Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	moral_a	nature_n	positive_a	4,914	5	10.3383	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A79884	Of scandal together with a consideration of the nature of Christian liberty and things indifferent. Wherein these weighty questions are fully discussed: Whether things indifferent become necessary, when commanded by authority? Neg. Whether scandalous things, being enjoyned, may lawfully be done? Neg. Whether a restraint laid upon things indifferent, without a reasonable ground, be not an infringement of Christian liberty? Aff. Who is to be judge, whether there be a reasonable ground or no, in such cases? How far forth we are bound in conscience to obey humane laws.	Clark, Samuel, 1626-1701.; Alsop, Vincent, 1629 or 30-1703, attributed name.	1680 (1680)	Wing C4495; ESTC R231493	83,945	180

93. a. 3. dependance upon the Will of God nor coherence with it for then that would be a good and sufficient reason or is no way agreeable to the Will of God either in general or particular and therefore has no obligation following upon it for that (b) Leges humanae obligant homines in foro conscientiae ratione legis aeternae à qua derivantur Id. q. 96. a. 4. Obligation of a Law which we speak of is nothing but the necessity of obeying under pain of sin against God That is an excellent notion of Petrus de Alliaco for which I am beholding to a Reverend and Learned Divine Gilbert's Assize Serm. on Jam. 2.12 p. 12. That as the will of God exerting and putting forth his natural power or strength is in natural things the first efficient Cause so the will of God exerting his moral power or authority is in moral things the first obliging Rule And as all things in nature act dependingly upon the will of God putting forth his natural power as the first efficient cause so in Morality all Laws oblige dependingly upon the will of God putting forth his Moral power as the first obliging Rule Whence I infer That where there is no intimation of God's Will neither express nor implicit in the nature of the thing nor in any circumstance there can no obligation arise 3 That command which has no Conformity to the rule and end of all Laws the * Necesse est legem semper ad bonum commune ordinari Aqu. 12ae q. 90 a. 2. publick good can have no obligation at all following upon it for the due matter of a Law is wanting but such a command has no Conformity c. Ergo. 4 That the Command of Authority does not render such an indifferent thing necessary may be proved I think undeniably from that passage mentioned Matth. 15 1-9 Mark 7 1-13 concerning the Disciples eating with unwashen hands for which they are complained of by the Scribes and Pharisees those great Masters of Ceremonies to Christ as transgressors of the Tradition of the Elders But Christ is so far from condemning that he justifies and vindicates them for it and on the contrary condemns their Antagonists for standing so strictly and laying so much stress upon such unnecessary trifles Here I observe First That the Rite or Ceremony in question was in it self indifferent i. e. neither commanded nor forbidden by any Law of God and so far from being unlawful that it seems rather a matter of civil decency and good manners Secondly This was commanded by a lawful Authority for 1 the Scribes and Pharisees who here urged it and stickled for it sate in Moses's seat Mat. 23.2 i. e. were the Rulers of the people or some of them at least who did succeed Moses in the ordinary office of Teaching and Ruling the people And 2 it was a Tradition of the Elders Now the Elders were the Sanhedrim that is the Supreme Authority of the Nation and a Tradition of the Elders is a Resolution Constitution or Determination of such a case made by them who therefore are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Domini constitutionum juridicarum Thirdly This constitution of Authority did not render this indifferent practice or usage necessary as is evident from the whole drift and scope of our Saviour Christ's discourse here From all which the conclusion or inference holds firm and strong That an indifferent thing commanded by lawful Authority is not thereby made necessary For the further clearing hereof I shall pass from one end of my thoughts to the other by these steps having first prepared the way by these Distinctions First I distinguish between the Matter and the Form of a Command or between the thing commanded and the stamp of Authority set upon it to make it currant The ground of this distinction is plain in reason Secondly I distinguish between an Intrinsecal and an Extrinsecal Indifference as before Thirdly I distinguish between unlawful and inconvenient This I ground upon the Apostles words 1 Cor. 6.12 All things are lawful for me but all things are not expedient Where he supposes that things may be lawful in some respect but inconvenient or inexpedient in others Whence I gather 1 That unlawful and inconvenient are not the same no more than lawful and convenient for Contrariorum eadem est ratio 2 I further gather the nature of inconvenient or inexpedient and how it differs from unlawful viz. That inconvenient or inexpedient is only an irregular circumstance of something in its own nature lawful He is there speaking of indifferent things and tells us That though in their own nature these be all lawful to make use of yet they may be so circumstantiated as to render them inconvenient or inexpedient Which circumstantial irregularity puts on such a kind of evil as the good or rule it offends against is of if it be only against some debitum natura then 't is malum physicum or naturale as to fast to the detriment of a mans health to eat that which agrees not with his constitution If against good manners then 't is malum morale as to be slovenly in eating either of these irregularities render a thing but inexpedient But if it be against any Command of God then 't is malum Theologicum or peccatum and so falls in with unlawful Fourthly I distinguish between a particular inconvenience which is only so to some particular persons or at some particular time and a general inconvenience which is alike inconvenient to all persons at all times and in all places This distinction has common experience to warrant its validity Fifthly I distinguish between submission for wrath and for conscience-sake i. e. meerly for fear of the penalty or else for fear of sin and to avoid that which he should be guilty of in case of disobedience and non-submission This distinction the Apostle makes to my hand Rom. 13 5. Sixthly I distinguish between an arbitrary and a necessary submission where there is no sin in the submission and yet 't is not a duty but free and arbitrary and where there is sin in the non-submission and submission is a duty and necessary The ground of this distinction will appear afterwards Now these distinctions I apply thus Prop. 1. It is certain that the Command of lawful authority That Magistrates ought to be obeyed in things good and lawful does not arise from the authority vested in themselves but from the immediate command of God that in such things they ought to be obeyed Discourse conc Liturg p. 55. quatenus command i. e. the form of the Command doth not necessarily bring an obligation to obedience along with it The obligation does not arise meerly from the form for then every command or every thing having the stamp of Authority upon it should oblige which none will say Therefore 2. The Matter of the Command must have some influence into the obligation thereof There being only

