Selected quad for the lemma: sin_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sin_n	adam_n	law_n	transgression_n	5,599	5	10.5016	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A03516	Usury is injury Cleared in an examination of its best apologie, alleaged by a countrey minister, out of Doctor Ames, in his Cases of conscience, as a party and patron of that apologie. Both answered here, by Nath: Holmes, Dr. in Divinity.	Homes, Nathanael, 1599-1678.	1640 (1640)	STC 13638; ESTC S104177	30,514	54

takes hold of thoughts Thou shall not covet c. in the tenth Commandement See how Paul applies it Rom. 7. Therefore if all gaine forbare lending for a bare principle fully repayed or to be repayed be taken be it more or lesse cum rigore or absque rigore it is all the same For how is it conceiveable that such gaine should be taken sine damno proximi when the most Divines that presse restitution doe it on this ground Vsury ought to be restored because it hath bin a damma●e to the so borrower But saith Master Capel The other part of the Schooles with whom saith he I joyne hold restitution because by Vsury there is no true title jure divino no not in justice to that which comes in that way He quotes in the margent Greg. de Valent. Tom. 3. dis 5. q. 21. pu 3. D. Ames Scriptura tollit illam usuram quae charitati repugnat Luc. 6.35 i.e. The ●cripture takes away the Vsury that is repugnant and opposite to charity Replicatio Therefore the Scripture takes away all Vsury 1 Because all is opposite to charity No man but would borrow freely if he could therefore you ought so to lend 2 Because opposite to the Law of God as we heare Ezech. 18. Psal 15. Nehem. 5. restore the hundreth part without mention of brother that is poore or biting c. But the summe of the Law is charity As Christ approves the answer of the Lawyer Ergo. 3 Because opposite to that place Luk. 6.35 alleaged by Doct. Ames Lend freely looking for nothing Finally take notice that whereas before the learned Doctor averred that borrowing ought to be free could not be proved yet here he alleageth this of Luk. 6.35 Lend freely which not to observe is against the law of charity saith the Doctor Vsury saith Master Smith is against charity Forsan illam omnem Vsuram tollit D. Ames quae ex lege politica Iudaeis inter se exercere non licebat Deut. 33.19 20. Perhaps also it takes away all that Vsury which was not lawfull for the Jews by the politicall Law to exercise one towards another Unto a stranger thou maist lend upon Usury but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon Usury that the Lord thy God may blesse thee in all thou settest thy hand unto c. Vnae Scriptura indicare videtur aliquam Vsuram esse per se licitam Dum aequali non egeno extraneo accipere Vsuras Iudaeis permittebat Great glory is made of this Text Replicat●o in gener to prove Usury not simply unlawfull But as permission by law to execute death upon malefactors doth not prove murther not simply unlawfull So toleration of Vsury here towards them whose lives the Jewes might take away doth not prove but that Vsury is neverthelesse simply unlawfull For al● that ever gave a reason why Vsury towards the Canaanites for the seven kingdomes of the Canaanites are the onely strangers here meant by the confession of the learned and no other strangers was permitted was because their lives were given to the Jewes and consequently their estates too Therefore to object a private Jew might not take away a Canaanites life is onely to argue that a private Jew might not take Vsury of a Canaanite For the Canaanites goods is not his except the life Therefore this objection that is grounded on that which doth not appeare in the Text that a private Jew might not kill a Canaanite doth inferre theft to be lawfull to prove Vsury not unlawfull For if a private Jew hath no power over the Canaanites life then not over his estate for what other rule is there and so taking that he hath nothing to doe with he robs If he a private Jew takes use of him surely if he doth it by vertue of the publick politicall Law dirived to him particularly sure then the reason or ground of that law being publick that Jewes are to have power over the Canaanites lives comes downe to him in particular Or else his particular and private Vsury is without reason 2 God tolerated the Jewes robbing the Egyptians yet it doth not follow thence that theft is not simply unlawfull q Therefore Master Pe●●ins m●●es this a r●●e of understanding the Law That the Law is still peremptory and still the same in nature The Law-makers dispensation being but for a speciall particular time or occasion And his act transcendent Replicatio in partic 1. Suppose this were a toleration of Vsury for the Jew upon the Canaanite without consideration of power over the Canaanites lives yet what were this to uphold any kinde of Vsury to be used of and towards Christians when as two learned men Calvin and Willet doe not doubt from this place which seemes a toleration to conclude Vsury to be utterly unlawfull among Christians Their argument is this The Hebrewes were forbidden to take any Vsury at all of their brethren of the Gentiles they might but now diruta est maceries the wall of partition is taken away there is neither Jew nor Gentile but all are one in Christ therefore Christians may not take use of Christians Before this argument Master Willet puts this position Vsury is simply unlawfull He makes the said argument his first argument and at the end of it he subscribes Calvin The second particular Reply From the manner of the Holy Ghosts setting downe this rule touching Vsury and mens urging sc as a toleration Vpon which Master Capels position is this I know saith he the Law permitted Vsury to the Jewes to the stranger What of that It followes the rather that it is of it selfe a sin because permission is of sins not of duties So Master Capel Meditate well on this answer Perhaps at the first sight you will wonder and object Doth God then tolerate sin Before he tolerated it is simply sinne and so it is when his toleration ceaseth But God being above the Commandement his Will being the everlasting platforme of the Commandement he may dispense and when and how farre he makes it no Law there is no transgression The morall Law was written say the generall consent of Divines in Adams heart and so was from the beginning and yet still is in force Yet at first it was no adultery for the brother to marry the sister I meane no breach of the Commandement of Adultery God shewing by necessity his Will for that generation to dispence So Thou shalt not steale is a Negative Commandement and so binds semper and ad semper But when God bids the Israelites borrow of and not pay the Egyptians this is no theft God having a reason that the breach of this Commandement then was greater justice than to keepe it The same may be said for Vsury If Kings and Emperours must be obeyed in their wholsome lawes under penalty of sin But it is no sin to doe contrary to any law they make when first they have for that time