Selected quad for the lemma: master_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
master_n	child_n	servant_n	wife_n	7,379	5	6.5654	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A69753	The generall demands, of the reverend doctors of divinitie, and ministers of the Gospell in Aberdene, concerning the late covenant, in Scotland together, with the answeres, replyes, and duplyes that followed thereupon, in the year, 1638 : reprinted in one book, by order of Parliament.	Forbes, John, 1593-1648.; Henderson, Alexander, 1583?-1646.	1663 (1663)	Wing C4226; Wing C4225; ESTC R6298	125,063	170

taken to injure or offend any man by denying to him that which is due to him and therefore we ought not for eschewing scandall causelesly taken to offend and injure our superioures in Church and Policy by denying to them that obedience which is due to them The antecedent is clear by many examples For if a man be excommunicated shall his Wife Children and servants slee his company and so deny to him these dueties which they ow to him for fear that others be scandalized by their keeping of company with an excommunicate Person And if they may not for eschewing of scandall abstaine from these dueties which they ow to a private person much lesse may we abstaine from that obedience which we ow to our superioures having publicke charges in Church and Policy for eschewing of scandalls causelesly taken by others 40. Fiftly what if the thing commanded be enjoined by the civill Magistrate under paine of death and by Ecclesiasticall Authority under paine of excommunication shall we for fear of a scandall causelesly taken which may be removed by information or for the scandall of the malicious who will not be informed at all abstaine from the doing of a thing lawfull and expedient enjoined by Authority and by so doing incurre these most grievous punishments of Death temporall and spirituall We believe that your selves who speak most of scandall would be loath to take such a yoke upon you 41. Sixtly The denying of obedience to the lawfull commandements of our superioures is forbidden in the fift Commandement and consequently it is a sin Shall we then for a scandall causelesly taken deny obedience to our superioures and so incurre the guiltinesse of sin Ye commonly answere to this that the negative part of the fift Commandement which forbideth the resisting of the power Rom. 13. verse 2. and in generall the denying of obedience to superioures is to be understood with the exception of the case of any scandall taken by others For if we see say ye that any may or will take offence at the doing of that which is cōmanded by our superioures we are not holden to obey them and our denying of obedience to them in such a case is not forbidden in that Commandement 42. But first we aske what warrand ye have to say that the negative part of the fift Commandement is to be understood with the exception of the case of scandall more then other negative precepts of the second Table Secondly As men may take offence either through weaknesse or malice at our doing of the thing commanded so they are most ready to stumble at our denying of obedience to the lawfull commandements of our superioures for they will take occasion by our carriage to doe that unto which by nature they are most enclined to wit to vilipend Lawes and the Authority of their superioures Shall we then for the eschewing of a scandall causelesly taken not only refuse to our superioures the duety of obedience which they crave of us but also incurre an other scandall and that a farre more perilous one Thirdly we have already shown that the negative part of the fift Commandement is not all wayes to be understood with the exception of the case of scandall causelesly taken For Wives Children and Servants must not deny obedience and familiar conversation to their Husbands Parents and Masters which are excommunicated for fear that others through weaknesse or malice be scandalized thereat Fourthly As ye say that the precept concerning obedience to superioures is to be understood with the exception of the case of scandall causelesly taken so we with farre better reason say that the precept of eschewing scandall causelesly taken is to be understood with the exception of the case of obedience peremptorly required by our lawfull superioures as we shall show in our next Argument Whether the Precept of Obedience to Superioures or the Precept of eschewing scandall be more obligatory 43. Last of all when a man is peremptorly urged by his superioures to obey their lawfull Commandements and in the mean time feareth that if he doe the thing commanded by them some through weakness shall be scandalized by his carriage in this case he is not only in a difficulty or strait betwixt the commandement of Man and the Commandement of GOD who forbiddeth us to doe that whereby our weak Brother may be offended but also he seemeth to be in a strait betwixt two of GODS Commandements to wit betwixt that precept which forbiddeth the doing of any thing whereby the weake may be scandalized and that other precept which forbiddeth the resisting of Authority and telleth us that whosoever resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of GOD. Now seeing GODS Precepts are not repugnant one to another neither doeth GOD by his Lawes lay upon us a necessity of sinning out of all question in this case we are fred from the obligation of one of these precepts and that which doeth not so strictly tye us or is lesse obligatory must needs give place to the other which is of greater obligation Ye commonly say that the precept of obedience to humane Authority must give place to the precept of eschewing scandall although it be causelesly taken And to confirme your Assertion ye say that the ordinance of a superiour can not make that fact to be free of scandall which otherwise would be scandalous and that a fact upon which any scandall followeth ought not to be done for the commandement of Man Whence ye collect that in such a case we ought not to regard or obey the Commandement of our Superiours 44. This your Reason can not be good because we can easily retort the Argument and say to you that in such a case we ought not to regard the scandall causelesly taken by our weak Brethren so far as to deny simplie and absolutely Obedience to our Superiours for it and that because the sin of Disobedience ought to be eschewed and no Scandall of weak brethren causelesly taken can make that fact not to be the sin of disobedience which otherwise that is extra casum scandali would bee the sin of disobedience For it is certain that laying aside the case of scandall to deny obedience to the ordinance of our Superiours enjoining and peremptorly requiring of us things lawfull and expedient is really the sin of disobedience Ye will say that the scandall of weak brethren may make that Fact or Omission not to be disobedience which otherwise would be disobedience because we ought not for the Commandement of man doe that whereby our weak brother may be offended and so the precept of obedience bindeth not when offence of a weak brother may be feared On the contrary we say that the lawfull commandement of Superiours may make that scandall of our weake brethren not to be imputed unto us which otherwise would be imputed unto us as a matter of our guiltinesse because we ought not for fear of scandal causelesly taken deny obedience to the lawfull