Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	bind_v	law_n	nature_n	1,568	5	5.4669	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62878	Væ scandalizantium, or, A treatise of scandalizing wherein the necessity, nature, sorts, and evills of scandalizing, are handled, with resolution of many questions thereto pertaining / preached at Lemster, in Herefordshire by Iohn Tombes ...	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1641 (1641)	Wing T1827; ESTC R21407	96,654	466

that which the Magistrate commands only mediately I answer Though it bee true that for this reason the thing which the Magistrate commands is not so strictly our duty as that which God commands the Magistrates commands belonging only to his owne subjects Gods commands to all the Magistrates constitutions binding us only in reference to a superiour authority and a superiour end the publique good and therefore when they are contrary to the law of God or nature when there is some pressing necessity that cannot bee avoyded by reason of which wee cannot doe the thing commanded if the necessity bee true and not fained and the not-doing of the Magistrates command be without contempt of authority or ill example to others or if the thing commanded should be in truth plainely contrary to the publique good as it may happen sometimes some commands may if strictly urged 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the letter But Gods commands binde absolutely without limitation I say though for these reasons the thing which the Magistrate commands be not our dutty so strictly as that which God immediately commands yet when it is a duty as it is when it opposeth not Gods law the law of nature or the publique safety there is a necessity of obeying the command of the Magistrate as of obeying Gods immediate precepts nor may the one bee omitted to avoyde scandall any more then the other As for that which is said that the Magistrate cannot restraine our charity 'T is true for charity is an inward affection of the soule which none but God can command as none but hee can search and punish yet the Magistrate may restraine the shewing of our charity somewayes as in forbidding to relieve malefactors rebels vagrants c. so that hee should sin that should preferre such a worke of charity before a worke of obedience to the governour which is a worke of piety to a publique person and the Father of the countrey whereas the other is to a private person of common respect But the Magistrate cannot command our consciences Answ. That the commands of men doe in no sort bind the conscience cannot bee said without contradicting of S. Paul Rom. 13. 5. Ye must needes bee subject not onely for wrath but also for conscience sake They that say least for governours say they may by their lawes binde the conscience mediately and by vertue of Gods precept although not immediately and of themselves Now this is enough to prove that it is the duty of Christians to doe the lawful commands of the Magistrate As for that which is said that the danger of scandall is before the disobedience to the commands of men I suppose not for the evill by disobeying of the Magistrate is as certaine if not more certaine then the evill of scandall the evill of scandall more remediable then the evill that followes on the disobeying the Magistrates command for the one is likely onely some transeunt harme in the mind or conscience of the scandalized person the other a constant permanent harme in the common wealth such as many times overthrowes government and in fine dissolveth a commonwealth the one usually extends to few the other to the whole community And it is taken for a plain truth Praestat ut pereat unus quam unitas Or as Caiaphas once said It is expedient that one should dye for the people and that the whole nation perish not Io. 11. 52. Adde hereto that there is a scandalizing of the publique Magistrate and others by disobedience as § 17. was determined which is as regardable as well as the scandalizing of private persons unlesse too much partiall respect sway men that they will not judge righteous judgement 2. I argue thus If it be not determined that the obeying of the Magistrates command were to bee preferred before the declining of scandall that may happen by such obedience then it will follow that both the Magistrate is bound to revoke or suspend his lawes when there is likely-hood of scandall to follow For he is not to urge men to doe that which is evill Now this would make all governours that make conscience of their commands almost perpetually uncertaine whether they may command any thing or no or make their constitutions invalid sith they can seldome make any orders but that scandals will arise as experience in all ages hath proved And subjects also shall have power to neglect such constitutions and so to make them as no lawes in the same case The consequent of which being granted I suppose can bee no lesse then Anarchy and confusion The mischiefe of which is greater then I can expresse and such as the avoyding of scandalizing of some soules cannot countervaile wherefore as it is said in the case of exacting an oath of a persō that it's likely will forsweare himselfe Fiat justitia ruat coelum Let justice proceed though the heaven fall so say I let goverment stand though subjects bee scandalized 3. Lastly If a man in doing any lawfull thing make it knowne that hee must doe it by reason of the command of