Selected quad for the lemma: master_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A30985
|
Several miscellaneous and weighty cases of conscience learnedly and judiciously resolved / by the Right Reverend Father in God, Dr. Thomas Barlow ...
|
Barlow, Thomas, 1607-1691.
|
1692
(1692)
|
Wing B843; ESTC R21506
|
129,842
|
472
|
admit the Jews into this Common-weal and of the conveniences and inconveniences of their admission he only and not the People is to judge and by a Law authorize their admission then as to the Subjects their admission is no more a thing of indifferency but necessity No more matter of Offence or Scandal but Obedience such as we who are Subjects should not dispute but obey So that if any Man take offence or be scandalized at it it will certainly be Scandalum acceptum non datum And so not the fault of the Magistrate but of the Men if there be any such who are irrationally offended And this will manifestly appear if we consider 1. The Magistrate in reference to the People under him 2. The People in reference to the Magistrate and in reference one to another 1. For the Magistrate as he stands in Relation to the People it is certain by virtue of that supreme authority with which he is entrusted he is to judge what things are convenient or inconvenient for the People 2 When after serious Debate and mature Deliberation all circumstances considered he shall really think and judge that this which before was indifferent and no way enjoyned is hic nunc best for the publick good then he justly may by his legislative Power enjoyn the doing of it and by a positive Law bring a just Obligation upon the Subjects to do accordingly 3. Nor is this all he not only may but is bound and if he will do his Duty must do so and that by the Law of Nature and from the very first Principles of his Duty and that Magistracy he is intrusted with for it being certain that Salus Populi suprema Lex est and by his great and sacred Office an Obligation lies upon him by all honourable and honest means to procure their good so far as in him lies if he see such things though at present indifferent would much conduce to the Publick Good if they were enjoyned and obey'd accordingly I say in this case if he do not command them he neglects his Duty and violates that sacred Obligation which binds him to it So in this present case if all things maturely considered he impartially judge the readmission of the Jews will really and indeed tend to the good of the Publick he is bound to readmit them and he should be wanting to his Duty in promoting the Interest and Good of the Common-weal if he should do otherwise 4. Nor is it possible that any Scandal or Offence taken by the People should be of that moment as to hinder him And the Reason of this is manifest because the Obligation of doing his Duty and procuring the Peoples Good lies so indispensably upon him that he must not omit it though they be never so much displeased seeing if it must be so that one party will be displeased it is far more rational to hazard the Peoples than Gods Displeasure For if he do it and the People be scandalized and offended at it that Scandal is only Scandalum acceptum groundless and on his part altogether causless But if he neglect his Duty and do it not God is really and justly offended So that in short if after all things considered the Wisdom of the State shall judge it convenient and beneficial for the Publick to readmit the Jews and we are bound in Charity to think that unless they judge so they will not admit them then they are in Duty bound to do it notwithstanding any Displeasure or pretended Scandal which their Subjects will or can conceive against them for so doing It being evident that no supreme Magistrate is to neglect the doing of his Duty or using his just and lawful Liberty and Authority in putting that in Execution which upon impartial judgment and deliberation he conceives convenient for the good of the Common-wealth It is I confess to be wished and heartily prayed for that all Men would with a charitable Opinion and obsequious Obedience rest satisfied with the deliberate resolutions and constitutions of their Magistrates really intended for the publick Good and no doubt all sober and moderate Persons will do so But this is rather to be wished than hoped for The understandings aimes and interest of Men being so different that supreme Governours in no Age or Country did ever satisfie all no not with their best Actions and therefore it is not to be expected now But this pretended Scandal and Dissatisfaction of some should in reason be no Remora or Hinderance to the Magistrate to go on and according to his best Skill and Judgment promote the Good of all And if this be not admitted it will unhinge and enervate all Governments whatsoever For the Command of no King ever pleased all his Subjects of no General all his Souldiers of no Fatherof a Family all his Children and Servants of no Schoolmaster all his Scholars and yet this never did or indeed should hinder any King or General or Father or Master to give Commands such as in prudence they thought convenient and being given to put them in Execution The truth is it were impossible for any Government to subsist if supreme Magistrates should make no Law or civil Sanction till all their Subjects were satisfied 5. And as evident Reasons may in this Case of readmitting the Jews be drawn for the Liberty which by the Law of Nature and Scripture is inherent in the supreme Magistrate's and his just Authority to determine of indifferent things to prove that he gives no Scandal in case he use that Liberty and Authority in readmitting and giving Priviledges such as in prodence he shall think fit to the Jews So there may be further Reasons drawn for the same purpose from the consideration of the Subjects in relation to the supreme Magistrate For as they stand in this Relation there lies an Obligation upon them by the Law of God and Nature to yield cheerful and willing Obedience to all the just Commands of their Governours as this undoubtedly is and then where Obedience is morally due Offence and Scandal is in vain pretended It is irrational and irreligious too to pretend Scandal for the neglect of my Duty and so evidently disobey God and my Governours upon pretence I am afraid so to do But enough if not too much of this He that would have more Reasons from the Nature of Scandal may find enough in the best Casuist of our Nation and may be of any Nation else where although his Discourse in Hypothesi be applied to other particulars and a different Case of Scandal from this now in question yet what he hath said there in Thesi is as applicable to this as that 6. Now concerning this Toleration of the Jews we may further enquire 1. What Power is to give this Toleration 2. In what things they are to give it 3. For what Reasons and Motives they are to do it 4. How far and with what Restrictions and Limitations this should be