be omitted viz. such wherein we have to do with others as reproving miscarriages and punishing offenders according to that Rule Pro vitando scandalo cessat rigor disciplinae not such wherein our selves only are concern'd as praying hearing c. And yet those must not be generally omitted neither so as to induce an universal non-obeying such affirmative Precepts but only pro hic nunc when we foresee that upon the doing thereof the weak and ignorant will commit great sins Praecepta affirmativa juris naturalis aliquando propter scandalum sunt dimittenda quia praecepta affirmativa obligant quando quomodo oportet Bannes tom 3. m. 22. q. 43. art 8. concl 2. See Ruth of Scand p. 18. and Jeanes Schol. and Pract Divin part 2. p. 106. 2. Scandal by doing things is more ordinary than by forbearing them Where we meet with one instance in Scripture or Experience of the latter we may observe several of the former sort For Actions are more observable and apparent than Omissions As in point of Law a Negative cannot be proved so here Omissions cannot be so readily discerned and discovered and therefore Examples in such cases are not so influential and attractive as in case of positive practice Besides there may be so many reasons for the forbearing of an action that scarce any one who has but so much discretion as will serve him for his every-days-wearing will think much at it whereas positive practice or actions that they may be good must be attended with such a numerous train of regular circumstances bonum est ex integris causis that it 's a hard matter so to rank and dispose and govern them but some or other will be picking holes in their coats and finding faults and taking occasion to censure them or us for them 3. In things indifferent that may be scandalous at one time or in one place which is not so at or in another for since this kind of scandal does not arise necessarily or naturally from the action but only from the apprehension of the observer and so recipitur ad modum recipientis therefore one may be scandalized and not another or the same person at one time and not at another Now because all Scandal arises from some appearance of evil either real or imaginary therefore I distinguish of a twofold appearance of evil Natural which is an occasion of sin as lying in the same bed with another man's wife or else a sign of sin as keeping ill company and Customary when a thing is commonly abused to evil and is usually a sign of evil as going to Play-houses is commonly abused to evil and used by none almost but loose debauch't persons Now what has an appearance of evil only by reason of Custom and being used only by those that are evil if in process of time the custom alters and it comes to be used promiscuously by all sorts both good and bad then the appearance of evil is removed and it ceases to be scandalous E. g. Taking Tobacco at the first use of it amongst us was scandalous because practised by few but such as were of the more ranting strain but afterwards when it came to be more generally made use of then Custom took away the Scandal of it The case is the same in point of Place as well as Time That which in some places carries a shew of evil as wearing a hood and tippet in a Country Church elsewhere perhaps is not suspected thereof as wearing the same habiliments in the University So Timothy's Circumcision was scandalous among the Gentiles not among the Jews and on the contrary Uncircumcision was scandalous among the Jews not among the Gentiles Hence that advice of ●●mbrose to Austin and Monica which was respected by Austin as an answer of a heavenly Oracle Vnto whatsoever Church ye shall come observe the manner or custom thereof if ye will neither give nor take offence Ep. 86. Which being restrain'd unto things indifferent may be very good And here I conceive regard is to be had especially to those upon that Place which is the scene of the action and not so much too those reports which are raised concerning it therefore Paul when he was among the Gentiles would not have them circumcised though the report thereof scandalized the Jews at Jerusalem Act. 21.21 And so you shall find that the Apostles always had respect to the places where they were present so as to do or not to do as the exigence of that place required 4. An action from whence scandal follows may at first be innocent and blameless and yet afterwards become culpable and guilty viz. if it be continued after the scandal is known to follow from it Thus the Preservation of Gideon's Ephod and the Brazen Serpent was neither evil nor had any appearance of evil they being Monuments of God's mercies so that when the people were first scandalized by them the scandal was meerly passive but the keeping and retaining of them after it was known that scandal rose out of them was culpable not being necessary and made the scandal to become active also 5. Whatsoever must be forborn for the scandal of the weak must also be forborn for the scandal of the wicked and malicious All readily acknowledge that the weak are not to be scandalized all the doubt is concerning the malicious or the scandalum Pharisaeorum whether that be culpable and to be avoided The Affirmative I prove by these Arguments 1 The Apostles prohibition in the Text is general Give none offence and the particulars he enumerates include all persons in the world Jews or Gentiles or Christians Now both Jews and Gentiles were oft-times very malicious against the Christians as we find by many passages in the History of the Acts and yet even they must not be scandalized 2 We are bound to love even our greatest enemies Mat. 5.44 and to do good unto all and therefore we must not prejudice any though never so wicked and malicious by scandalizing of them 3 Those who are wicked and malicious at present yet may be of the number of those for whom Christ dyed and therefore not to be destroyed with thy meat i. e. scandalized by the use of Indifferencies Rom. 14.15 6. Information or rendring a reason is not sufficient to excuse in case of scandal if scruple in the party scandalized doth still remain Paul gave strong reasons as Rutherford observes for the lawfulness of an ordinary and common use of days and meats prohibited to the Jews Of Scand p. 20. that so the weak Jews might be informed thereof and not be scandalized at the common use of them but yet he thought not fit either to make any Canons for that purpose or to practise accordingly but resolves rather to forbear while the world stands than to offend by such a use of them 1 Cor. 8.13 Conformists do endeavour to acquit themselves from the guilt of Scandal by this pretence among