authority or it bee otherwise manifest that that is indeed the reason of his doing surely he that is offended is rather unrighteous and evill minded then weake that will think that lawes must bee broken to please him and therefore the scandalizing of such not regardable A twelfth question may be If it fall out that in the doing or omitting of a thing indifferent some will bee scandalized if it be done others if omitted some offended if it be done this way some offēded if not done this way so that there is apparent danger of scandall either way what is to be done in such a case Ans. D. Ames l. 5. de conscientia c. 11. § 18. denies the case and sayes nulla datur talis perplexitas ut necessarium sit pio homini sive hoc vel illu à faciat sive non faciat scandalum alicui dare There can bee no such perplexity that it should bee necessary for a godly man whether he doe this or that or not doe it to scandalize some one Which assertion of his is both against experience and reason Against experience For the contrary fell out in S. Peters case Gal. 2. 12. in which it is plaine in the carriage of that matter that if he did eat with the Gentiles he was in danger of scandalizing the Iewes if hee did not eate with them to scandalize the Gentiles And it falls out too frequently in our own dayes that in the use of some rites in themselves indifferent some are offended with the use of them as Popish some with the not using them as arguing the affectation of Novellisme and singularity Against reason For sith scandall ariseth from the opinion that is had of a thing indifferent when the action of him that offendeth dasheth against it and it is undoubted that even godly men may have opposite opinions of things indifferent one thinking

opinion to whom it happens that their use of their liberty may become the harme of their neighbour That which is evil for a subject of the King of England to doe may not bee evill to the subject of the King of Spaine who hath made no such law as the King of England And that vow that binds him that made it bindes not another which hath made no such vow and that opinion which one man hath and that harme of our brother which restraines one man from the use of his liberty restraines not another whose action would cause no such harme in whose mind is no such opinion Having premised these things I am next to enquire into the Apostles resolutions delivered Rom. 14. 1. Cor. 8. 9. 10. chapters concerning the forbearing of the use of our liberty in case of scandall which was then in agitation and determined by the Apostle in those chapters Which that wee may the better understand we are to take notice that as appeares by S. Lukes history of the Acts of the Apostles and likewise by other histories of Iosephus Suetonius Tacitus and others the nation of the Iewes was in those dayes wherein S. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans dispersed over many countries of the world in Asia AEgypt Greece Italy and particularly that many of that nation dwelt in Rome In which citty at that time the great city which had dominion over a great part of the earth the Iewes retained the religion and rites of their nation prescribed by Moses and were for their Sabbaths Circumcision abstaining from swines flesh and such like rites derided by the Satyrists of those times famous at Rome Horace Iuvenall Persius and the rest Now of these Iewes at Rome it pleased God to convert some to the Christian faith as well as some of the Gentiles Wee are likewise to remember that while the Ceremoniall law of Moses was in force the Iewes conceived themselves as strictly bounde to the observances of meates and dayes and other ordinances of Moses as of the decalogue unlesse in such cases as wherein the observing of them was against a morall duty For then that of the Prophet took place I will have mercy and not sacrifice as our Saviour determines Mat. 12. 7. Whereupon the godly Iewes made conscience of obedience to the ceremoniall lawes as to other morall precepts When in a vision all manner of foure footed beasts of the earth wild beasts and creeping things and foules of the aire were presented to Peter to kill and eate he replyed not so Lord for I have never eatē any thing that is common or unclean Acts. 10. 14. Hence they thought thēselves bound rather to suffer any torment than to eat so much as a bit of swines flesh as appears in the example of Eleazar and the mother and her seaven sons in the historie of the Maccabees 2. Maccab. ch 6. 7. wherefore when the Gospell began to bee preached and the ceremonies of Moses his law to bee disclaimed and neglected much contention arose betweene the Christians that were of the Circumcision and those of the Gentiles concerning the necessity of observing Moses law in so much that it was thought necessary to call a counsell of the Apostles and Elders at Hierusalem to decide this difference Acts. 15. So that although by Christs death the necessity of observing them was taken away and the Gospell being promulgated their observation became dangerous as we read Gal. 5. yet such esteem had the ceremonies of the law gotten partly by their originall institution and partly tractu temporis by a long tract of time in which they had stood in force that many Christians not sufficiently instructed in their liberty feared to neglect or break them after their initiation into Christianity as on the other side those that were well instructed in their