Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	commandment_n	contrary_a	forbid_v	1,280	5	9.4439	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67875	Laudensium apostasia: or A dialogue in which is shewen, that some divines risen up in our church since the greatness of the late archbishop, are in sundry points of great moment, quite fallen off from the doctrine received in the Church of England. By Henry Hickman fellow of Magd. Colledg Oxon.	Hickman, Henry, d. 1692.	1660 (1660)	Wing H1911; ESTC R208512	84,970	112

but that where any sin is forbidden there the contrary duty is enjoyned is a rule given and allowed by all the Expositors of the Decalogue nor can you instance in any one Moral affirmative Precept of the Gospel which was not Obligatory to believers under the Old Covenant Laud The Affirmative Precepts of the Gospel being propounded in general terms and with indefinite proportions for the measures are left under our choice and liberty to signifie our great love to God whatsoever is over and above the Commandments that shall have a great reward God sorbids unmercifulness he that is not unmerciful keeps the Commandment but he that besides his abstinence from unmercifulness according to the Commandment shall open his hand and his heart and give plentifully to the poor this man shall have a reward he is among those servants whom his Lord will make to sit down and himself will serve him when God in the Commandment forbids uncleanness and fornication he that is not unchast and doth not pollute himself keeps the Commandment but if to preserve his chastity he useth fasting and prayer if he mortifieth his body if he deny himself the pleasures of this world if he useth the easiest or the hardest remedies according to the proportion of his love and industry especially if he be prudent so shall his greater reward be To follow Christ is all our duty but if that we may follow Christ with greater advances we quit all the possessions of the world this is the more acceptable because it is a doing of the Commandment with greater love We must so order things that the Commandment be not broken but the difference is in finding out the better wayes and doing the duty with the more affections Unum Necess 48 49. Pacif. All this goeth quite against the hair with me I do not think that the Affirmative Precepts of the Gospel for the measure are left under our liberty and choice to signifie our greater love Whatever the Law of the Gospel requires us to do it requireth that we do it cum omni valdè in the highest degree and measure Nor doth he keep the Commandment that is not unmerciful for the very Commandment is that a man open his hand and heart and give plentifully to the poor he that sows plentifully shall reap more plentifully than he that sows but sparingly not because he doth more then the Commandment requireth but because that merciful God who hath promised to reward the least grace with Heaven hath yet promised to reserve higher Mansions in Heaven for those that out-strip their fellow Christians in zeal nor is it acceptable to God that a man should quit the possessions of the world to follow Christ except it so happen that a man cannot follow Christ and keep the possessions of the world too and if such a case happen I trow the Law of the Gospel requireth that a man should rather forsake the world then not follow Christ if a man do not follow Christ to the forsaking all he hath when he is by providence called so to do he performeth not all his duty if you gainsay this you introduce counsels of perfection and works of supererogation quite contrary to the Articles of our Church Artic. 14. Voluntary works besides over and above Gods Commandments which they call works of supererogation cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety for by them men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do do but that they do more for his sake than of bounden duty is required whereas Christ saith plainly when ye have done all that are commanded you say we be unprofitable servants Laud They are highly mistaken that think any thing of this nature is a work of supererogation for all this is nothing but a pursuance of the Commandment but some Commandments are propounded as to friends some as to servants some under the threatning of horrible pains others not so but with the proposition and under the invitation by glorious rewards it was commanded by St. Paul to preach the Gospel if he had not obeyed he should have perished he was bound to do it but he had another Commandment also to love God as much as was possible to love his neighbour which Precepts were infinite and of an unlimitted signification and therefore were left to every servants choice to do them with his several measures of zeal and love p. 49. Unum Neces Pacif. You are well aware thar Protestant ears cannot hear of works of supererogation and therefore you abstain from those terms but in vain is it to disclaim and renounce the name so long as you own the thing What Reformed Divine ever said that there are Commandments which are not propounded under the threatning of horrible pains to those that disobeyed them and repented not of that disobedience Is not the transgression of every commandment a sin and doth not every sin deserve eternal death had not Paul perished if he had not loved his neighbour as well as if he had not preached the Gospel Are there not several measures of affection and zeal in preaching the Gospel as well as in loving God or our neighbours or how are the Precepts of loving God and our neighbour left more to every servants choice as to the degree than the Preaching of the Gospel is But as to this matter I refer my self to what is written by Papists and Protestants about Councils What think you of the possibility of performing the Law in this life Laud To every Christian it is enjoyned that they be perfect i. e. according to the measure of every one which perfection consists in doing our endeavour He that does not do that must never hope to be accepted because he refuseth to serve God by something that is in his power But he that does that is sure that God will not refuse it because we cannot be dealt withall upon any other account but by the measures of what is in our power and for what is not we cannot take care Unum Necess 43. The highest severity of the Gospel is to love God with all our soul i. e. to love him as much as we can love him and that is certain we can do Every man can do as much as he can and God requires no more Unum Necess p. 20. Pacif. That the perfection which God hath promised to accept of lieth in doing our endeavour and stirring up the grace of God which is in us I deny not but I deny that we cannot be dealt with upon any other account but by the measures of what is in our power or that we cannot take care for what is not in our power God may deal with us upon the account of what was once in our power God in the Gospel doth require more than we can do for his Law is regula officii not mensura facultatis it shews what we ought to do not what we can do but yet

