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	moral_a	sabbath_n	1,332	5	10.0060	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A64066	Quæstio quodlibetica, or, A discourse whether it may bee lawfull to take use for money	Filmer, Robert, Sir, d. 1653.; Twysden, Roger, Sir, 1597-1672.	1653 (1653)	Wing T3555; ESTC R14802	53,162	192

and Contracts which are grounded only upon the laws of Nature and Nation● and many Cases there be which are confessed by all to be no apparent breaches of Charity nor any injustice found in them Insomuch that Dr. Downam is brought thereby to such a straight as he is forced to maintain that there be other respects which make usury unlawfull besides the hurt of our neighbour p. 44. 125. But if Charity be the fulfilling of the whole law I will give them leave to talke their fill yet I cannot beleeve how Vsury can be a sin if it hurt not my neighbour Their pretences of the oppression of the Common-wealth by taking Vsury of the Rich is but a meer Sanctuary of ignorance and a fiction which can never be proved since it is practised in the Richest Common-wealths Whether the law of Vsury be Iudiciall To prove the lawes against Vsury to be Morall and not Iudiciall Dr. Downam produceth a main argument which is not in Dr. F. his words are The law which Commandeth free lending is not Iudiciall but Morall for the same law which commandeth the affirmative forbiddeth the Negative Ans. 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 Negative termes Lending freely or for gain are only severall sorts of lending and differing in qualities and though their qualities differ yet they are both positive and affirmative for it is an axiome C●ntrario●um utrumque membrum 〈…〉 vu● In Contradictions and Privations one term is alwaies negative but it is not so in Contraries Secondly let me retort Dr. D●wnams argument in a stronger Case The law which 〈◊〉 resting on the Sabbath is not Iudiciall but Morall therefore the law which forbiddeth Kindling a fire on the Sabbath day is Morall for the law which commandeth the affirmative forbiddeth the negative what will Dr. D●w answer to this his own argument here is affirmation and negation Resting and not Resting in the kindling of a fire not Contraries onely but Contradictories yet I presume Dr. Downam will not conclude that kindling a fire on the Sabbath day is a breach of the Morall law Dr. Fenton is of opinion that if God doth forbid biting and oppr●ssing Vsury onely by his law that th●n the law must needs be Morall and not Iudiciall except we will give liberty to Christians to oppress and bite their Brethren pag. 44. The answer is The Equity of the law is stil in force the Rigor of it is abrogated or thus the poor should not be oppressed is Morall that they should not be oppressed by Vsury is Iudicial To make the meaning of this distinction clear we must know that All Iudicial lawes were made for the hedging in or enclosing of the Morall law and whereas the Morall law was delivered either in Generall affirmative commandements or Negative prohibitions the Iudiciall comes after and gives some particular politique directions in the observation of them for example the Morall law saith in generall ●hou shalt Sanctifie the Sabbath then comes the Iudiciall and saith Ye shall kindle no fire through●ut your habitations upon the Sabbath day Exod 35.3 so the Morall law tells us thou shalt not steal the Judiciall adds if a man Steal an oxe or a sheep he should pay five or four sold for it and in most cases but double Exod 22.1.4 So then there is a generall equity in all Judicialls which is Morall and eternall 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 〈◊〉 1 Kings 21.3 that he would not ●ell 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 stil in force yet absolutely not to sell any land is esteemed no otherwise than a Judiciall law sitted for the Common-wealth of the Jews so the perpetuall 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 lawes 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 generall 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 otherwayes 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 V●ury 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 lest to the Ordinance of the Magistrate or high Priest and humane ordinances as Mr. Hooker doth observe are many times presupp●sed as grounds in the statutes of God Deut. 24.10 There is a Judiciall Law which ordereth onely 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 Judiciall law that it might therby be made less hurtfull 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 custome of the Jews which was then i●●ase and practice And the special● caution for the Poor might leave the Rich to the customes and lawes of the Magistrats wch 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 human 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 civill lawes of Israel His especiall care was to ordain lawes 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 Cananites 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 onely a Judiciall for unless it had been a sin what needs a toleration since lawfull things have no need of a permission Ans. 1. If the allowing of Vsury to strangers be no Law at all but onely an Exception or proviso