liberty did neglect them securely they made no scruple of eating meates of neglecting new moones and the like Festivalls And thus was it among the Romans when S. Paul wrot this Epistle to them There were some that would not eat meats prohibited by Moses law but rather eat hearbes nor would they omit the observation of dayes as not knowing their liberty therein so that if it happened they did eat such meats or neglect such dayes it was with doubting and regrete of conscience These the Apostle calleth weake brethren weake in the faith Others there were among the Romans who made no question of eating any sort of meats nor regarded dayes as knowing they had lawfull liberty therein And these are called strong in the faith by the Apostle Now if this diversity had been onely in practise or opinion it had been somewhat tollerable But the difference in opinion and deformity in practise bred among them as usually it doth discord and division For whereas Christian charity and holy wisdome should have prevented all quarrell between them all harming each other contrariwise it so fell out that the strong despised the weak as more scrupulous then needed and the weak with an aggrieved mind judged the strong as licentious and unholy and whereas sometimes the weake by the example of the strong might bee induced to doe that which though lawfull they doubted whether it were so or not their consciences were thereby wounded To ease the Christians of this grievance the Apostle as an equall arbitrator thus decides the controversy In this case the strong should take to them the weake in faith shewing kindnesse love to them but not imprudently intangle them with disputes which bred more doubts in them while they sought to cure their errour about meats and dayes that they should not despise or sleight them for their weaknesse but shew them all respect as believers that they should enjoy their knowledge to themselves but not use their liberty to the grievance of their brethrē that they should not so looke to their own much content in the use of their priviledge as to damnifie their brethren and to would their conscience On the other side the Apostle admonisheth the weake that they neither censure nor judge their brethren in the use of their liberty nor yet venture upon the use of their lawfull liberty with doubting consciences but bee sure that they bee well resolved in their judgements afore they enter on the practise Concerning the other Scripture in which the Apostle sets downe his resolutions in point of scandals the case was thus Corinth was an eminent beautifull citty called by Tully lumen Graeciae the eye of Greece but a Pagan citty In which the people were wont to worship Idols of Iupiter Mars Minerva c. to these they built Temples and offered sacrifices of oxen and other beasts as wee read they would have done at Lystra Acts. 14. 13. Of these oxen and other sacrifices some part of the flesh the Priests of the Idols had for their share some part was eaten by the people that offered at the Feasts called Lectisterma

mourne but a sinne and scandall in them that cause it A ruine therefore it cannot be said to be in the primary sense as ruine imports falling into sin but ruine it may be said to be in a secondary sense as ruine imports any affliction of the soule and with this explication the terme ruine may fitly enough expresse the effect of this scandall Sometimes the sorrow displicencie and anger that ariseth in the person offended from the sayings and deeds of another are unjust both in him that is offended and in him that offends this is when a man is grieved at the use of another mās lawfull liberty in things indifferent by reason of his owne weaknesse of faith thinking that to be unlawfull which is not as those that were offended at their brethrens neglect of daies and difference of meats Rom. 14. which thing is unjust in him that is thus offended and it is also unjust in him that offends when without Charity to his brother he heeds not as he ought the avoiding of grieving his brother contrary minded And this griefe may be called ruine of the person offended not only in the secondary sense but also in the primary sense occasioning not only griefe but also uncharitable judging dis-union or diminution of affections sometimes further sins Sometimes the griefe is unjust in the person offended but not in the person offending As many were offended at our Saviours and the Apostles preaching which yet were their necessary duties such persons were not only angred but sometimes forsook them and their fellowship by reason of such preaching and so the preaching was a scandall to them and a ruine both in the primary and secondary sense but through their own default and therefore unjustly on their part With this explication I conceive the definition given to be sufficient and right enough 5. That sinnes of thought are not scandalls unlesse they break out into acts whether of wordes or deeds If smothered or stayed within they are sinnes but not scandals 6 That then an offence is said to come by a man either when his intention is to harme his brother by his fact as Balaam did Revel 2. 14. or the nature and quality of the fact is apt to harme others as in S. Peters advice Math. 16. 