Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	command_v	law_n	moral_a	2,108	5	9.1759	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A91787	An ansvver to the London ministers letter: from them to his Excellency & his Counsel of VVar; as also an answer to John Geree's book, entituled, Might overcomming right; with an answer to a book, entituled, The Armies remembrancer. Wherein it appears the accusations of the Army are unjust, and the Armies proceedings justified by the Word of God, and by the light of nature and reason. Also a discovery of that learning, and ordination these ministers have, and the vanity and insufficiencie thereof, by the Word of God, and that those are the things with which they delude and deceive the people. / By Samuel Richardson.	Richardson, Samuel, fl. 1643-1658.	1649 (1649)	Wing R1402; Thomason E540_8; ESTC R203398	36,328	40

them in and keep out the enemy and if he doeth it he hath broak the Letter of the Law but kept the substance of the Law if he had observed the Letter he had not kept the intent of it Suppose the Magistrate find fault with him for not doing as he bid him it 's without a cause he hath done no hurt but good in saving their lives who are without lyable to perish and so did the Army in not disbanding had the Army been a cause of their owne and our sufferings and they had lost the fruit of all their victories if they had laid downe their Armes some others would have taken them up You have ingaged your selves by Oath to preserve his Majesties Person and priviledge of Parliament this is most cleare that no necessity can justifie perjury or dispense with lawfull oathes the bond and tie of an Oath and Covenant is religious and sacred and invincible who will require it at your hands broken Ezek. 17. 14. And necessity cannot dispense with an oath nothing can give one leave to be forsworne an oath is of an absolute indispensible authority If what you say be true are you not perjured miserably forsworne have you forgot what you have sworn covenanted Canonicall obedience c. But of this more when you write againe Secondly You take that for granted which is to prove we deny they are forsworn your saying so is no proof we are willing to put it to the triall and able to prove the contrary The Oath Covenant is to be interpreted according to his sense that gave it and not in his sense that tooke it this you would have but it 's not lawfull to grant it it is not to be interpreted neither in his sense that gave it nor in his that takes it but according to the expresse words of the Covenant If it were granted to either to put what sense they thought fit they might sweare one thing and do another if he intends it to inslave If a Presb●ter give or take the Covenant he thinks he sweares to maintaine Presbyterian Government of which there is not the least word mentioned in the Covenant there is mention of a government according to the Word of God and that is not their Presbytery by their own confession The Assembly of Divines confesse it is not jure divino I am mistaken if they did not sweare the government of Archbishops was agreeable to the Word of God but the Presbytery is the nearest to it if so be but neare to it then it is not it In the Scriptures is prescribed a Government for the Church the House of God Presbytery they say is not it but neare to it If then Presbyterian government had in expresse words been in the Covenant and I had taken it I could with a good conscience have broke my oath for that oath that is not lawfull to take is not lawfull to be kept it is not lawfull for me to sweare to maintain a government for Christs that is not his though it be never so neare it or like it But say they we swore to maintain that government that is according to the best reformed Church for each of theirs is the best in their judgments and consciences els I should wonder if they should approve and practise contrary to their consciences yea and he that denieth all Church-government may take the Covenant without scruple because the Covenant expresses none and he believes there is none and when he seeth which it is he will owne it and defend it and before it is unreasonable to expect it from him I wonder the Priests should so take the Covenant for the text and preach so on it there is nothing in that which is so cleer to them what is plainly expressed they cannot agree how the words are to be read the Priests read to protect the person of the King and there make such a full stop and go no further others say they must read on and take with it in the defence maintenance and protection of the King in his just Rights and what they are men cannot agree Some say his just Rights are to be King others say he hath lost all his just Rights others say it is his just right to lose his life the Covenant resolves this not I cannot tell what are his just Rights nor can learn what the Covenant meanes or requires I must leave it to the Schollers and those that can tell The like may be said for the other branches of the Covenant If an oath be indispensable then persons must sin rather then break it and then the vow of single life binds be the cause what it will and so if any have sworn to murder a thousand persons or more it seems they must do it is not this the Popes Doctrine to murder Kings and others which is to be detested That an oath binds more then the Law of God we deny and put you to prove it Is there not the highest authority in Gods commands can any thing bind us more then his commands yet ye see Matth. 12. 1 to 7. they are dispensible You say an oath is part of the worship of God if it be but a part of it it is not more then the whole also Gods worship must give place to acts of mercy and love I will have mercy 〈◊〉 not sacrifice Hosea 6. 6. Mal. 12. 7. it was lawfull to neglect the publike worship and command of God to give suck c. in that they were not blamed for not going to Jerusalem to worship though all were commanded to goe thither No necessity is sufficient to dispense with a morall Law is it not a morall duty to worship God swearing is a part of instituted worship but meerly naturall or morall as you call it wee need not bee inforced to doe that which is naturall an oath that is detrimentall to a particular Law must bee kept Psal. 15. 4. I grant it if it bee in that or the like cause but not in all causes that can be named for what is not lawfull to sweare is not lawfull to be done because they have sworn to doe it No hunger can make stealing no stealing Proverbs chap. 6. vers. 30. Wee allow not men when they are hungry to take that which is not their owne yet wee say that which in it selfe is stealing may lawfully bee done without sin if the hunger be of that extremity as to indanger life and no other help or remedy can be had then it is not stealing yet restitution is to be made to affirme it is stealing is to maintain that a man may sin to save his life if I ought to break the Oath I am not forsworne to do it when two duties come together at one time and I cannot do both the one for that present ceaseth to be a duty this was Davids cause it eating the Shew-bread no man may tell a lye nor commit any sin to save his life and that men