Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	heart_n	incline_v	mercy_n	16,797	5	10.2482	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61830	Eight cases of conscience occasionally determined by the late Reverend Father in God, Robert Sanderson, Lord Bishop of Lincoln.	Sanderson, Robert, 1587-1663.	1674 (1674)	Wing S598; ESTC R37202	62,486	160

have therefore now sent you but a naked summary of my thoughts concerning the three Questions abstracted from all those Explanations Reasons Testimonies of Authors removals of Objections and other such Enlargements as might have given further both lustre and strength thereunto Howsoever by what I presently send you may sufficiently see what my opinion is which I shall be ready to clear so far as my understanding will serve in any particular wherein you shall remain doubtful and as ready to alter when any man shall instruct me better if he bring good evidence either of Reason or of Scripture-Text for what he affirmeth The Questions are 1. Which is the fittest Name whereby to call the day of our Christian weekly-rest whether the Sabbath the Lord's-day or Sunday 2. What is the meaning of that Prayer appointed to be used in our Church Lord have Mercy upon us and encline c. as it is repeated after and applied to the words of the fourth Commandment 3. Whether it be lawful to use any bodily recreation upon the Lord's-day and if so then what kind of Recreations may be used I. Concerning the Name Sabbatum or Sabbath I thus conceive 1. That in Scripture Antiquity and all Ecclesiastical Writers it is constantly appropriated to the day of the Jews Sabbath or Saturday and not at all till of late years used to signifie our Lord's-day or Sunday 2. That to call Sunday by the name of the Sabbath-day rebus sic stantibus may for sundry respects be allowed in the Christian Church without any great inconveniency and that therefore men otherwise sober and moderate ought not to be censured with too much severity neither charged with Judaism if sometimes they so speak 3. That yet for sundry other respects it were perhaps much more expedient if the word Sabbath in that notion were either not all or else more sparingly used II. Concerning the name Dominica or the Lord's-day 1. That it was taken up in memory of our Lord Christ's Resurrection and the great work of our Redemption accomplished therein 2. That it hath warrant from the Scripture Apoc. 1.10 and hath been of long continued use in the Christian Church to signifie the first day of the week or Sunday III. Concerning the name Dies Solis or Sunday 1. That it is taken from the courses of the Planets as the names of the other daies are the reason whereof is to be learned from Astronomers 2. That it hath been used generally and of long time in most parts of the World 3. That it is not justly chargeable with Heathenism and that it proceedeth from much weakness at the least if not rather superstition that some men condemn the use of it as prophane heathenish or unlawful IV. Of the fitness of the aforesaid three names compared one with another 1. That according to the several matter or occasions of speech each of the three may be fitter in some respect and more proper to be used than either of the other two As viz. 1. The Name Sabbath when we speak of a time of rest indeterminatè and in general without reference to any particular day and the other two when we speak determinately of that day which is observed in the Christian Church Of which two again 2. That of the Lord's-day is fitter in the Theological and Ecclesiastical and 3. That of Sunday in the civil popular and common use 2. Yet so as that none of the three be condemned as utterly unlawful whatsoever the matter or occasion be but that every man be left to his Christian liberty herein so long as so long as superior Authority doth not restrain it Provided ever that what he doth herein he do it without vanity or affectation in himself or without uncharitably judging or despising his Brother that doth otherwise than himself doth To the second Question V. The words of that Prayer Lord have mercy c. repeated after the fourth Commandment do evidently import as they do in each of the other ten 1. An acknowledgment of three things viz. 1. That the words of that particular Commandment contain in them a Law whereunto we are subject 2. That it is our bounden duty to endeavour with our uttermost power to keep the said Law 3. That our naughty hearts have of themselves no inclination to keep it until God by the work of his Grace shall encline them thereunto 2. A double supplication viz. 1. For mercy in respect of the time past because we have failed of our bounden duty heretofore 2. For Grace in respect of the time to come that we may perform our duties better hereafter VI. But how far forth the words of the fourth Commandment are to be taken as a Law binding Christians and by what authority they have that binding power is the main difficulty For the resolution whereof it may suffice every sober minded Christian to understand the Prayer appointed by the Church in that meaning which the words do immediately import and without over-curious inquiry into those things that are more disputable to believe these few points following which ought to be taken as certain and granted amongst Christians viz. 1. That no part of the Law delivered by Moses to the Jews doth bind Christians under the Gospel as by vertue of that delivery no not the ten Commandments thems●lves but least of all the fourth which all confess to be at least in some part Ceremonial 2. That the particular determination of the time to the seventh day of the week was Ceremonial And so the obligation of the fourth Commandment in that respect although it were Iuris divini positivi to the Jew yet is ceased together with other legal Ceremonies since the publishing of the Gospel and bindeth not Christian Consciences 3. That the substance of the fourth Commandment in the general viz. that some certain time should be set apart from secular imployments to be sanctified to an holy rest for the better attending upon God's publick and solemn worship is moral and perpetual and of Divine right as a branch of the Law of Nature whereunto Christians under the Gospel are still bound 4. That de facto the Lord's-day or Sunday is the time appointed to us for that purpose by such sufficient Authority as we stand bound in Conscience to obey absque hoc whether that Authority be immediately Divine or but mediately through the power of the Church This is sufficient to regulate the judgment and Conscience of every ordinary Christian yet is it not unlawful for Scholars soberly and fairly to argue and debate a little farther matte●s which are questionable for the better finding out of the Truth And the points in this Argument that are most in controversy are these two viz. 1. Concerning the observation of a weekly Sabbath whether it be of necessity to keep one day of every seven And by what right we are tied so to do 2. Concerning the change of the Jewish Sabbath into the Lord's-day and by what Authority