23. In either of these two Cases it is scandalum datum or active scandall and the man that is the agent in such facts or words is one by whom the offence cōmeth But if a man doe his duty and men are scandalized if the offence were neither intended by the agent of the fact nor come from the nature of the action but from the ill disposition of him that is offended it is to be conceived to be only ex accidente accidentally to him whose action did offend and therefore it is in relation to him only scandalum passivum a passive scandall non datum sed acceptum not given by him but taken by the offended party who is thereby the scandalizer of himselfe or he by whom the offence cometh Our Saviours discourse concerning the eating of his flesh offended the Capernaites Iohn 6. 60. 61. But this was not by reason of Christs sermon which was of a necessary truth but from their own perverse ignorance In like manner the Pharisees were offended at Christs doctrine concerning the cause of defilement Math. 15. 12. but of this scandall not our Saviours doctrine but their owne malice was the proper cause The fact of the Reubenites offended the other tribes Iosh. 22. 10. 11. 12. but this was through their own mistake Now the woe here denounced belongs not to those through whose actions scandall comes by accident but those that give or cause scandall either in their intention or according to the nature quality or manner of their action So that that to which this woe belongs is not an object but an agent not only as scandalizing himselfe but another not by an action of the imagination but of word or deed bringing ruine to another either in a primary or secondary sense not by accident but eyther by direct intention or by reason of the nature quality or manner of the action In answer to the second quaere The particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or woe is used in our Saviours sayings to signifie some grievous judgement or calamity both temporall as Mat. 23. 29. the woe denounced to the Pharisees is expressed v. 33. to bee the damnation of hell And that this woe is here denounced to scandalizers appeares by the aggravation in the 2. verse where to have a milstone hanged about his necke and to be cast into the sea is made lesse than the woe here denounced to the scandalizer and Mat. 18. 7. when our Saviour had said Woe to the man by whom the offēce commeth he addes immediatly v. 8. that the hand offending should be cut off that the scandalizer by retaining his two hands be not cast into hell fire Hell fire or the damnation of hell is the chiefe and greatest woe due to the scandalizer But besides it there 's a woe also of temporall death awarded sometimes to scandalizers For this reason was Balaam the sonne of Peor slaine with the sword Num. 31. 8. that God might be avenged of him for his practise in teaching Balaak to lay a stumbling block before the children of Israel Elies sons sinned greatly in their scandalous facts for men abhorred the offering of the Lord 1. Sam. 2. 17. The issue was they were both slaine by the Philistins in one day Likewise other temporall woes on their soules bodies names estates posterity c. are inflicted by God on scandalizers Thus was David filled with trouble of soule for his sin in the matter of Vriah by which he caused the enemies of the Lord to blaspheame so that hee was faine to beg hard for restitution of joy comfort Psal. 51. 8. 12. And the incestuous Corinthian was so plunged over head and eares in sorrow that hee was almost drown'd with it 2. Cor. 2. 7. hee was cast out of the Church delivered over to Satan David for the fore-named sin was haunted with griefes in his children almost to his dying day and it stil lies as a blot upon his name The Priests that make others stumble at the Law and threatned with contemptiblenesse Malac. 2. 8. 9. No active scandall scapes scot-free there 's none veniall every one hath it's measure of woe yet not all alike For some of these scandalls are more heinous then others and therefore incurre a greater woe As for instance some scandalls consist in facts in their kind evill and these are worse than other scandalls which arise onely from the abuse of our liberty in things lawfull The scandall of Elies sonnes in respect of the foule nature of their facts was worse then than the scandall of the strong in faith by the eating of meats with offence mentioned Rom. 14. 2. Some scandalls are worse than other ratione causae in respect

may be of good use to endeavour the clearing of such difficulties incident to this argument as I have either by reading meditation or conference met with not discouraged by the conscience of mine owne insufficience but trusting in gods assistance with all assureing my selfe that among readers there will bee some that conceive esse aliquid prodire tenus And that the order I use may appeare 1. I shall briefly say somewhat of things lawful and indifferent and our liberty in their use 2. Of the waies whereby a christians conscience may be restrained from using this liberty 3. because the fourteenth chapter of the Epistle of S. Paul to the Romans and the eighth ninth and tenth of the first Epistle to the Corinthians are the seat of this argument I shall deliver as rightly as I can a summe or the Apostles resolutions concerning this point in those chapters 4. Out of these things premised and such other passages of holy scripture and reasons as I finde pertinent thereto I shall endeavour to resolve sundry questions or cases of this matter needfull to bee cleared yet not magisterially obtruding these resolutions on others but submitting them to examination as remembring that the spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets 1. Cor. 14. 