for 't is no man's duty to believe any positive truth of Christian Religion till it be sufficiently revealed a sufficient revelation of truth being absolutely necessary and antecedent to an obligation to believe it and so to the duty of believing and when that is the Magistrate cannot certainly know and therefore he cannot compell any to the belief of these or those opinions as a part of their duty seeing he cannot certainly know whether it be their duty or no. Sir These Adversaria tumultuarily put together will need your pity and pardon being neither in a just order or method nor having that evidence of proof which otherwise they might have had had either my parts been better or my time for Meditation more As they are you freely have them and an absolute power to approve or condemn them Given you by SIR Your most Obliged humble Servant c. THE CASE OF MURDER The Case of MURDER GEN. ix 6. An Objection from the said Text That Kings have not power to pardon Murder Answered FOR the clearing and further Evidence of the truth of this Position That Kings and Supreme Powers may in some Cases pardon Murder there remains one and for ought yet appears but one Objection to be answered 't is grounded on the Law given to Noah after the Flood and about 796 years before the Mosaical Law which says that the Murderer shall surely be put to death The Law given to Noah was in these words He that sheds man's blood by man shall his blood be shed Wherein God Almighty appoints death to be the punishment of Murder Now if it be granted that the Mosaical Law binds only the Jews to whom it was given yet this Law given to Noah and in him to all his Posterity must bind Jews and Gentiles too who are all equally his Posterity Sol. In answer to this Objection and the reason of it which no way proves what is pretended I say 1. It is confess'd that this Law given to Noah did bind him and all his Posterity There were three men and but three who could make Positive Laws to bind all the World 1. Adam 2. Noal 3. Our Blessed Saviour Whatever Laws any of them made after sufficient Promulgation oblig'd the whole World and what Laws God gave to Adam or Noah all such Laws after sufficient Promulgation oblig'd their Posterity that is the whole World for as before the Flood all the men in the World came from Adam so after the Flood from Noah and it must be confess'd that although this Law given to Noah does not bind many to whom it was never promulg'd or made known yet God has sufficiently made it known to all Jews and Christians in the holy Scriptures and therefore we must confess our selves under the Obligation of it 2. It is certain that this Law given to Noah was as all Penal Laws are a Positive Law and that all such Laws are capable of Dispensation and that in several Cases without any dispensation their Obligation ceases of which more anon 3. It is certain that by these words By man shall his blood be shed By man there the Magistrate is meant who had Jus Gladii Power of Life and Death and so Authority to condemn and execute a Murderer which no Private Person had or could upon any just Grounds pretend to 4. When it is said That the Murderers blood shall be shed by man The Proposition is not Universal that every Murderer shall be put to death For if Noah or any Supreme Power had been a Murderer as even David the best of Kings was he could not by this or any other Law be put to death 1. Because it is evident that the Supreme Power has no Superior and therefore none to punish him especially not with death the greatest Punishment man can suffer 2. Nor could he do it himself for although Kings and Supreme Powers have Authority to take away other mens lives when they are Capital Offenders and do things worthy of death yet they cannot take away their own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Self-murder being in no case lawful 3. And as they could not without sin and great Impiety kill themselves so they could not give Commission to any to do it It being impossible that I should give another Power to do that which I had no power to do my self 5. And as this Law extends not to Supreme Powers whose Blood cannot be shed by man although man's Blood have been shed by them so it extends not to all Subjects and Inferior persons who have Lawful Magistrates This the infinitely wise and just Lawgiver God himself has told us in the Text That if a Master had slain his Man-servant or Maid-servant and they die immediately under his hand then he was to be punish'd but if that Servant lived a day or two 24 hours say the Rabbins the Jews accounting 12. hours for a day his Master who kill'd him was not to die So that though a Master had shed the blood of his Man-servant or Maid-servant yet his blood by this Law given to Noah could not be shed for it 6. Other Cases there may be and are wherein a man may shed man's blood and yet his blood may not be shed for it For instance The Law required two Witnesses to put any Murderer to death and therefore if Sempronius had shed Titius his blood yet if there was but one Witness legally to prove it Sempronius his blood could not be shed by any man By the Premisses I think it is evident that this Law given to Noah He that sheds blood by man shall his blood be shed is not so universally obligatory as some may think it is Seeing there may be many persons and cases wherein man's blood may be shed and yet he who did it cannot be put to death for so doing The Query then will be Whether the Supreme Power who as to have his blood shed by any man is not under the Obligation of this Law may not in some cases pardon a person condemn'd for Murder For a distinct answer to this Query it is to be considered 1. That it is certain that this Law given to Noah nor any Law de poenis is not a Natural or Moral Law all which Laws were ab Origine at the Creation writ in the Heart of Adam and from him in the Hearts of all his Posterity and their Obligation eternal and indispensable But it was a positive Law given to Noah 1658. years after the Creation 2. It is certain That all such Positive and Penal Laws are capable of Dispensations and many Cases may happen in some times and circumstances of which the Supreme Power is the only or at least the Supreme Judge wherein the Obligation of such Laws ceaseth so that no man is bound to execute or undergo the Punishments appointed by those Laws That this may evidently appear I shall give some few Instances 1. It was a Divine