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	law_n	moral_a	2,159	5	9.3779	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A89158	Tetrachordon: expositions upon the foure chief places in scripture, which treat of mariage, or nullities in mariage. On Gen.I.27.28. compar'd and explain'd by Gen.2.18.23.24. Deut.24.1.2. Matth.5.31.32. with Matth.19. from the 3d.v. to the 11th. I Cor.7. from the 10th to the 16th. Wherein the doctrine and discipline of divorce, as was lately publish'd, is confirm'd by explanation of scripture, by testimony of ancient fathers, of civill lawes in the primitive church, of famousest reformed divines, and lastly, by an intended act of the Parlament and Church of England in the last eyare of Edvvard the sixth. / By the former author J.M.	Milton, John, 1608-1674.	1645 (1645)	Wing M2184; Thomason E271_12; ESTC R212199	97,577	109

the Lord in person would be but a chill trifling and his readers might catch an ague the while But if we shall supply the grammatical Ellipsis regularly and as we must in the sam tense all will be then cleer for we cannot supply it thus to the rest I speake the Lord spake not but I speake the Lord speaks not If then the Lord neither spake in person nor speakes it now the Apostle testifying both it follows duely that this can be no command Forsooth the fear is least this not being a command would prove an evangelic counsel so make way for supererogations As if the Apostle could not speak his mind in things indifferent as he doth in fowr or five several places of this chapter with the like preface of not commanding but that the doubted inconvenience of supererogating must needs rush in And how adds it to the word of the Lord for this also they object when as the Apostle by his christian prudence guids us in the liberty which God hath left us to without command could not the spirit of God instruct us by him what was free as well as what was not But what need I more when Cameron an ingenuous writer and in high esteem solidly confutes the surmise of a command heer and among other words hath these That when Paul speaks as an Apostle he uses this forme The Lord saith not I v 10. but as a privat man he saith I speak not the Lord. And thus also all the prime fathers Austin Jerom and the rest understood this place Fiftly The very stating of the question declares this to be no command If any brother hath an unbeleeuing wife and she be pleased to dwell with him let him not put her away For the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not imply only her being pleas'd to stay but his being pleas'd to let her stay it must be a consent of them both Nor can the force of this word be render'd less without either much negligence or iniquity of him that otherwise translates it And thus the Greek Church also and their Synods understood it who best knew what their own language meant as appeares by Matthaeus Monachus an author set forth by Leunclauius and of antiquity perhaps not inferior to Balsamon who writes upon the canons of the Apostles this Author in his chap. that mariage is not to be made with heretics thus recites the second canon of the 6. Synod As to the Corinthians Paul determins If the beleeving wife choos to live with the unbeleeving husband or the beleeving husband with the unbeleeving wife Mark saith he how the Apostle heer condescends if the beleever please to dwell with the unbeleever so that if he please not out of doubt the mariage is dissolv'd And I am perswaded it was so in the beginning and thus preach't And thereupon gives an example of one who though not deserted yet by the decree of Theodotus the Patriarch divorc't an unbeleeving wife What therefore depends in the plain state of this question on the consent and well liking of them both must not be a command Lay next the latter end of the 11. v to the twelf for wherefore els is Logic taught us in a discrete axiom as it can be no other by the phrase The Lord saith let not the husband put away his wife But I say let him not put away a misbeleeving wife this sounds as if by the judgement of Paul a man might put away any wife but the misbeleeving or els the parts are not discrete or dissentanie for both conclude not putting away and consequently in such a form the proposition is ridiculous Of necessity therfore the former part of this sentence must be conceav'd as understood and silently granted that although the Lord command to divorce an infidel yet I not the Lord command you No but give my judgement that for som evangelic reasons a christian may be permitted not to divorce her Thus while we reduce the brevity of St. Paul to a plainer sense by the needfull supply of that which was granted between him and the Corinthians the very logic of his speech extracts him confessing that the Lords command lay in a seeming contrariety to this his counsel and that he meant not to thrust out a command of the Lord by a new one of his own as one nail drives another but to release us from the rigor of it by the right of the Gospel so farre forth as a charitable cause leads us on in the hope of winning another soule without the peril of loosing our own For this is the glory of the Gospel to teach us that the end of the commandment is charity 1 Tim. 1. not the drudging out a poore and worthlesse duty forc't from us by the taxe and taile of so many letters This doctrine therefore can bee no command but it must contradict the moral law the Gospel and the Apostle himselfe both else where and heere also eevn in the act of speaking If then it be no command it must remain to be a permission and that not absolute for so it would be still contrary to the law but with such a caution as breaks not the law but as the manner of the Gospel is fulfills it through charity The law had two reasons the one was ceremonial the pollution that all Gentiles were to the Jewes this the vision of Peter had abolisht Acts 10. and clens'd all creatures to the use of a Christian The Corinthians understood not this but fear'd lest dwelling in matrimony with an unbeleever they were defil'd The Apostle discusses that scruple with an Evangelic reason shewing them that although God heretofore under the law not intending the conversion of the Gentiles except some special ones held them as polluted things to the Jew yet now purposing to call them in he hath purify'd them from that legal uncleannesse wherein they stood to use and to be us'd in a pure manner For saith he The unbeleeving husband is sanctifi'd by the wife and the unbeleeving wife is sanctifi'd by the husband else were your children uncleane but now they are holy That is they are sanctify'd to you from that legal impurity which you so feare and are brought into a neer capacity to be holy if they beleeve and to have free accesse to holy things In the mean time as being Gods creatures a christian hath power to use them according to their proper use in as much as now all things to the pure are become pure In this legal respect therefore ye need not doubt to continue in mariage with an unbeleever Thus others also expound this place and Cameron especially This reason warrants us onely what wee may doe without feare of pollution does not binde us that we must But the other reason of the law to divorce an infidel was moral the avoiding of enticement from the true faith This cannot shrink but remains in as full force as ever to save the actuall