Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	ceremonial_a	law_n	moral_a	2,252	5	9.4056	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A62378	An exposition vvith notes on the whole fourth chapter to the the Romanes wherein the grand question of justification by faith alone, without works, is controverted, stated, cleared, and fully resolved ... / by William Sclater, Doctor in Divinity, sometimes minister of Gods word at Pitminster, in Summerset ; now published by his son, William Sclater, Batchelar in Divinity, minister at Collompton in Devon.	Sclater, William, 1575-1626.; Sclater, William, 1609-1661.	1650 (1650)	Wing S918; ESTC R37207	141,740	211

both Jews and Gentiles as it is written Therefore the promise must be sure to all the seed Sense That the force of the argument may appear See we briefly the sense of the words The whole seed of Abraham is here Paraeus as some think described by properties as I rather think distributed into kinds They that think it described imagine a trajection of the Article and thus render To the whole seed which is not onely of the Law but also of the faith of Abraham But against this exposition are these reasons 1. That by this means the promise shall be here restrained to the Jewish seed onely inasmuch as they onely are that seed of the Law whereas the Apostles purpose is to include the seed of the Gentiles as appears by the confirmation I have made thee a father of many nations And 2. The Emphasis of the argument lying in the universall particle is by this means much abated besides that the Trajection is harsh and hath no pregnant example in other Scripture nor warrant from circumstances of the place to approve it I rather conceive it as a distribution of Abrahams seed brought to illustrate and explain what the Apostle meant By the whole seed as if it had been said The seed of Abraham is of two sorts One part of the Law as the Jews another not of the Law but of the Faith of Abraham as the Gentiles To both these must the promise be sure which cannot be if the law be made the condition or mean of inheirtiance What is the ground of the Consequence this as I think because the Law was given to the Jews onely and not to the Gentiles Rom. 9.4 and 2.14 The question then here is Whether the Law were not given to Gentiles as well as to Jews Answ Some here distinguish on this manner The law of ordinances and ceremoniall rites was given onely to Jews that that enjoyns morall duties to Gentiles also as who say the Apostle spake onely of Ceremonies and not chiefly of the Law morall Was not then the Law morall given to the Gentiles how then binds it us to obedience Answ In the morall law we must consider two things 1. The substance of doctrines and prescriptions 2. The accidents and circumstances of giving For the substance of doctrine it belongs to all Jews and Gentiles as having at first an impression in mens hearts Gen. 2. and being by immediate voice of God delivered to Adam Touching accidents under which comes the delivery of it written in two Tables by the finger of God in Sinai so not given to Gentiles but to Jews onely no not to Abraham Isaac and Jacob as Moses amplifies the Lords love to the people of his time Deut. 5.3 He made not this Covenant with our fathers but with us The Negative seems absolute but is respective onely to the manner of giving But howsoever the law was given to the Gentiles whether in writing or otherwise the Apostles ground seems infirm Answ Supposing the Cavilsome objection of Justitiaries firm enough For this very circumstance they urged strangely in the point of justification that the law was given in writing to the Jews with promise of life to the observing thereof which in their judgement had been vain except righteousness might be in part by the law according to which supposition the Apostle in this place disputes see Gal. 3.17 Now though I love not extravagances yet let me have leave a little upon occasion of this question thus assoiled to note the idle inference of some Antisabbathists Therefore say they The precept of Sabbath binds not the Church of the Gentiles because the Decalogue was given onely to Jews Answ And why inferre they not the like for other Precepts and so become absolute Antinomi Object Forsooth other precepts are revived in Scriptures of the new Testament their recitall there gives them authority with us Answ Belike then no precept of the Decalogue binds futher then it is recited in the new Testament It was wont to be taught that the whole Decalogue stands in force for ever unto our consciences in respect of that congruence it hath with the Law eternall and the impression it once had in our hearts in Creation some rudera whereof in all the Commandments are to be found in very Ethnicks But to their argument It is fallacious and except it be limited untrue Take the Decalogue for the substance of precepts therein contained so it is given to Gentiles respect the circumstances and accidents of giving as the writing in so many letters and syllables c. so the peculiar favour of Iews but so understood it affords no such conclusion Leave we them and see what out of this argument we may observe Observ That is chiefly this An answer to a thread bare argument of Justitiaries ancient and modern that reason from the reviving of the Law in Sinai to prove an intention in the Law-giver to justifie us by the Law and to give us power to perform it to justification Answ If from that ground we may infer a possibility to be justified by the Law from the self-same may we prove justification to be peculiar to the nation of the Jews for theirs onely was the giving of the Law Rom. 9.4 But the promise belongs to Gentiles as well as to Jews Ergò Whereto then served the reviving of the Law Paul answers Gal. 3.9 It was added because of transgressions not so much to restrain them by prescriptions and threats Theoph. ad Gal. 3. as Chrysostome and Hierome and after them Theophylact Vt pro fraenis esset lex illa Iudaeis quae hos vel à mandatorum quorundam transgressu etsi non omnium prohiberet but rather to detect and discover them as Augustine centies interprets agreeably to the Apostle Rom. 3.20 and 5.20 Here also occurs that observation before made ad ver 11. That the promise of righteousness and salvation belongs to Gentiles believing and not to Jews onely because it hath been often fore-treated I will not long insist on it onely sith the Apostle is pleased so often to inculcate it and here to add new confirmation it shall not be amiss to explane his proofs against the foolish limitation and enclosure of Abraehams covenant made by Jews to themselves The argument of the Apostle is this because Abraham is father of us all both Gentiles and Iews believing the covenant and promises therefore belong to the whol seed and generation of believers Because the antecedent might be doubted the Apostle first proves the universall paternity of Abraham and after illustrates it the proof we have extant Gen. 17.5 whwere the Lord to signifie the point in hand is pleased to alter the name of Abram to Abraham himself giving the Etymon and signification Because a father of many nations I have made thee How then say Iews that the Covenant made with Abraham belongs to them onely and think the fidelity of God must needs fall to