Selected quad for the lemma: heart_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
heart_n	bear_v	law_n	write_v	3,223	5	6.4540	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A42237	The most excellent Hugo Grotius, his three books treating of the rights of war & peace in the first is handled, whether any war be just : in the second is shewed, the causes of war, both just and unjust : in the third is declared, what in war is lawful, that is, unpunishable : with the annotations digested into the body of every chapter / translated into English by William Evats ...; De jure belli et pacis. English	Grotius, Hugo, 1583-1645.; Evats, William.	1682 (1682)	Wing G2126; ESTC R8527	890,585	490

that is without Law as being free from the Law And in another place A Greek he calls not him that was given to Idols but him that invoked the true God Orat. 2. de statuis and yet observed not the Jewish Ceremonies as their Sabbaths their Circumcision their ablutions and the like but yet endeavoured to steer the whole course of his life according to the Rules of wisdom and true piety Now these as the Hebrew Doctors themselves testify were bound to live in conformity to the Laws given to Adam and Noah abstaining from Idols and Blood and from other things hereafter exprest but not to the Laws peculiar to the Jews and therefore whereas it was not lawful for the Jews to eat the flesh of any thing that dyed of it self yet it was lawful for the stranger living among them so to do Deut. 14.21 unless it were to some particular Laws wherein it was expresly provided that as well the stranger as the home born was bound to observe them For we read that it was lawful to the stranger that never submitted to the Mosaical Law to worship God even in the Temple at Jerusalem yet so that he stood in a particular place by himself separate from that of the Hebrews as you may read 1 Kings 8.41 Jo. 12.20 Act. 8.27 Neither did Elisha enjoin Naaman nor Jonas the Ninevites nor Daniel Nebuchadnezzar nor the other Prophets perswade the Syrians Moabites or Aegyptians unto whom they wrote that there was any necessity at all for them to submit to the yoke of the Jewish Law And what I say here of the whole Law is true also of Circumcision which was as it were the introduction unto it with this only difference That to the whole Law of Moses the Israelites only were bound but to that of Circumcision all the posterity of Abraham And from hence it was that the Idumeans being the off-spring of Esau Ismael or Cetura were compelled by the Israelites to be circumcised as both the Jewish and Grecian Histories inform us Besides of all other Nations Rom. 2.14 that of St. Paul holds true Seeing that the Gentiles who have not the Law do by Nature the things of the Law that is by their own manners and Customs flowing from the original fountain of reason unless any man had rather referr the word Nature to the words foregoing thereby opposing the Gentiles to the Jews who as soon as they were born had their Law instilled into them these having not the Law are a Law unto themselves as shewing the work of the Law written in their hearts their thoughts and Consciences mutually accusing or excusing themselves And that also in the 26th verse of the same Chapter If the uncircumcision keep the Law shall not his uncircumcision be accounted for Circumcision Thus doth Chrysostome expound that place of St. Paul before cited The Gentiles by Nature that is by the very Dictates of Right reason And presently after in this saith he are they to be admired That they stood in no need of the Law to guide them And that instead thereof they were guided only by the use of reason and the light of their own Consciences Thus also doth Tertullian argue against the Jews of his age Long saith he before Moses wrote the Law in the Tables of stone there was as I will justifie a Law naturally understood and observed by the Patriarchs Ant. lib. 20. c. 2. And therefore Ananias the Jew in Josephus did rightly inform Izates Adiabenus That God might be duly worshipped and well pleased with us Although we were not circumcised And Triphon himself grants this to Justin That there was some hopes left him of a better condition though he did persist in the way of his own Philosophy Now the reasons why so many strangers among the Jews were circumcised and thereby obliged to keep the Law as St. Paul expounds it were The reason why strangers were circumcised Gal. 5.3 partly that they might partake of the priviledges of the Jewish Commonwealth for Proselytes enjoyed the same Rights with the Israelites as may be gathered out of Numb 15. and is plainly asserted Exod. 12.27 And partly that thereby they might be made capable of those Promises which were not common to all Nations but peculiar to the Jews only Although I cannot deny but that there grew up afterwards an erroneous opinion affirming that without the pale of the Jewish Church there could be no Salvation From hence then we may collect that we Gentiles stand obliged to no part of the Mosaical Law as a Law properly so called because all obligation beyond that which ariseth from the Law of Nature is derived from the will of the Lawgiver But that it was the will of God that any other Nation besides the Jews should be bound by that Law cannot be made out by any solid arguments we need not therefore as to our selves prove the abrogation of that