only such things as are esteemed evill God hath said by Moses thou mayst or thou shalt take Vsury of