it a Christion Faith they had for they looked for all benefits of God the Father through the merits of his Son Jesus Christ as we now do This difference is betwixt them and us that they looked when Christ should come and we be in the time when he is come therefore saith St. Augustine the time is altered and changed but not the faith The same Doctrine is delivered Part. 2. p. 187. Of this judgement also was Ignatius if I understand him Epist. ad Antiochenos {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} c. and in the Epistle ad Philadelph Sed Prophetas diligamus propter ipsos in Evangelium annunciasse in Christum sperare ipsum expectare in quo credentes salvati sunt in unitate Jesu Christi existentes And I should thank any one that would tell me if the Types and Ceremonies of the Law did not represent Christ to come and were not thought by Saints then so to do why God did institute that Ceremonial Paedagogy Laud That God instructed our first Father Adam in the duty of Sacrifice I shall easily grant and I shall grant as easily that God proposed some other end of them in that institution then to receive them as a quit-rent from the hands of men in testimony that they held their estates from him as the Supreme Landlord for though this may be held as to Sacrifices Eucharistical yet there was another sort which we may call Expiatory ordained by God himself as the Types and Figures of that one only real and propitiatory Sacrifice which was to be performed in the death of Christ yet were they not bare Types and Figures that had no efficacy in themselves but such efficacy as they had was not natural to them but either in reference to the Sacrifice to be made of Christ or else extrinsecal by the Divine Ordinance and Institution of Almighty God and that they might be so in this last respect there want not very pregnant reasons in the Word of God for whereas God considered as the Supreme Law-giver had imposed a Commandment on man under pain of death although it stood not with his wisdom to reverse the Law which with such infinite wisdom had bin first ordained yet it seemed very sutable to his grace and goodness to commute the punishment and satisfie himself with the death of Beasts offered in Sacrifice unto him by that sinful creature Id p. 93. p. 95. for ought appeareth to the contrary the Sacrifices both before and under the Law had in themselves a power of Propitiation by vertue of the Ordination and Institution of Almighty God and not a relative vertue only in reference to the All-sufficient Sacrifice of our Saviour Christ Pacif. I think as you that neither the only nor the chief end of Gods instituting Sacrifices was this that he might receive a quit-rent from his creatures I grant also that the Sacrifices had an efficacy in them as to the taking away of sin but the Law being made He that sinneth shall die I see not any ground to think that God would dispense with his Law without a valueable consideration and that the death of a Beast is not The government of Israel was a Theocracy and God who would have any other laws made with cruelty would not make his own laws without merciful condescension to the infirmity of men therefore as he would not let those sins go unpunished for which Sacrifices were appointed so he would not have all offenders cut off by the hand of justice but mercifully appointed a commutation that not the sinner but the Beast should be slain and the slaying of the Beast did procure a man immunity from that death temporal which else would have been inflicted on the offendor in that Common-wealth but that God ever made any Institution or Ordination that upon the offering of a Sacrifice without respect to Christ the Anti-type sin should be forgiven in the Court of Conscience or of Heaven that with the common consent of Divines I deny you that say he did must show us where any such Ordination or Institution is recorded Laud When God brought Israel out of Egypt he began to make a Covenant with them with some complyance to their infirmities for because little things could not be avoided Sacrifices were appointed for their Expiation but for great sins there was no Sacrifice appointed no repentance ministred And therefore still we were in the ministration of death for this mercy was not sufficient as yet it was not possible to be justified by the Law it did not promise Eternal life it ministred no grace but fear and temporal hope it was written in Tables of stone not in their heart that is the material parts of the Law of Moses was not consonant to natural and essential reason but arbitrary impositions they were not perfective of man but very often destructive Unum Necess p. 39. Pacif. There are many passages at which just exception may be taken you say God when he brought Israel out of Egypt began to make a Covenant with some complyance to their infirmities But I pray you had he not begun till then you say as yet it was not possible for a man to be justified by the law was it ever since possible you say the Law was written in Tables of stone not in their hearts But you do not sure hope to perswade us that the Law Moral was not then written in every good mans heart and no other laws were ever written in Tables of stone when you say That is the material parts of the Law of Moses was not consonant to natural and essential reason but arbitrary impositions they were not persective of a man but often destructive I understand you not that is what is Did the writing of the Law on the Tables import any such as that which follows and why say you that the material parts of the Law of Moses were not consonant to natural and essential reason are not the ten Commandments material parts of the Law of Moses yet sure they are consonant to natural essential reason but if you will call only the Ceremonial Law the material part of the Law of Moses the reason of which appellation I cannot guess yet how this was ofen destructive of man and not perfective will be very difficult to apprehend Laud If we consider the particular of Moses Law it was such a burden which the Jews themselves were loth to part with because it was in the Moral part of it but a Law of abstinence from evil Unum Neces p. 20. p. 21. the righteousness of the Law was in abstinence from evil the righteousness of the Gospel in thatand in the doing of all the affirmative Commandments of Christ Pacif. Was the Law in the Moral part of it but a law of abstinence from evil What make you of the fourth and fifth Commandment the other eight indeed are expressed in a Negative form