Law because it cannot be said to be abrogated as to them whom it never bound yea even to the Jews themselves the obliging power was abolished as to the Ceremonial Law as soon as the Evangelical Law began to be promulgated which was plainly revealed to St. Peter Acts 10.15 Acts 10.15 And as to the rest after that people ceased to be a people by the destruction of their City and that general desolation that succeeded without any hopes of restitution but we who are strangers are not freed from that Law by the advent of Christ but by Christ we who before had nothing but a faint and obscure hope placed only in the goodness of God are now strengthened by a clear and firm Covenant assuring us that we also may grow up together with the Jews being the sons of the Patriarchs into one Church the Judaical Law which was that Partition-wall that kept us asunder being now taken away as St Paul testifies to the Ephesians Eph. 2.14 XVII What Christians may learn from the Mosaical Law Since the Mosaical Law cannot directly oblige us as hath been already proved let us now see of what other use it will be to us as well in this case of War as in the li●e doubtful cases the knowledge of this being very necessary for the clearing of diverse cases For in the first place from hence we may be assured that what was heretofore commanded in that Law is not repugnant to the Law of Nature For since the Law of Nature is as I have already said perpetual and immutable nothing can be commanded us by God contrary to this Law because God can never be unjust Psal 19.8 Rom. 7.12 Besides the Law of Moses is as the Psalmist speaks pure and right and as the Apostle saith Holy just and good which places are to be understood of the precepts of the Law only But as to the permissions of the Law we must speak of them more distinctly Now legal permission for that which respects the bare fact and

made of marriages And Cassiodore will inform us Lib. 7. c. 40. that they were not to marry any woman of unequal condition to themselves without leave obtained from their Prince But certainly in the state of Nature such unequal marriages may be Authentick if the woman be under the custody and safeguard of her husband and have plighted her troth unto him So also under the state of the Evangelical Law a marriage between two Servants or between a Free-man and a Servant is a firm and lawful marriage much more that between a Citizen and a Stranger a Senator and a Free-woman if those things which are necessarily required by the Divine Christian Law to the accomplishment of a marriage be added namely an indissoluble joyning together of one man to one woman although some effects properly due by the Civil Law to other marriages Concubines do not attend these or which of their own accord would follow these were they not by some Law hindered And thus are the words of the first Tol●tane Council to be understood He that hath no Wife but instead of a Wife hath a Concubine may not be driven from the Communion so as he content himself with one woman whether she be his Wife or Concubine as he pleaseth Concerning such a Concubine De fide oper St. Augustine writes thus If she shall solemnly profess that she will never know any other man although he to whom she is at present subject should dismiss her It may be worthy our pains Lib. de bono Conjugii to enquire whether she should not be admitted to Baptism So in another place A question doth often arise In case a man and a woman being neither husband nor wife to any other shall agree to lye together not for procreation sake but only to avoid Incontinency and shall give faith each to other never to enjoy any else whether that may be be called a marriage or no And haply saith he it may not absurdly be so called Concerning Concubines St. Aug. if they both agree that this conjunction shall continue until death and although the procreation of children were not the main end they proposed to themselves in their lying together yet if they do not purposely avoid it nor do any wicked act Gen. 38.9 to the intent that children should not be born unto them But if a man have a Wife he ought not to keep a Concubine lest she estrange his heart from his Wife Hereunto likewise we may refer that Theodosius and Valentinianus do call an unequal marriage a kind of Fornication and that from thence an Accusation of Adultery is said to arise XVI Some marriages though forbid to be done yet being done are valid Though the Laws of men do forbid some certain persons to be joyned in marriage yet it follows not that being married their marriage is void For it is one thing to forbid the doing of a thing and another to make that void that is done For the Prohibition may extend it● force no farther than to some penalty either exprest or arbitrary which sort of Laws Vlpian calls Imperfect Laws Quae fieri quid vetant sed factum non rescindunt Which prohibit the doing but rescind not the fact done Such was the Cincian Law among the Romans Instit Tit. 1. that restrained men from giving more than unto such a proportion Liv. lib. 10. but did not make void that which was given beyond it The Valerian Law saith Livy when it forbad the whipping with Rods or the killing with the Axe him that had provoked or challenged another imposed no penalty upon the breaker of the Law but adjudged it to be improbe factum dishonestly done such was the modesty of those