Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	husband_n	love_n	wife_n	8,272	5	8.0646	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A45473	A vindication of Dr. Hammonds addresse &c. from the exceptions of Eutactus Philodemius, in two particulars concerning [brace] the power supposed in the Jew over his owne freedom, the no-power over a mans own life ; together with a briefe reply to Mr. Iohn Goodwins Gbeisodikai, as far as concernes Dr. Hammond.	Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660.	1649 (1649)	Wing H615; ESTC R35984	37,214	48

which to him seeme to presse and resist the interpreting of the following words to this sense they are not so solemnly mentioned by M. Goodwin as to owne my impertinence if I should enlarge on them though I can assure him that D. Hammond hath long since considered the whole Context and is ready to give an account of the agreeablenesse of it to his present notion whensoever it shall be seasonable Only in favour to the Reader he doth not unnecessarily obtrude it on him at this time meaning to expect a fairer opportunity for that and other the like dissertations 81. But M. Goodwin upon the granting of this notion of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} for the heathen world hath falne upon a speciall {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that however It signifies the world under the consideration of being the creature or creation of God And then he wonders why {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} should not signifie the Magistrate to be the creation of man and how by this interpretation that conclusion of the Kings being the creature of the people is avoided To this I answer punctually that M. Goodwin being the affirmer of this doctrine That the King is the creature of the people and his proofe of it being those words of Saint Peter where obedience is commanded to be paid {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} as t is by him rendred to every creation or ordinance or creature of man It is certainly sufficient for D. Hammond to disprove this conclusion so inferred from that place of Saint Peter if he shall be able to mention another probable interpretation of those words from whence that Conclusion will not be inferr'd especially if by other places of Scripture he make it manifest that that interpretation is most agreeable to the analogie of that and other Scriptures Now this hath D. Hammond done by shewing that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is a phrase which needs not signifie any more then every man or humane creature not onely Christian but Gentile or Heathen also Which if it be the entire notation of the phrase as at this time M. Goodwin is content to grant then sure is there no ground for him from thence to conclude that the King is {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in that other so distant sense an ordinance or creature of the people As long as M. G. conclusion depends upon that one onely notion of the phrase so long unlesse that be acknowledged the genuine sense of it as certainly t is not when another so distant from that is supposed possible to be it there is no stability to be expected to that conclusion whose premisses are thus forfeited by his own concession 82. As for the Doctors Answer to the supposed Objection where by the parallel command of honouring all ver. 17. he infers the limitation of the subject All to whom honour belongeth there i. e. superiors not inferiors and so here every humane creature i. e. every such that is in place of Magistracie certainly M. G. hath failed much in his attempt to invalidate it by affirming that that Apostle in his command to honour all supposeth a debt of honour due from every man to every man according to that of the Rom. 12.10 In honour preferring one another For to this I answer that the meaning of 1 Pet. 2.17 cannot sure so properly be fetcht from Rom. 12.10 as it may from the circumstances of the Text and verses on each side of it in the place of S. Peter In the former verses 13. and 14. the words clearly refer to the doctrine of obedience to Superiours and so ver. 15. the mention of Gods will that by well-doing we should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men i. e. that by obeying of our Superiours we should take off the Scandall that lay on Christianity as if it made men ill Subjects ver. 16. doth plenarily belong also to the same matter So again honouring the King in the end of the 17. ver. and servants obeying their Masters ver. 18. are very forward to concurre with this notion And the precept of loving the brotherhood i. e. their fellow-Christians and of fearing God from which feare the honour divolves upon his Vice-gerent will no way prejudice this notion of the honour there spoken of that it belongs onely to the debt of inferiours to superiours and so that the All are onely those all that are thus capable of it 83. As for the honouring of Widowes by Master Goodwin mention'd from Saint Paul to Timothy that sure is not appliable to this matter since the honour there is the relieving or feeding of them giving them that honour of supply which is acknowledged to be another notion of the Word not that which in the fift Commandement and those other places is the principall importance of it 84. As little reason hath Mr. Goodwyn to conclude that the precept of being Subject one to another 1. Pet. 5.5 should not be a precept of obedience to Superiors when the words immediately precedent are Likewise ye younger submit your selves to the Elders and those Elders ver. 2. the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the Pastors and Bishops of the Church 'T is possible indeed that the one another may be Others beside Superiors but sure t is not so probably so when that which immediately precedes is Submission to Elders to which the subjection here added is not a phrase of diminution but of addition rather and when Gods resisting the proud that immediately followes is saith Saint Augustine as in the Poet debellare superbos the direct contrary to Subjectis parcere the giving pardon or grace to the obedient Subjects And thus I conceive the parallel words of Saint Paul Eph. ● 21 Submitting your selves one to another are most probably to be interpreted to those among you who are in any relation of superiority for so it followes immediately ver. 22. Wives submit your selves to your own husbands c. Whereas when he rerurnes to the husba●ds duty toward the wife it is not submission but love only v. 25. Other places I might easily mention where the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} may very well signifie no more then others So the {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} confesse your faults one to another Jam. 5.16 cannot farther be extended then to a direction to the sick to make confession of his sins whether to others simply or to those others whom he hath injur'd but obligeth not them that are in health to tonfesse their sins reciprocally or back againe to the sick and so in the next words and pray {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} for one another that is that the brethren in health should pray for them that are sick and not reciprocally that the sick should pray for them in health the end of the prayer there