32. In answering the first of these points wee are to take notice that there are some things lawful which are in themselves duties and commanded by God to be done which yet are to bee omitted at sometimes for the avoyding of scandall As for instance reproving of our neighbour is a duty enjoyned by God yet to bee omitted at some times when the person to be reproved would bee likely rather hardened then amended by reproofe In like manner may it bee said also of excommunication when there is danger of schisme of punishing malefactors when the issue would bee the overthrow of the common wealth Pro vitando scandalo cessat rigor dissiplinae is an old rule and a good one To avoyde scandall the rigour of discipline ceaseth This truth is grounded 1. On that rule which is among Divines received that praecepta negativa obligant semper ad semper they alwaies binde and to alwaies that is what is forbidden by God may at no time bee done no man may sinne to avoyde scandall Their damnation is just saith the Apostle Rom. 3. 8. that say Let us doe evill that good may come But on the other side affirmative precepts obligant semper sed non ad semper They alwayes bind but not to alwaies that is though they stand in force alwaies yet not so as to tye us to doe the things required at all times As for instance though Gods command alwaies bindes a christian to pray to give almes c. yet not to doe these alwaies but when the glory of God and the good of our brethren require it The knowledge of which time is partly to bee taken from rules and examples in holy scripture partly from godly prudence and reason which every man should have as a light to guide him in discerning the circumstances which make such actions necessary 2. On this consideration that those actions of reproofe punishing vice and the like to them are commanded principally to this end that they may doe good to men for the curing of their evills the furthering of vertue in them Wherefore when prudence shewes that such actions would bee either fruitles in respect of rheir end or contrariwise harmfull they are to bee forborne in this case there is Libertas non faciendi a liberty not to doe them or rather hee ought not to doe them Concerning this sort of things lawfull wherein our liberty is to bee restrained to avoyde scandall there needs not much more to be said but that when according to true prudence they appeare to bee necessary for Gods glory our owne salvation or our brethrens good then they are to bee done without regard of scandall consequent if to the contrary to bee omitted Few scruples there are in men about these things and such as bee may find some satisfaction from the resolutions of the Cases concerning things indifferent The second sort of things in which we may abuse our liberty to the scandall of our brethren are things indifferēt Now by things indifferent I understand not according to the vulgar acception of actions indifferent such actions as are neither much praise worthy nor much to be reproved because there is no speciall matter of goodnesse or hurt in them as for a man to eat when he is hungry to drinke when he is thirsty to keepe due houres for meales or on the contrary to omit these which though they may bee in common acception called indifferent yet according to exact speaking they are not indifferent but either right or sinfull as they are clothed with circumstances But by things indifferent I mean such actions as in their nature in se of themselvs are neither right nor sinfull neither commanded nor forbidden as to eat or not to eat such meats to eat sweet meats or sowre to goe or not to goe on foot to goe on foot or to ride to weare such cloathes or not to wear them to wear linnen or woollen to expresse our mind by word of mouth or writing to write on paper or parchment to speake in Latin or English In which and a thousand such like a christian hath both the liberty which is called Libertas contradictionis liberty in contradictories to doe or not to doe as to eat egges or not to eat them to weare a cloake or not to weare one and also the liberty which is called libertas contrarietatis liberty in contraries as in eating sweet or bitter food in wearing white or black In which there is a greater liberty than there is about duties For though wee are not bound to doe all duties at all times yet wee may not at any time doe the contrary as though wee are not at all times bound to reprove yet at no time to flatter But in things indifferent there is Libertas ad utrumlibet liberty in either of which we like to doe this or not to doe it to doe this or the contrary to it That there are actions of men that are in se of themselves abstracted from particularizing circumstances in their nature indifferent as hath bin said I take it as a certaine truth grounded on the speech of the Apostle 1. Cor. 8. 8. Neither if wee eat are wee the better neither if we eat not are we the worse like unto which are those Rom. 14. 5. 6. 14. 20. and on plaine reason For the contrary assertion must needes suppose that Gods lawes doe command or forbid every action in speciall which is not so as may appeare by induction in the particulars before mentioned and thousands of the like I have read of some that have gone about to maintaine that there is nothing indifferent but this opinion either hath beene retracted by the author or conceived