times when Infamy only was thought a sufficient guard to the Laws whereas now there is scarce any that will so mildly threaten his servant Ulpian By the Fusian Law none except some few particular persons was to receive by way of Legacy more than ten thousand Asses Mille assum which reduced to our Coyn amount to about one and thirty pounds ten shillings reckoning every As to an Half Penny Farthing Ad Somn. Scip●onis See Sect. 14. of this Chapter towards the end and he that received more was to forfeit the Quadruple summ Amongst those Laws that were called Imperfect Macrobius reckons those which had no penalty annexed to the breach of them Such was that rescript of D. Marcus That Heir who forbad him to perform Funeral Rites who was thereunto appointed by the Testator did not rightly howbeit he ordered no punishment to be inflicted upon him that did it We do acknowledge that amongst the Romans it was afterwards introduced by the Theodosian Law That whatsoever was prohibited only by the Law although it was not expresly said that what was done contrary unto it should be as null yet if it proceeded to Judgment it should be construed as unprofitable void and of no force But this strained construction arose not from the force of the bare prohibition but from the vertue of the new Law which other Nations were not obliged to follow For sometimes there is greater indecency in the act doing than there can be in the effects that proceed from it and sometimes also the inconveniences which do follow upon the Recession or making void of the fact are more than could ensue upon the doing of it XVII Of the right of the major part of a Society Besides this of marriage which of all Consociations is the most natural there are divers others as well private as publick and those either over the people or of the people But all of them have this in common that as to those things for which such a Society is instituted the whole or the major part in the name of the whole do oblige every particular in that Society For it may well be presumed that it was the mind of those that first entred into that Society that the power to determine all matters therein treated should rest somewhere But because it would be apparently unjust that some few Persons should impose upon the rest where every Person hath equal power therefore by the Right of Nature setting aside those Orders and By-Laws which do prescribe a Form or Method to the whole Society in the handling and discussing of matters that are brought before them the major part should have the power of the whole So Thucydides That which the Multitude or the greater part thereof shall decree is Authoritative Appianus was of the same mind As well in publick Elections as in Courts of Judgment Lib. 5. the greater part rules the rest So also was Dionysius Halicarn That which seems best to the most Quod pluribus visum id valere must prevail that is Unless it be otherwise provided by some former Law or Agreement that of such a number of persons such and such shall be of the Quorum whereof any

although the words following do properly appertain to the repelling of injuries which licence they do at least in some measure restrain yet much more may we think their purpose was to prohibit revenge because they seem to be placed in direct opposition to that permission which was anciently given them and so to imply a rejection of that licence as being agreeable only to Moses's more imperfect Discipline Not that a just revenge was evil Non quod iniqua est justa ultio sed quod ei praestet patientia Clem. Con. stitut Aug. in Ps 108. but that Christian patience was much better This revenge by way of retaliation St Augustine calls the justice of the unrighteous Not that the vengeance which the Law decrees is unjust but that our thirst after revenge is sinful which better befits a Judge to order than a wise man to exact for his own satisfaction only Concerning which matter thus speaks Tertullian God by the Prophet Zachary commands thus Let no man be mindful of or remember an injury done him by his Brother Zach. 7.10 Zach. 7.10 and not by his Brother only but by his Neighbour also as appears by another charge given by the same Prophet Zach. 8.17 Zach. 8.17 Let no man imagine evil against his neighbour no not in his heart Whence Tertullian infers Multo magis patientiam indixit injuriae qui indixit oblivionem He that commands us to forget injuries doth much more command us to bear them patiently and he that cleanseth the heart from thinking evil doth much more restrain the hands from doing evil and when he saith Vengeance is mine I will repay it what doth he but teach us That we should wait with patience till God whose Prerogative it is to revenge will be pleased to take our Cause into his own hand And seeing that he will not permit us so much as to remember injuries or to imagine evil in our hearts against our Neighbour it is plain That he doth not require that we should exact an eye instead of an eye or a tooth instead of a tooth by way of revenge but rather by permitting the second injury his main scope was to repress the first Ut unusquisque recipiens licentiam secundae injuriae à prima semetipsum contineret That every man considering with himself that whatsoever he doth unto others he must suffer the like from others may be the more fearful of doing that wrong which he would not be content to