himself a new Obligation contrary thereunto Obligatio prior praejudicat posteriori As in the case of Marriage a precontract with one party avoideth all after-contracts with any other And if a man convey Lands to several persons by deeds of several date the first conv●yance standeth good and all the rest are void and so in all cases of like nature The Obligatory power thereof that is in Vows Oaths Promises c. is rightly said by some to be a constructive not a destructive power The meaning is that such acts may create a new Obligation where was none before or confirm an old one but it cannot destroy an old one or substitute another contrary thereunto in the place● thereof 7. And the reason of this reason also is yet farther evident for that Quisquis obligatur alteri obligatur When a man is obliged by any act it is also supposed that the obligation is made to some other party to whom also it is supposed some right to accrue by vertue of the said act obligatory and that that other party is by the said act sufficiently vested in that said right of which right he cannot be again devested and deprived by the meer act of him who instated him therein and is obliged to perform it to him unless himself give consent thereunto without the greatest injustice in the World Now God having a perfect right to our obedience by his own obliging Precept both for the not doing hurt to any man and for the doing good to every man upon all fit opportunities and this right also confirmed and ratified by our own obligatory act in a solemn manner before many witnesses at our Baptism when we vowed to keep all God's Commandments it were unreasonable to think that it should be in our power by any after-act of ours to disoblige our selves from both or either of those obligations For then we might by the same reason free our selves from the obligation of that latter Act also suppose an Oath or Vow by another subsequent Oath or Vow and from that again by another and so play fast and loose make Vows and break them in infinitum Evident it is therefore that every vow requiring any thing to be done which is repugnant to any office of Piety Iustice Charity or Mercy which we owe either to God or man is void and bindeth not because it findeth us under the power of a former contrary obligation and hath not it self power sufficient to free or discharge us from the same 8. The general rule thus cleared it remaineth to examine concerning the particular Vow now in question whether it be void upon this account or no It will befound hard I believe to free this Vow from being repugnant to the rules of Iustice but impossible I am sure to reconcile it with the perfect Evangelical Law of Charity and Mercy First Civil and Political Iustice requireth that every man should obey the wholsome Laws of his Countrey and submit himself to be ordered thereby Now put the case which is possible enough that the Daughters Husband should for lack of support from his Father-in-law or otherwise live and die in great want leaving his Wife and many small Children behind him destitute of all means for their necessary sustenance The Law would as I suppose in that case upon complaint of the Parish and for their case send the Daughter and her Children to the Father and compel him to maintain them out of his Estate Which order he ought to obey nor can refuse so to do without the high contempt of publick Authority and manifest violation of the Civil Justice notwithstanding his Vow to the contrary The Law must be obeyed whatsoever becometh of the Vow in that case therefore it is evident the Vow bindeth not 9. But say that should not happen to be the case which yet is more than any man can positively say before-hand the Parent is nevertheless in Moral Iustice bound to provide due maintenance for his Children and Grand-Children if he be able Saint Paul saith that Fathers ought to lay up for the Children True it is he speaketh it but upon the by and by way of Illustration in the handling of another argument very distant from this business but ●hat doth not at all lessen the importance of it such illustrations being ever taken à notiori and from such common notions as are granted and consented unto by all reasonable men The same Apostle having amongst other sins of the Gentiles mentioned disobedience to Parents in one verse in the very next verse mentioneth also want of natural affection in Parents And the disobedience in the Child can no more discharge the Parent from the obligation of that duty he oweth to the Child of affection and maintenance then the unnaturalness of the Parent can the Child from the duty he oweth to the Parent of Honour and Obedience For the several duties that by Gods ordinance are to be performed by persons that stand in mutual relation either to other are not pactional and conditional as are the Leagues and Agreements made between Princes where the breach in one part dissolveth the obligation on the other but are absolute and independent wherein each person is to look to himself and the performance of the duty that lyeth upon him though the other party should fail in the performance of his 10. Something I foresee may be objected in this point concerning the lawfulness of the Parents withdrawing maintenance from the Child either in whole or at least in part in the case of disobedience Which how far forth it may or may not be done as it would be too long to examine so it would be of little avail to the present business For it is one thing to with-hold maintenance from a disobedient Child for the present and to resolve so to continue till he shall see cause to the contrary And another thing to bind himself by Vow or Oath never to allow him any for the future whatsoever should happen Let be granted whatsoever can be supposed pleadable on the Fathers behalf in the present case yet there will still remain two particulars in this Vow not easily to be cleared from being unjust First let the Daughters disobedience deserve all this uttermost of punishment f●om the offended Father yet how can it be just that for the Mothers fault the pour in●ocent perhaps yet unborn Children should be utterly and irrecoverably excluded from all possibility of relief from their Grandfather Secondly It is if not unjust yet what differeth very little there-from the extremity of rigid Justice that any offender much less a Son or Daughter should for any offence not deserving Death be by a kind of fatal peremptory decree put into an incapacity of receiving relief from such persons as otherwise ought to have relieved the said offender without any reservation either of the case of extreme necessity or of the case of serious repentance 11. However it be for the point of