suffer For the Argument as to men was more forceable to restrain us from doing violence by setting before us the Law of counter-passion than by assuring us that he himself would avenge it And yet both these flaming swords are set to restrain us from doing wrong Ut qui Deo crederet ultionem à Deo expectaret qui minus fideret Leges talionis timeret That he who believes that God is the Avenger might fear to offend lest God should avenge it and he who believes not might yet be afraid of the Laws of men when he assuredly knew That what wrong soever he did unto his neighbour he should undoubtedly suffer either from him or others Our Saviour's Precept then of suffering injuries patiently and of forbearing revenge is not inconsistent with the Discipline of Moses but rather strengthens and confirms it And indeed if we look at the reason of this so perfect and exact patience that is required of us we shall find that there would be but little of equity in the Precept if it did not proceed from him who is the righteous Judge of the whole Earth and who hath engaged himself by his word and promise That he himself will revenge our wrongs For if he that imposeth on me this grievous burthen of not only not returning a blow that is given me but of offering mine other cheek to the Smiter and of not only not returning reproaches for reproaches but of blessing those that curse me if I say he that restraineth me thus from righting my self do not right me in vain doth he command me patience if he give me not the reward of that patience which is a just revenge which he ought to permit to me if he do it not himself and if he suffer not me to do it he himself is bound to perform it For Disciplinae interest injuriam vindicari It is a necessary part of good Discipline to help them to right that suffer wrong And metu ultionis omnis refraenatur iniquitas the fear of a just revenge restrains all acts of violence By this of Tertullian we may see That it is not only unlawful for a Christian to exact this Law of retaliation but that it was not tolerated among the Hebrews as a thing simply and in it self commendable but only for the prevention of a greater evil Thus also doth St Chrysostome expound that Law of retaliation In Eph. 4.13 Therefore doth Christ urge that of Moses An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth Ut illius manus cohibeat non ut tuas excitet contra To restrain him that offers the wrong not to provoke thee to revenge who sufferest it not only to preserve Thine eye but to keep His also safe That it is not lawful for a Christian to exact this Law out of hatred nor barely as a punishment for that which is past is without all question The most learned amongst the Hebrews did not apprehend it in that latitude for they respected not so much the words of the Law as the reason of it and the intent of the Law-giver This appears by the acknowledgment of the Jews of Alexandria as Philo tells the Story who when they beheld the calamities that befel Flaccus who was their bitter enemy cried out Non delectamur Domine ultione de inimico c. We delight not O Lord in revenge though on our enemy for from thy Sacred Laws we have learned to commiserate the man And to that end is that general Precept of our Saviour To forgive every man without distinction that hath offended us that is Neither to do nor to wish them any evil out of the sense of that evil which they have done unto us Matt. 6.14 15. for he that doth so is cruel arrogating that unto himself which is due unto the Laws wherefore Lactantius reciting those words of Cicero Is vir bonus est qui prodest quibus possit noceat nemini nisi lacessitus injuriâ He is a good man that doth good to whomsoever he can but hurts none unless provoked by some injury thus descants upon them O what a plain and excellent Sentence is here spoiled by the addition of two words And St Ambrose reciting the same Sentence of Cicero saith That that Sentence wanted the authority of the holy Gospel to confirm it which teacheth us That to return an injury hath no less of evil than to infer one But what shall we say of that revenge which respects not the time past

and the like The same almost may be said of such things as a man enjoys either jure precario by entreaty or permission respect being had to the propriety of the thing Or in his own private right respect being had to that Soveraign Right that every City or State hath over it for the publick and general safety Now if any of these shall be taken away by the occasion of another mans crime it is not as I have said before properly as a punishment but as the execution of that precedent right which by promise was transferred to him that takes it So when that Beast is put to death with whom a man hath had copulation as by the Law of Moses was decreed it was not by way of punishment forasmuch as a Beast having no Law cannot be said properly to sin and consequently is not liable to punishment but it is by virtue of that Right and Dominion that men have over Beasts to do with them as they please XII Properly no man can be justly punished for anothers fault These distinctions being granted we say that no innocent person can be punished for the default of another the reason whereof is Because every punishment presupposeth an offence and every offence must needs be personal because it ariseth from the choice of the will and nothing can be more truly and properly ours than that which derives its Being from us XIII No not the Children for their Parents It was St Hieroms observation That Neque virtutes neque vitia parentum liberis imputantur That neither the virtues nor vices of Parents are imputed unto their Children And St Augustine concludes peremptorily † Epist. 105. That it stands not with the perfection of Gods Justice to punish an innocent Dion Chrysostome when he had said That by the Athenian Laws the Children were sometimes put to death for their Parents crimes speaking of the Law of God he subjoyns But this Law doth not like the other punish the posterity of those that sin but makes every man to be the author of his own misery according to that common Proverb Noxa sequitur caput The punishment follows the malefactor only We do Decree say the Christian Emperours That where the guilt is there shall be the punishment for sin like a viper devours its own parents and therefore our fears should not be extended farther than our guilt Quis locus innocentiae relinquitur si alienum crimen maculet nescientem Where saith St Augustine shall innocence find sanctuary if the child that is ignorant and innocent must be involved in his fathers punishment Philo in his Special Laws Lib. 2. abominating the custom of some Nations in destroying the Children of Traytors and Tyrants saith Justum est eorum esse poenas quorum sunt delicta It is just that they should suffer that have sinned And in another place There is nothing saith he more unjust or of more dangerous consequence to a State than to deny either the virtuous children of wicked parents their deserved honour or the wicked children of virtuous parents their due punishment For the Law judgeth every man according to his own works and neither commends any man for the virtues nor condemns any man for the vices of his ancestors And Josephus condemns the contrary fact in Alexander King of the Jews calling it The exaction of punishment exceeding all humane measure So also doth Dionysius Halicarnassensis where he confutes that common pretence of cruelty which is that malus corvus malum ovum the child will be like the father For this also saith he is very uncertain and an uncertain fear can be no ground sufficient to justifie a certain death One was so bold as to tell Arcadius a Christian Emperour that the children should also attend their guilty parents to death if but suspected to have been infected by their example And Ammianus relates a story of a Daughter at that time very little that was put to death Nè ad parentum exempla succresceret lest she should grow to be like her parents Neither is the fear of revenge any just cause to destroy the children of guilty parents which occasioned that Greek Proverb Who kills the Sire and saves the Son's a fool For as Seneca notes There is nothing more unrighteous than for a child to inherit his fathers malice Pausanias the Greek Emperour would not do the least hurt to the Children of Attaginus who had caused the Thebans to revolt unto the Medes presuming that they were not guilty of that conspiracy And M. Anthony in his Epistle to the Roman Senate commands them to pardon the Sons of Avidius Cassius who had conspired against him together with his Son-in-Law and his Wife adding But what speak I of pardoning them who have done no evil And Julian highly commends the like humanity in Constantius shewing That good Children do many times spring from wicked Parents as Bees out of rocks Figgs out of bitter wood and Pomegranats from thorns XIV The objection taken from Gods dealing with men answered But God in the Mosaical Law threatens to visit the sins of Fathers upon their Children but he hath a full and absolute Power and Dominion not only over our goods but lives also as being his own gifts which he may take away from us at any time and that without any other cause given than his own will If therefore he do at any time by some violent and untimely death snatch away the children of an Achan Saul Jeroboam Ahab or the like he doth but exercise his own right of Dominion and not that of punishment and yet by the same effect he doth the more exquisitely punish the parents of those children Rab. Simon Barsemi 2 Sam. 21. 1 King 14. 2 Kings 8 9 10. Hom. 29. in Gen. 9. as some of the Jewish Doctors taught very truly For whether the parents do survive their children which the Divine Law did chiefly respect and therefore extends not its threats beyond the fourth generation which was possible for a man to see Exod. 25. most certain it is that the Parents were even therein intended to be more severely punished by so sad an example as being thereby more deeply wounded than by their own sufferings as Chrysostome well observes wherewith agrees that of Plutarch Nullum durius supplicium quam eos qui ex se sunt ob se miseros spectare No punishment so grievous as to see those born of us to be for our faults miserable Or whether the parents do not live so long as to see their childrens sufferings yet doubtless to depart this life in that fear is a most dreadfull torment The hardness of mens hearts saith Tertullian did urge the Almighty to this severity that so they that had any care of the welfare of their posterity might yield the more ready obedience to the Law of God Whereunto we may add that of Alexander in Curtius who being demanded what should become of their innocent